> And as the time progressed, Pebble became the first platform to get Weathergraph - my graphical weather watchface.
> Weathergraph was then ported to Garmin (as Pebble shut down), and then to Apple Watch widget
Thanks for bringing Weathergraph to life. I found it on the Pebble and used it religiously until I experienced enough challenges with Rebble to switch to a Garmin watch. I was thoroughly chuffed when I saw that you had brought Weathergraph along with you.
Are you saying I'd have to get an Apple Watch to get the third-generation Weathergraph? ;-)
I struggle to read that page without wanting to ask follow-up questions. I know it's your personal opinion about finance, and I'm not actually expecting you to change your mind from these questions.
However, I'd like to understand how you ended up where you are. How'd you somehow end up so burned by zero-based or envelope-based budgeting? FWIW, I've come from a traditional budgeting method and migrated to a zero-based and both can work.
> But also keep in mind: it's harder to spend less money with zero-based budgeting.
I'd argue the opposite is a problem with traditional budgeting methods: you're budgeting money you don't yet have. Yes, you might get it, but you don't until you have it. More importantly, how? How is it harder to spend less?
> It's harder to get a feeling for your financial situation with zero-based budgeting [..]
What? With envelope-based budgeting the colloquial jobs that your money has must be defined. You have to acknowledge exactly what you have and what you don't have, because you can't play with imaginary money. If you don't have enough money to put aside for rent next month, you know you don't have that money or you're not willing to spend it.
How?
> it's especially harder to change anything
In my own experience, when it's hard to change your budget with envelope-based budgets it's usually because you're constrained in your money. The exception to this has been financial investments: you can use tools like YNAB for it, but they're not created for forecasting or any of that stuff -- you're here for your here and now.
In a way, I think you're absolutely correct that it's harder to change anything, but not because the method is wrong; it's because it addresses the fundamental issue of traditional budgeting and it's difficult and tough to deal with the consequences: you can only budget the money you actually have. You can't make up numbers about what a month usually looks like.
If you want to feel safe about next month's rent, the only way is to have next month's rent budgeted. Thus, isn't harder better if harder is actual change as opposed to imaginary?
I am left with a sour taste that you not only decide to talk about things like paycheck to paycheck, but also combine it with a conclusion that says:
> Use Firefly III. Use GnuCash. Use anything from this list. But skip the zero-based nonsense.
I think you'd be better off acknowledging the different audiences more-so than categorising zero-based budgeting as nonsense.
I'm not even going to touch the question of recommending someone to use GnuCash as an alternative to zero-based budgeting.
> In a way, I think you're absolutely correct that it's harder to change anything, but not because the method is wrong; it's because it addresses the fundamental issue of traditional budgeting and it's difficult and tough to deal with the consequences: you can only budget the money you actually have. You can't make up numbers about what a month usually looks like.
You can predict what your month will look like based on your rent, utilities and how expensive are your groceries from the past months.
The unpredictable is accident and sickness but that's what insurances and emergency funds are for.
This was true but revealed in a way that was purposely misleading and to deflect from the Guardian's role in putting intelligence workers at risk. That is, the Guardian's poor OpSec had made all those cables available to anyone without any kind of protections in place. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wik...)
The Guardian does not protect it's sources. The Guardian does not own up to it's mistakes. The Grauniad does not spellcheck.
I think it's more likely that in light of the #MeToo movement, it became untenable for them to defend an accused rapist, regardless of if he was innocent or not.
That sounds like a load of baseless accusations. Printing WikiLeaks leaks doesn't mean they have to defend Assange for his behavior. Assange is also a well established liar.
Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.
They continue to employ Luke Harding which seems mystifying.
Maybe it's a really subtle false flag? The spooks have them where they want them so they can't publish the truth meaning they have to publish ridiculous lies which get publicised, then fall over due to contrary evidence and so actually undermine the state's case while seeming to support it? This comically bad example they haven't even bothered to try and salvage their reputation with corrections. Merely added "sources say" in a submarine edit to the headline.
> Weathergraph was then ported to Garmin (as Pebble shut down), and then to Apple Watch widget
Thanks for bringing Weathergraph to life. I found it on the Pebble and used it religiously until I experienced enough challenges with Rebble to switch to a Garmin watch. I was thoroughly chuffed when I saw that you had brought Weathergraph along with you.
Are you saying I'd have to get an Apple Watch to get the third-generation Weathergraph? ;-)