Very interesting article. As seems to be the pattern with Studio Ghibli they found someone uniquely talented, who ascended to the top of their craft over the course of their career, but never really found a successor to carry on their legacy.
But perhaps I'm doing an injustice to her apprentices at the studio, who maybe weren't covered in the article and who may have gone on to find work on other projects as Ghibli wound down.
You could consider sitting in an exit row. The seats in front of that row are typically prohibited from reclining in order not to block the exit. Or you can sit behind a bulkhead.
There's a lot of great explanations here, but none that quite put it the way I'd think of it.
If we had primary color wavelengths that could stimulate each cone independently, then it would work just like you say, and we'd only need 3 of them. But because the cone spectra overlap, we don't have "orthogonal basis vectors" to work with. Our primary colors each excite a mix of cone responses.
But no problem right? As long as each primary color has a different response, we at least have linearly independent vectors, and any student of linear algebra knows you can mix those together to act as an orthogonal basis and get any desired excitation of the cones. Right?
And that would be true, except that linear algebra assumes you can freely add or subtract vector amplitudes, but with LEDs we can only generate light, we can't send a beam of "negative green". So we're constrained to the subset of colors where the basis vectors all have positive amplitudes. And that's the smaller color space that results.
The monopolist would probably not even make the good in the first place if they knew they'd have to sell it at the marginal cost, because they'd make zero profit and be underwater on all of their development costs.
Yes, especially for a durable good like a video game, having it now means having it now AND also having it later. It strictly dominates having it later, so I would be willing to pay more. Plus, there's utility in synchronizing with my friend group so we can play through together at the same time, discuss it without spoilers, play multiplayer while our skill levels are similar, etc. And that purchase timing will typically be set by the eagerest friend, rather than the stingiest.
So yeah. I do wait for deals sometimes but it would be silly to say that these two things have the same value in the eye of the consumer.
This still applies to "non durable" goods. Food is worth more today than it is next year, not least of which because if you starve, you won't get a chance to eat it next year. All goods are worth more sooner than later (relative to when they are needed), which is why people pay a premium for faster delivery.
An example that came up in the article is medicine (or more precisely a medical patent), which also clearly has an extremely strong time value, particularly for lifesaving medicine.
But perhaps I'm doing an injustice to her apprentices at the studio, who maybe weren't covered in the article and who may have gone on to find work on other projects as Ghibli wound down.
reply