I looked at multiple configurations, and mathed it out. With leasing, you pay ~75% of the capital cost (excl. tax) over 3 years, but end up with no asset.
Apple computers tend to have excellent resale value, and Mac Minis/Studios have the least depreciation of them all. I understand the benefits to both taxes and cash flow, but boy is Apple winning big on those lease offers for Studios.
I believe “The Homer” is a reference to Season 2, Episode 15 of The Simpsons, “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?”
Homer reunites with his long lost brother, who runs car company Powell Motors. Homer is ultimately tasked by his brother with helping to design a car for the “average man” that ultimately bankrupts the company for being wildly overengineered and costing too much ($82,000 in 1991-money).
Indeed. Something to note is the labor force participation rate keeps dropping. We’re down to 61.4%. It was 61.5% in June 2026, 62.3% in June 2025.
We also have 4.8 million that are part-time employed, but want full-time work. That’s up from 4.7 million last month, and up from 4.5 million in June 2025, and up further from 4.2 million in June 2024.
There’s also 6.0 million that want a job, but aren’t employed. This is the same as June 2025, but up by 800,000 since June 2024.
So if you take the U-3 number (what’s reported) then factor in the other two figures, you really have 10.5% that are unemployed, discouraged, or underemployed.
—
The other question never answered is, “How many jobs are needed to create equilibrium?”, or where the employment rate remains stable. That’s NEVER talked about by media or the BLS, but it’s actually not difficult to get an approximate answer.
You’d want to look at population growth rates for 18-22 years ago (as those people would now be entering the workforce), multiply that by the labor force participation rate, and then divide as appropriate for the period. Typically, the US economy would need 140,000 - 145,000 new seasonally-adjusted jobs created every month to maintain a steady employment rate, given its historic and current population growth rates.
>Indeed. Something to note is the labor force participation rate keeps dropping. We’re down to 61.4%. It was 61.5% in June 2026, 62.3% in June 2025.
Yes, it's called people getting older and retiring. It's pretty obvious that's the cause if you compare the labor force participation rate overall vs for 25-54 year olds.
If you're referring to a toploader NES (NES-101), it does not support RGB out of the box, and actually only has an RF-out jack back there.
A top-loading Famicom (Famicom AV, HVC-101) instead has the Multi-Out port similar to the SNES, N64 and GameCube. However, it doesn't support RGB out of the box, and needs to be modified.
You can modify a NES-101 for RGB output as well, the issue is for the NES-101 you also need to also add the Multi-Out port to replace the RF output.
Typically the NESRGB board is what most folks will add to support RGB output. Again, for an NES-101 you have to physically add the Multi-Out port as well.
-- -----
With a Multi-Out port you now have new options for suitably modified consoles to go from the Multi-Out to Mini-HDMI with something like the RAD2X which has a vastly simplified RetroTink multiplier/upscaler inline to give you a "plug-and-play" HDMI output that detects Composite, S-Video or RGB and outputs appropriately without any need to configure. That cable works across the Famicom AV, SNES/SFC, N64 and GameCube. It adds about 53 microseconds of latency, or ~1/315th of a frame.
However you can still do Multi-Out to Composite, Multi-Out to S-Video, or Multi-Out to RGB if you wish to use some other multiplier/scaler such as an OSSC or anything else you have.
Long story short, you can have an amazing picture, with a simple HDMI adapter, on nearly any old console at this point. You have to either learn to solder, or you can pay someone to do it. There's a lot of options from simply buying an upscaler and plugging whatever you have in, to modifying for maximum image quality and/or ease-of-use.
Generally, I recommend most folks "keep it simple" or at least have the "easiest to use" option (in lieu of maximum quality) on hand. If you can take it out of storage, hook it up, and start playing within 2 minutes, generally that removes the friction you'd have and you'll actually play it. Flash carts are also a great "friction remover".
For those who like their old Game Boy, Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance, remember that the SNES had Super Game Boy/2, and the GameCube had the Game Boy Player (also supported GBA). There's a lot to be said for playing those handheld games on a TV, with a wireless Nintendo WaveBird controller.
Though for those chasing what's possible, those options exist too, but trade off that "pick-up-and-play" factor :)
It is a lot of work and usually not cheap to get old consoles to capture properly, so I am only bothering with Nintendo consoles as that is what my childhood was. At the time of writing, I have solutions to play games on original hardware from every console apart from the Nintendo 64 and Nintendo DS family. Not because it is not possible, but rather that I can not justify the expense at the moment.
I don’t believe you were intending to paint with a broad brush, but for others I’d like to explain where SNES game pricing was in more detail, as there was quite the range of prices depending on the game and when it was released.
———-
The plain Jane SNES game was $50 at US launch in late 1991. Normal-ish ROM size (4Mbit). This included later released first-party titles like Super Mario Kart (1992).
Prices went up with ROM size, and as there were higher supply costs starting in late 1993 and into 1994. So something like even LOZ: A Link to the Past was $60 (8Mbit ROM used, game a bit smaller). Mega Man X was $60 for the same reason. Final Fantasy II (IV) in the US was $65 at launch (again, 8Mbit ROM). Street Fighter II (16Mbit) was $70 in 1992.
Then there’s larger games still, with ROM prices going down then up. I believe Final Fantasy III (VI) was $75 USD at launch, but that was a 24Mbit ROM. Secret of Mana (16MBit) and Chrono Trigger (32MBit) were $80 at launch. Then you had Ogre Battle which I believe was $90, despite fitting within 12Mbit (8Mbit + 4Mbit).
Another reason for $70 prices were the SuperFX chip. Stunt Race FX was $70 in the US at launch because of that chip, even though it fit into an 8Mbit ROM. Yet Star Fox was $60 was the same hardware, but launched at $60 in 1993 whereas Stunt Race FX came out in 1994 where ROM prices are higher.
—-
So $50 - 90, with it more in the $50-60 range at launch, and then $60 being more common through the rest of the console’s lifecycle. Special and larger games were trending towards $70 later in the console lifecycle. Then you had the few crazy games (excluding games with accessories like Lethal Enforcers) in the $75 - 90 range.
Moreover, Star Fox was kind of... programmed by teenagers. Miyamoto is credited as both the producer and designer, but both Cuthbert and Goddard were 18 or 19, and Wombell (artist and designer) was maybe in his mid-20s.
Star Fox's development is an incredibly wild story where British teenagers argued what the SNES could do with bespoke hardware, and they ended up being shipped out to produce it because Nintendo felt they couldn't ever do it themselves. It all started with Argonaut's demo of what would eventually be released in Japan as "X". Entirely software-based 3D, on the original Game Boy.
There's actually a very humble quote by Miyamoto where he learned that someone can't just get better as a function of age and experience, after he clearly realized that these teenagers could produce something no one else in Nintendo ever had a hope of. Perhaps it's why the franchise has done so little -- Nintendo's just not in a remotely similar headspace the Argonaut lads were.
Lord help you if you build an HEDT with a boatload of “tuner” memory to get a meaningful boost on actual productivity where memory latency and secondary/tertiary timings matter.
I built in February 2025, and my two 48GB DIMMs were $440. Last month I checked and they were $1800 if you could even find them still in stock.
For my workloads it was like getting 2 - 2.5 more CPU cores worth of performance, so it was worth it, since the CPU was already as beefy as it could be. It was a reasonable premium then. Today? I’m not sure the math would still math.
In a homelab scenario when asking “DAC vs. fiber” the answer is usually, “yes.” :) Basically, it’s a tradeoff as with everything else.
DACs will usually be even (slightly) lower power per port, and slightly lower latency[1] (we’re fighting over microseconds here!), with excellent durability. The tradeoff is for passive DACs you’re limited on range, cost is often higher, and they may need to be encoded for your interfaces. Moreover, the range is very limited.
Fiber (the cable) is immune to electrical noise, can run long distances, advances in wave division multiplexing extends the life of the fiber by changing what’s the fiber connects to. The downside is you pay slightly in latency for media interface changes (the electrical-to-optical conversions), the limits of bend radius of the cable to not break the cable or reduce bandwidth, and the relative complexity of field terminations compared to twisted pair. I’ve 25+ years experience with fiber, and trust me, it’s great.
————
Outside of cost, both crush twisted pair like an ant. The power consumption per port is also far lower. However, this is only going to matter if you focus on limiting power consumption (not for cost, on principle), have very high-bandwidth applications where latency matters (I do!), and/or just want field experience with things other than twisted pair.
I use DAC and fiber for some things as I try to get every scrap of capability out of my hardware. For example, I have VERY low power (silent or near silent) hardware where I can push 5GB (so ~40Gbps) / sec storage. Not just sending it over the wire, but actually committing it to disk without buffering in RAM. So I have the capability of “PCIe 3.0/4.0 x4 NVMe” speeds across the network… from the (mostly silent) storage server, to anything else that can send or ingest the data that fast. Despite the storage server having very little flash (a few TB vs 100TB+ disk). That’s harder to do with twisted pair, or at least the power consumption of the network connectivity itself starts to add up for a few virtualization cluster nodes.
———-
Generally, “DAC in the rack, fiber to out back” is a reasonable approach. Though “fiber-only” works if you want to limit complexity!
[1] Fiber and DAC tend to trade places on latency every generation or so. It’s a very close race, but they crush twisted pair.
I think DAC has to win out on price not because of the price of the fiber patch but those optical modules can cost some money.
I'm getting a really bad taste in my mouth for 10GBASE-T RJ45 SFP+ modules mostly due to the god awful heat they pump out (which scales linearly with power draw): So when we are forced to use them (for example to connect to a far end that only accepts 10GBASE-T) we often cannot use any SFP cage directly adjacent.
I had the Twisted Pair/DAC/Fiber discussion with one of my an engineer that we peer with recently and they made the pitch for Fiber that "being able to see the light levels takes a lot of the guesswork out of their troubleshooting". So I do have to admit that that is one utility lost when choosing a DAC over Fiber even in a rack, but my counter is that DAC has fewer moving parts and thus a lower surface area for failure in the first place.
We have had some gear refuse to work with some DACs (just as some gear refuses to work with some SFP+ modules of various stripes) but aside from that I have yet to see a DAC that starts working stop working, while I get that with fiber runs (though usually the longer ones running outdoors) quite frequently.
> I'm getting a really bad taste in my mouth for 10GBASE-T RJ45 SFP+ modules mostly due to the god awful heat they pump out
It's truly bananas especially in a homelab environment. Nearly every time I've thought to myself "oh I can just do a copper gbic for this" it's been the wrong thing to do.
15 months ago I saw writing on the wall on several fronts. I suggested my community commit to their buys/builds ASAP and be forward-looking, before things changed.
My high-end HEDT would now be +$2300 to build mostly due to memory and SSD pricing. 96GB of memory going from $430 -> $1800 is wild. One community member literally wouldn’t be able to buy their Mac Mini configuration anymore, plus the self-upgrade SSD would be price hiked.
Where I blanche most is my storage server running TrueNAS. Built it 3.5 years ago, future-proofing in mind. Strong SSD cache layer, plus two spare HDDs as spares. It wasn’t cheap then, but I think between disks, storage, ECC memory, etc. it’s +$7000 now to rebuild it again, +$9000-$10000 on last generation hardware.
Apple computers tend to have excellent resale value, and Mac Minis/Studios have the least depreciation of them all. I understand the benefits to both taxes and cash flow, but boy is Apple winning big on those lease offers for Studios.