icemelter

CT-“We did the video thing for the first two children’s weddings. Waste of money, never look at them anymore.”
-Thats what I was thinking

“Nowadays, everyone has a smartphone with video capability.”
-Which makes it even less necessary nowadays to do video. I mean before smartphones its one thing even though you never really watch it, but nowadays its almost completely unnecessary. On the other hand for some reason it still feels hard to give it up for people maybe they feel they might regret not having video?
In a way it also adds to the whole atmosphere of the simcha its sort of an illusion of a bigger production.

But anyways I would say to have video for the chuppah, and pre/post chuppah (and other highlights). Also you can turn it into a nice clip which sums up the wedding and professional cameras and cameraman still beat smartphones. But the dancing is usually pointless to watch so for that smartphones are good enough.

jj2020-“You can’t control how much you earn but you can choose if you will waste the money you have.”

-ya but isnt there an order of things as spending and gaining back? Meaning even if you spend or had certain expenses which depleted your account, suddenly you are sent money from a source you didnt think of or you find a job or whatever. So really how can you know that you wasted everything? Temporarily maybe.

AviK- Ya doesnt it work that way? That even if you are decreed a large sum for the year but if you dont go out to collect it you wont receive it? Its a pretty deep subject im sure there are many perushim on it.

Isnt it brought down in the Talmud about a third for expenses, third for investment, and third for savings?

Also the Rambam discussed those who will save on food just to have “another pruta in their pocket” and that its ridiculous to live like that. One doesnt know how long they will remain here and saving on things that one needs is foolish. But my question is regarding “extra” or “luxury” expenses. Say you are really feeling fleishigs from a restaurant but have a choice to just go home and make a sandwich. If you choose to “save” those 10-15 bucks and eat at home, is that really money that you saved or is it just going to leak out in another way? Im not talking about someone who eats out every day and indulges, just these isolated cases.
In a case where something will give you that extra energy that you might need,is the right choice to actually spend some money rather than trying to save it up and depriving yourself of that moment?

iacisrmma- “Many people use smartphones and know exactly what the time the bus is arriving’
-keyword, “many”. And there are many who dont. And most stops dont have the electronic screenboard either.

” I know that when I buy my ticket I hold it in my hand or put it in my pocket until I reach my stop. ”
-Yes. Do you also know how many people are losing precious time off their transfer time period? Which is why there is a mass scramble at the machines when you actually see the bus at the stop in order to avoid losing time off the transfer. Unless they extended the time period which I dont know of.

“So was not using tokens and using metrocards.”
-Ya but it was the same concept just different method of pay. Now you have to hold on to receipts and get inspected as if you are in the 1800’s.

Iac-“Since this system was started in the Bronx in 2008, why are you first questioning it now.”

– I thankfully don’t live in the Bronx. I think in my area it was only recently started. I’m questioning it now because I took a bus for the first time in like 4 years so I haven’t noticed these changes. I always assumed the card machines by the stops were MetroCard machines which would have been great. But they aren’t as I found out when trying to conveniently refill my card.
If you misplaced the ticket or didn’t take one but paid in coins, they can’t check your card and it’s unfair to be fined. These things d happen you know. People are busy and carry enough things with them that they don’t need to be worries about saving a ticket every time they use the bus. It also contributes to littering once the person doesn’t need the receipt. And lines at the machine especially if you are running to a bus which just pulled up to a stop and many people are trying to catch it. Busses would have to wait for them to board anyway which delays everything unless they just don’t care when they see someone paying and close the doors and drive off before the customer even has a chance to get on. I guess once you get used to it you work around it. Just a big change from the way it was for many years.

You can give a countless number of excuses. Also I don’t think they can just stop dozens of people getting off a bus. Why would anyone stop and have their time wasted once they are off a bus? Besides unless they have inspectors on board to check every individual who boards the bus, many people can get away without paying.

Even if inspectors were on throughout the route things still get messy. The busses are very long and people board from all doors. There is no way to keep track of everyone especially with constant boarding and unboarding. And with random checks they are for sure missing people getting on for only a few stops. The whole system is flawed and a real money gap. Strange how they came up with this plan.

Rebyid-“Printers also come locked.”

Printers requiring specific cartridges is really not the same as companies locking phones. Cartridges are a compatibility matter. Besides you can get generic ink so that alone invalidates that comparison.

A phone is compatible with mutliple carriers but is limited when locked which is an intentional thing that the company does. Not because it’s incompatible work orher companies.
Aside from not being able to use your phone with other carriers, you also won’t be able to use it overseas if it’s locked which is pretty sad seeing how you purchase a phone and can’t even use it if you travel, which is something it’s capable of doing except that the company blocked you from enjoying your product.

ubiquitin-“I lost you here. They do have an advantage. Isnt that the point of your thread?”

-yes an advantage only based on peoples lack of knowledge. But if they dont have a product that is actually better than the competition then they have nothing, its a false advantage. Again if and when people are sure that generics are the same or just as good, the brand names will crumble because there is nothing substantial in their product over the rest. As it is most people probably buy generic anyway. I stumbled on an article and it mentioned that many of those who buy brand name are just not knowledgeable about the difference. So if people were aware, it would be a whole different playing field.

“As mentioned if I want my wife to pick up acetaminophen I ask her “please pick up tylenol” she knows I mean generic.”

-Yes because she knows that you usually get the generic. Besides most people call it by the brand name which is much more popular than the actual drug/scientific name.

“Many refer to any cola drink as a “coke””
” refer to generic acetaminophen as “tylenol” much as many refer to any bandage as a “bandaid” ”

-yes and most people say “xerox something” when they arent using xerox, or “google it” regarding doing an internet search, “scotch tape” for any type of tape, “crazy glue” for super glue, “tums” for an antacid, and so on. That doesnt prove anything. People just call things in terms of the original product or most popular product, it doesnt mean they are actually referring to it rather they refer to its functionality. Popularity of name doesnt mean youll buy it if the generic or competition is just as good.

Also if you notice many knockoffs of name brands have almost identical color schemes and packaging. I wonder how they get away with that. Unless its perfectly legal to copy the competition in terms of packaging design, this might prove that many name brands also disguise themselves as generic to maximize revenue from all angles.

Midwest-“Bottom line: generics are cheaper and just as good, except for a few people who have problems, and their doctors can take care of that. As a general rule, buy generic.”

Again how can it be that those few people will have a problem with generics and not the name brand? Can name brands ensure that absolutely noone has an issue with their ingredients? Also are generics not allowed to use the same inactive ingredients because that would certainly solve a lot of issues. Why do generics substitute inactive ingredients?

“If you do have a problem, ask your doc and probably get the brand name.”
-Wouldnt you also have the option of trying a different generic brand before you jump to name brand? I mean they differ with what inactive ingredients they contain. Why is it always a guarantee that name brand will be the fix?

DovidBT- ya many times generics don’t have as good a taste as name brands. With toothpastes and mouthwash and the like some might opt out of generics that don’t match up to brand names.

Ubiquitin-“since the brand name has exclusve rights for the first 7 years”
-first 7 years of what, from when generics come out? I think generics can only come out 20 years after invention of the drug(google). Even if it’s 7 years that only the brand name can sell, so what? What do they do once generics come out if most/everyone only bought generics since it’s so much cheaper.
Again unless there are specific circumstances that brands are required, if people knew that generics are as safe/effective and the same as brand name, everyone would get generic as per price wise. In that case wouldn’t brands be forced to lower or match prices lest they go out of business?

Another point is aren’t original brands usually one step ahead of competition? I usually don’t drink coke but who here besides for me actually prefers the knockoff to the coca cola company? Probably not many. And many other such cases where we see that the original products which came out before everyone usually have the upper hand in what they offer. Verizon in phone service, apple/Samsung in phones, sharpies in permanent markers, etc. So how can it be that brand name drugs have pretty much no advantage over generics and don’t differ? Or do they?

CTlaywer-“The difference is in the binder ingredients, not the active ingredients of the specific medication.”

-That I know, but aside from the inactive ingredients being different, do they have any unwanted interaction with the active ingedients?

You mention generics having ingredient that have a negative impact on some users. Whos to say that the brand name are better though? Are brand names geared toward all people as opposed to generics? Do all generics substitute ingredients with ones that arent as good? If you look at coca- cola for instance which is unhealthy as it is, a generic brand making the same drink might be less harmful than the actual original one.

So the question is are brand name meds better than generics “in general” or is it that sometimes you just have to weed through certain brands (generic or non) in order to get the right one for you.