Hacker News Reader

> ironic that you question the purpose of this form of entertainment created specifically by a company by suggesting that someone's time is perhaps better spent starting a company

If you worked towards starting a game-company like this you would learn many valuable real-life skills about software engineering coding and running a business. Your time would be better spent than the time of those who play your game.

That is really what happened here as far as people who created the game are concerned. They spent their time very wisely. But even better if they created a game with outstanding educational value, of value to others besides themselves.

Maybe their next game will be more like that now that they have acquired the skills to do it. I'm not saying Eve is not educational though. Maybe it is.

> Most Americans can't even afford a $500 surprise bill[0].

EVE costs money wikipedia doesn't?

When I played EVE it was perfectly possible (and allowed) to trade in-game currency for game time codes with other players. I assume they didn't remove that option.

I assume the explore-every-corner-of-the-map thing he was doing made it hard to make money

Back then, nullsec was definitely dangerous, but it was also very profitable. It would probably require that you invest quite a lot of time, though that's true with everything in EVE.

That story is from 2017, however the premise that most Americans can't afford $400-$500 is fraudulent and has been debunked numerous times.[1] The real number from the Fed survey is 12%. It keeps getting repeated in various ways, year after year, because it's amazing headline bait. Mostly politicians like using it for propaganda while ignoring the actual original survey details. Harris, Sanders and Warren have all been using it for propaganda purposes.

> It is a myth that a large share of people can’t cover a $400 emergency expense. Why does the story persist?"

> The question comes from the annual “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households” by the Federal Reserve. The report finds, in 2018, that 61% of adults would cover a $400 unexpected expense using cash (or its equivalent)."

> The report states: “Twelve percent of adults would be unable to pay the expense by any means.”

> The report also goes out of its way to make clear that some of the 39% who wouldn’t use cash might still have $400 in the bank: “It is possible that some would choose to borrow even if they had $400 available, preserving their cash as a buffer for other expenses.” In a footnote, the report even cites a 2016 study finding that 76 percent of households had $400 in liquid assets, even after taking into account monthly expenses.

> The common misinterpretation of this finding in the study is particularly strange in light of two other questions on the same survey. The Fed asks respondents whether they are able to pay all of their bills in full. Only 17% say they can’t pay some bills.

> The Fed also asks respondents how a $400 emergency expense that they had to pay would affect their ability to pay their other bills. Eighty-five percent report that they would still be able to pay all their bills. Only 14% say that the emergency expense would result in their not being able to pay some bills.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/the-40...

From your only source:

> Instead, as the Fed report makes clear, though “the remaining 4 in 10 adults” “would have more difficulty covering such an expense,” many of them would be able to make it work by carrying a credit card balance or borrowing from friends and family. (Presumably some of these adults are 18-year-olds borrowing from their parents, but I’m not sure about that.)

If your last resort is credit or friends and family, you are by definition unable to afford the expense in question.

The very next paragraph of your quote. Not sure why you missed it:

> The report states: “Twelve percent of adults would be unable to pay the expense by any means.” I’m dubious about that as well. In any event, 12% is a lot less than 39%. The report also goes out of its way to make clear that some of the 39% who wouldn’t use cash might still have $400 in the bank: “It is possible that some would choose to borrow even if they had $400 available, preserving their cash as a buffer for other expenses.” In a footnote, the report even cites a 2016 study finding that 76 percent of households had $400 in liquid assets, even after taking into account monthly expenses.

So they are not "by definition unable to afford the expense in question". May of them just find it inconvenient.

Make no mistake, even 12% figure is too high. Still, it doesn't support the argument that "most Americans can't even afford a $500 surprise bill", and it speak to the click-baity nature of modern media.