Takarakuji de 40 oku Atatta ndakedo Isekai ni Ijuu Suru - Vol. 7 Ch. 32 - The Time We Can't Meet

[Vasqueztion]

I kinda wish they kept a talley of how much money he has remaining. It can't be a lot.
I mean, I know its 4 billion, but shits expensive in Japan.

 

[GodricKharg]

@vasqueztion

While I agree on the tracking... if memory serves, he manages to get them to duplicare a fair chunk in that world? Ie the water wheels... it’s not like he’s bringing over a full load of tools and materials. Just enough to help them learn to duplicate it...

Now the energy drinks and makeup on the other hand....

 

[DFM1412]

If I were him i would find things there to sell at the real world. Income is important plus with all those expenses damn, did the author just forget about his money?

 

[IMACOP]

@Vasqueztion @DFM1412
He have like 30m USD. It's not going to run out soon. The really expensive stuff like watermill or the excavator, each of those cost around, maybe 50k? And he only bought a few of those... I doubt he even reached 1m spent. Also, shit imported from Japan is expensive. Shit bought in Japan by those living there, aren't that different from any other country, unless you mean countries like Thailand or Vietnam and such. If you take into account the average salary, service and quality and all that, I'd say it might even be cheaper, at least for my country.

 

[InsaneAwesomeTony]

Valetta is precious and needs to be protected <3

 

[Chibi2o9]

Needs more best waifu zirconia!!

 

[morichiro]

Wow this was full of nothing.

 

[Liquidxlax]

There are loads of half baked articles on wikipedia and loads of bullshit by "trusted sources". There are plenty of articles that push opinion as fact. It'd be nice if there was quality encyclopedias still. I remember an encyclopedia program my sister and I got to use for school that had some games to help teach you stuff and regular mode. It had a lot of hand drawn images for UI and articles. They put a load off effort into it.

I wonder, does this mean she will chase after him?

 

[Harry_Dong]

@Liquidxlax
There are loads of half baked articles on wikipedia and loads of bullshit by "trusted sources". There are plenty of articles that push opinion as fact. It'd be nice if there was quality encyclopedias still. I remember an encyclopedia program my sister and I got to use for school that had some games to help teach you stuff and regular mode. It had a lot of hand drawn images for UI and articles. They put a load off effort into it.

No doubt. There's no shortage of fake news and opinions that any Joe Blow or activist/journalist can write there as any user can write and submit edits. Way back in the day, I knew high school teachers that used to change articles with fake info on certain historical articles right before exams deliberately so students who weren't supposed to use the untrustworthy Wikipedia as a "primary source" but did anyway, failed.

But at least it's a free resource. That being said, even normal encyclopedias, paid or otherwise can become outdated over time, such as scientific or medical data that later gets retracted or disproved by later studies and findings, among many other examples in other fields. Nothing is perfect or without shortcomings one way or another.

 

[jessiej]

@Harry_Dong Weird, My understanding is that Wikipedia isn't a source because its not an actual source. So if a student writes "Source, Wikipedia" then they fail anyway, unless they write random book names? That said, while Wikipedia isn't a source, it lists its sources at the bottom and you can use those... Regardless, that is horrible that a teacher would alter an article for that kind of BS reason, if you caught them doing it, you should have reported them to get them blocked so they cant make changes.

 

[Harry_Dong]

@jessiej
Sometimes they have sources. Often times they don't. And the times they do have sources, they often would point to a news media article or blog post that's either an opinion passing off as fact, or that they faked the whole story in the first place for ad clicks that other media outlets then regurgitated (similar to how countless illegitimate manga sites bot scrape from mangadex for ill-gotten ad money)...And even if the original news article gets deleted/corrected, any one of the other countless regurgitated cloned news articles from different outlets would also count as a primary source to that original story, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or a circle-jerk, or Ouroboros to try and keep it polite. That's the way Wikipedia sources work with the system in place unfortunately, and that was one the reasons why the teachers I knew did what they did, to prove a point of how easy it is to fake something, where the fact about "don't trust everything you read on the internet" rings true even to this day since early days of the internet. As for students, I knew some who'd literally copy-paste with zero edits, write down the citations from the bottom of the wikipedia page, and that's how teachers knew they'd copied it from the wikipedia instead of books/newspapers..etc when there was the discrepancy from the original info.

 

[LordoftheKeep]

sounds like a 3 month time skip to allow something bad to happen (i.e. bandits or war)

 

[TWAIN]

Excuse me, I'd like to get a notebook PC, and this software as well, please.

Spoken like a true soccermom.

 

[Qelix]

Looks like Valetta could become the most liked best girl, that turns into worst girl in a manga of the last few years.

On Wikipedia: There have been some articles on laws of physics, that have been on the spot, very easy to understand and have been quite complete, but somehow got "improved" over the course of 10 years by becoming nauseatingly filled with complex mathematical formulas and the intuitive texts have been improved with unnecessary highend scientific vocabulary. Some very good passages have been even removed, because some other "fine" texts in other "related" articles take care of the matter. Using wikipedia in the 2000-2005 to look something up yielded quite a bit of knowledge in short time, especially when the matter has been presented overly complex in the books. It was easier to understand and a wonderful source/starting point to decrypt other sources. But I have the feeling, that since the 2005-2015 that easiness is gone from many articles and wikipedia as an learning platform for scientific has suffered. Sure, they might be now mostly complete, but also too complex. If I need a complex version of something, chances are I need it for professional reasons and in this case I look it up from verified sources, instead of an platform, that may still contain errors.
Just a little rant, but maybe I just got unlucky with a few articles, I needed, and wikipedia is still as fine, as it used to be..

 

[dahhv2]

Too short

 

[Loli_Omamoritai]

Sigh, the comment is poisoned... AGAIN.
Okay, let me spoiler you

Spoiler

She moved to help him directly with work.

So far even at the last chapter, she is still the best girl.

Believe me, if you can have one of the three girls in your life, you will choose her for sure.
You just don't know enough yet.

 

[jessiej]

@Harry_Dong You know, About the only difference between internet and books is that internet articles can be published much easier. Most of the time, highschool and earlier reports just want sources given so students get used to doing it. I know some request multiple sources depending on where its from, ie. 1 from a book, 2 or more if its from the internet. collages may be even stricter based on the course.

 

[Harry_Dong]

@jessiej
I hear what you're saying, but that difference is (or at least was) a pretty big one. To get something published in print (at least back in the day), you'd have to jump through hoops, like be a known vetted source like professional writers, accredited from a news organization, or academic/scientific institution, etc...vs, the internet back then and now, where literally anybody can say anything without impunity, commonly with malintent. Although that may not be so important nowadays since trust in most news media is at an all time low, and getting things put into print is much easier with self publication, while simultaneously the importance of print media is slowly dying giving online articles equilibrium. Keep in mind, all of this was 15+ years ago since I was in high school, where the internet vs print media were in very different places of their life cycles at the time.

 

[Liquidxlax]

@Harry_Dong Currently, there are things that are basically set in stone, but are talked about in the "forum" part of wikipedia on what changes may occur in those articles, but they need to be approved by multiple people. It is stuff on the fringe, though even being a member for a long while, but only reading and possible chatting or asking questions I couldn't add or change anything on the article for a disease that so few have where information is limited. I have the disease so I have access to things that the articles didn't have, but someone kept deleting my stuff time and time again. couldn't get proper moderation so I just gave up on wikipedia. The info I was trying to provide was given to me by my doctor and was data and analysis off of my sister and I. Information that probably dissappear without being of benefit to others who may be born with it.

 

[Harry_Dong]

@Liquidxlax
Yeah, as far as I know, they also don't allow first-person testimonies. I don't remember who it was, but for years, it said a journalist had invented the Zeppelin on his article from an off hand comment about drones from a video years and years ago, and when the person in question said "I did not invent the Zeppelin" they didn't allow him to change it until another third party changed it several years after that initial edit attempt. So if you're a public personality, they don't let you edit/change your own entry, which is pretty stupid. You have to rely on hearsay from unvetted strangers (much like reddit mods). Wikipedia is certainly not without a metric tonne of faults, but so long as you know what you're getting, having a side of salt at the ready, then it's a handy resource when you have curiosity for cursory info.