• @Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    189 months ago

    How much money is she spending that just the savings add up to 60’000? Or is that just an error and that’s the joke?

      • @Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -369 months ago

        But she wouldn’t have?

        Before Netflix I wasn’t buying hundreds of DVDs per year. It doesn’t make sense to claim that use of a service, even a free one, constitutes “savings” based on hypothetical behavior where you would have bought all the content individually at list price.

        • @Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          249 months ago

          That’s the thing, in a lot of cases you’d simply go without whether you wanted to or not. They use “savings” to illustrate how much it would have cost to buy all those books on their own, that’s it. They clearly wanted to read those books but they wouldn’t be able to afford them without a library. If they had the money to spend on them I’m sure they would have but they didn’t and that’s literally the whole point.

          Not being able to afford something and not wanting that something are different and calling this “savings” is fine and makes complete sense.

          Example: I’ve seen 1085 episodes of One Piece. Without Crunchyroll(and it’s low fees, compared to buying box sets I’d never rewatch) I’d never have been able to see all that content. I would have wanted to, but I couldn’t.

          Or to mirror your own words more: Before Crunchyroll I never would have seen it as without the service to offer these savings I’d be shit out of luck.

        • @uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          89 months ago

          Before Netflix

          Before Netflix there were such obscure things called libraries.

          • @SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -7
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            They wouldn’t have spent 60k on books over that time, they’ve only saved that much because the books were free. If they had to pay for the books they would have been more selective and less liberal in the amount.

            Spending $150 a week is just a lot of money to spend on books, it’s only that much because of the free price tag, so it’s extremely disingenuous to use that amount as people wouldn’t realistically spend that.

            • Rhynoplaz
              link
              fedilink
              109 months ago

              Yeah, libraries are so deceitful! It’s all a big conspiracy to promote literacy and give people books that they don’t even need!!! I can’t believe they’re forcing us to take advantage of them like this!

              • @SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -4
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                A more realistic metric would be used books (also reflects the quality of all but brand new fresh books which are a rarity obviously), but you can’t quantify that price, so yes using new is disingenuous, but go off on a rant I guess? I think it’s a great idea, but let’s not kid ourselves that people would actually be spending that amount on books. It’s great for a feel good story though, I’ll give you that.

        • @fine_sandy_bottom
          link
          79 months ago

          It’s just semantics.

          “Save” often just means receiving whatever value free of charge.

        • @lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          59 months ago

          I prefer to buy books to own. But books are expensive, so if a particular book feels like it’s not something worth the money to keep, I just borrow it from the library instead. That’s literally money saved for me. Yeah, you could argue that if the library wouldn’t have been an option then maybe I wouldn’t have bought the book at all, so no difference there, but it’s still the difference between reading the book for free or not reading the book at all.

      • Flying SquidOP
        link
        fedilink
        169 months ago

        She also has a kid and has been going with the kid to the library since he was born to check out a bunch of books every week. He’s in grade school now… I want to say he’s 10?

        • @bisby@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          179 months ago

          $6996.99 per year is $134.56 per week. If you get 5 books per week, that’s $26.91 per book. Given the picture includes a single book costing $19.95, that feels very reasonable. Maybe it’s 6 books a week, maybe some books are more expensive.

          That’s a very consistent habit though.

          • Flying SquidOP
            link
            fedilink
            109 months ago

            They literally go every week and she and her husband and her kid all use it, so it would add up.

          • @lunarul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            59 months ago

            I go to the library every week with my kids. We usually have 20-30 books checked out at a time. 5 books per week is nothing for a whole family.

          • Flying SquidOP
            link
            fedilink
            79 months ago

            Especially children’s books in terms of a per-page ratio. You check out 10 children’s books, because your kid will get through them all in a few days, that could be $200 worth of books.

      • I can go through 4 or more books a week depending on their length. I read a fuck ton. Using the Libby app to have books sent to my kindle automatically has really changed my life. Being able to just grab my kindle at any moment, read for 15 minutes while I wait for something, as well as an hour or two at the end of the night. It adds up quickly. I will say that I read a lot of “lighter” fare, so I can breeze through without much issue. If I get into something more heavy or some dense non-fiction it will slow down considerably.

          • I work in a kitchen, most of the time by myself, so I throw an audio book on at double speed and I can crank through a 16 hour book in one shift. It helps to lighten the mental load of the work, especially during slower times where I get fidgety. I do understand the need for paper, I just don’t have the room for it. If there is a book that is important to me, then I’ll grab a physical copy, but if it’s some random sci-fi that I’m just testing out, I’m leaning hard into that Libby app to see if I’ll actually enjoy it.

              • I’ve found that I have the most success with stuff I know fairly well. I’ll listen to Tolkien, Asimov, or King because I’ve read the books 10 times and if I miss a bit, I still know what is going on.

              • @beerclue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                49 months ago

                Same here. But with eBooks too. Sometimes my brain drifts for a while and I reread the same paragraph 5 times. So what I do is “double-dip”. I listen to and read the ebook at the same time. This way my brain has no chance of escaping. This has also helped me with my English; oh, so that’s how you pronounce albeit?

                  • @beerclue@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    29 months ago

                    It works great for me. Not for my wife though, who is textbook ADHD. She reads slow, and if she matches the speed for the audiobook to her reading speed, it gets boring :) the wonders of neurodiversity :)

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          fedilink
          39 months ago

          I don’t know exactly what she reads, but I am guessing it’s also lighter fare, leaning on sci-fi/fantasy. Not that she isn’t smart, she just is (like me) someone who prefers to read for the enjoyment of the story rather than the challenge.