Funny you mentioned Epic - I bought something there and played it for a while, until one day it just...refused to load
Ended up in a loop of support asking for logs ad infinitum, while ignoring the fact that when I installed the client and game on a separate computer it crashed at the same point. Chalked it up to experience and just decided to not give them any more of my money
When it comes to Wranglers they used to only do 2 doors, but then they introduced the 4 door which is supposedly now 90% of the sales (I'm guessing the extra doors make it easier to compete with other SUVs)
"In coordination with the requested terminations for Weather Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes (see OAR-10) and Ocean
Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes (see OAR-19), NOAA will close...Mauna Loa"
I live in a red state in the South. I'd say about 2/3 of the women I know well enough to be confident of their politics to that degree of detail would describe themselves as both feminists and anti-abortion/pro-life.
If you want to put a name to it, they're basically second-wave feminists with a few third-wave beliefs tacked on.
The real lesson here is that politics are nuanced, and the US party dichotomy doesn't come close to covering it.
I consider myself an AnCap (shocking given my username, I know), but grew up here surrounded by Republicans. I fit in well enough overall because this is where I developed my "social mask" in the first place. I lived in a community with nearly directly opposite politics (Charlottesville, VA) for a few years and found that I fit in pretty well with that crowd as well.
I share enough with both parties that I can have conversations on things that I agree with them on and connect to the point that they assume that I'm "one of them". Invariably, once conversation turns to other topics I'm accused of being a member of the other party. It's to the point that it amuses me when it happens, and I frankly enjoy being in a place where I can connect with most everyone and serve as a sort of translator: I've spent enough time "in enemy territory" from their perspectives that I can explain the other side's position fairly and with empathy while explicitly not holding that position. It makes for stimulating conversation with little risk of offense.
> Because "anti-abortion/pro-life" removes a right from women. Trading the rights of a developed adult for the rights of a hypothetical future person.
Their perspective is that abortion is killing a human being. Given that, it’s entirely consistent.
> What does ancapistanism have to do with it?
Nothing, other than that I was providing some context on where I’m coming from.
> Is there a non-religious reason to be against the right to choose abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy?
While religion is certainly a factor for a lot of these people, this question doesn’t make sense to me. Is there a non-religious reason to be against killing any person, regardless of age?
The base difference in perspective is that the other side here believes that the fetus is a human being, with all the rights that come with it.
> Is there a non-religious reason to be against the right to choose abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy?
Of course there is. It's not hard to construct an argument to that effect either. For example: let's agree for the sake of argument that a newborn has moral rights, and that gametes do not. It doesn't make much sense to give the fetus moral rights only based on its physical location, therefore at some point between conception and birth the fetus gains moral rights. No matter what point n we choose, the objection "why is one day earlier any better" seems pretty persuasive. Therefore, by induction, the only point for assigning rights which can't be argued against in that way is at conception. Thus, we should disallow abortion so we aren't depriving the fetus of its rights.
I'm not saying that's a bulletproof argument. Indeed the argument doesn't even need to be correct for my point. My point is that nothing about that argument requires any religious belief whatsoever. So it is possible. I'm also quite certain that a cleverer person than I could construct a better argument which still doesn't require any religious dogma. This is an ethical topic, not a religious one. Obviously religion has a lot to say on ethics, but that's no reason to believe that secular arguments against abortion can't exist.
One grain of sand is a small amount of sand. Two grains of sand is a small amount of sand. Therefore, by induction, any amount of grains of sand is a small amount of sand. The Sahara contains a small amount of sand.
> It doesn't make much sense to give the fetus moral rights only based on its physical location, therefore at some point between conception and birth the fetus gains moral rights.
A _lot_ more happens to a fetus during and immediately after birth than just moving a few feet. You're minimizing it here, but if you give it the significance it merits your induction thing falls apart.
"For example: let's agree for the sake of argument that a newborn has moral rights, and that gametes do not. It doesn't make much sense to give the fetus moral rights only based on its physical location, therefore at some point between conception and birth the fetus gains moral rights. No matter what point n we choose, the objection "why is one day earlier any better" seems pretty persuasive. Therefore, by induction, the only point for assigning rights which can't be argued against in that way is at conception. Thus, we should disallow abortion so we aren't depriving the fetus of its rights."
That's roughly my position, as an atheist libertarian. although I don't back it up all the way to conception, just to a point in early pregnancy where it seems overwhelmingly clear the fetus has no attributes which could reasonably demand respect for rights.
Abortion has been conflated with feminism, like how, say, tariffs are conflated with Republicans right now, but there's no ideological necessity for that. Just cultural trends.
> although I don't back it up all the way to conception, just to a point in early pregnancy where it seems overwhelmingly clear the fetus has no attributes which could reasonably demand respect for rights.
Sounds like you're not actually using that deeply flawed argument then. You're making the distinction that not every day has the same effect.
And could you estimate how many weeks you put that point at?
> No matter what point n we choose, the objection "why is one day earlier any better" seems pretty persuasive. Therefore, by induction
That's not persuasive at all. It's not just not "bulletproof", it's blatantly wrong. Also you can make the same argument in the other direction.
> Indeed the argument doesn't even need to be correct for my point. My point is that nothing about that argument requires any religious belief whatsoever.
They wanted someone to give a plausible argument that isn't religious.
> no reason to believe that secular arguments against abortion can't exist
I care about the merits of positions that people actually have, not theoretical positions.
And in the general case, if nobody can be found that has a simple position, that is a reason to believe it's not a coherent position.
Well social/religious conservatives often think the child has rights even during pregnancy so it's not as simple as the mothers rights.
The libertarian view tends to much more favour the parents rights to make choices for their children if I remember correctly, and obviously favour the option where the government isn't deciding for them.
My personal belief is that life begins at conception. As a result, I’m opposed to abortion in all cases.
… but I’m also an anarchist, and therefore believe it is emphatically not the state’s role to make these types of decisions for people.
I don’t think there is a “right answer” here in terms of policy. Some large portion of the people will see it as a violation of their rights no matter how extreme or nuanced the line is drawn.
Amazon prices what they can get away with, not what their costs are. Jeff Bezos’s rocketry hobby is a testament to Amazon’s ability to extract surplus.
I think the point is Amazon cuts costs and reduces price first, prices out the competition through economics of scale, then once competition is eliminated is able to raise prices.
Stores often refuse to stock products unless they are given a comfortable enough margin on them that can be as high as 25%. That is how they can afford to do deals on CPUs to draw people into the store. Amazon also has overhead in shipping costs to customers that the brick and mortar store does not, since they receive goods in bulk that amortizes costs. They both also want as much money as they can get out of the customer, so they have little reason to lower pricing upfront unless they think that it will help them get even more money (like how microcenter cuts prices on CPUs since they expect to make it up on everything else you need to build a PC).
Microcenter is a surviving personal computer retailer from the DOS days.
Seemed like they were intentionally flexible enough at the beginning so they would be able to go forward with any and all manufacturers that might turn out to prevail, back when nobody knew for sure.
Whether the future would more strongly include Apple, IBM compatibles, or any other alternatives which have come & went.
It was a "superstore" by design, decades before Walmart got there through its unavoidable momentum.
The vast majority of items do need to fly off the shelf, but it's best not to purge too much of everything else. The smartest operators can actually stock a larger number of slower-moving items too.
Also I have seen some affordable stock pulled from the shelves and online like smaller capacity SATA SSDs, after higher-capacity or more modern units naturally replace them as technology progresses. Looks like they mark down the less-modern units, or they won't move at all, and those can then end up at the point where further markdown would be below cost. All remaining stock disappears to a liquidator, which are more common than ever these days. Just when you thought it was really going to get good. It used to be easier to browse for "stragglers" that were too expensive when first released, if you waited a year or two those prices could be really slashed when more modern versions took over the mainstream, if you could find any stock remaining.
I drive right by the one in Houston almost every week where you can see the store conveniently a block away from the freeway, only sometimes for that same reason the traffic can get so bad that it's a 20 minute ordeal getting back out of the parking lot, down that block, and back on the freeway :\
So sometimes I'll wait a few weeks before just dropping in, but it's also always been good to have when you need something right away.
Except recently when I knew exactly what I wanted, a 2TB SATA laptop HDD, not an SSD for this particular PC. I still had a 1TB NIB in my storage unit from a few years ago when I picked up a couple but only used one at the time.
Well, these days they had nothing. Except a few items of one SKU that was your typical modern garbagey SMR HDD, which modern SMR is miserably sluggish (you know, like a snail without a shell) by comparison to regular HDDs from previous decades (which were all conventional CMR until some SMR bozo came along). SMR is very frustrating even for long-term storage, and completely useless in a laptop. Give me a break.
Had to then go to the storage unit and dig out the 1TB one I already had.
Nobody's fault but mine for shopping and trying to be a consumer when it's not absolutely necessary :\
I don't recall ever asking for a price match at a brick&mortar, even though I'm aware it's available at some stores. I'd guess most people don't.
The store gets some mileage out of being known for price-matching competitors (even online competitors, where that'd be a bit much).
(Well, occasionally I have questioned in-store, when a major chain shows one price on the Web, available at a specific brick&mortar location, but when you get to that location, there's a much higher price on the shelf. Now I tend to order for pickup at those stores, which is more work for them, just to lock in the Web-advertised price, rather than the switcheroo price.)
I will make stores price match anything and everything. I also look at every item on my grocery check out to make sure the price is exactly what the shelf said. I concede no ground to fine print sales expiration dates. However, I am a freak when it comes to remembering these things after a decade of business purchasing and I did my fair share of taking advantage of the consumer.
I frankly enjoy fighting stores on pricing and get dopamine from a good deal and it pains me to pay more than necessary even if I can afford it just fine. I understand not everyone is like this.
There was a period a year or two ago where if you leaked cookies and ad tracking to Amazon and deliberately clicked through to competing sites their algorithm would aggressively slash pricing far below MSRP. I admit I would use this technique in microcenter to get Amazon to give me ludicrously cheap pricing then turn around and make them price match for instant gratification.
Retail/amazon operate at a much higher margin than most people realize.
>Retail/amazon operate at a much higher margin than most people realize.
Then why don’t their 10-Ks and 10-Qs show it? There is a reason it has a reputation of being a cutthroat business. Out of all the big retail businesses, only Home Depot/Lowes has 8%+ profit margins, and Apple obviously.
Because net profit margin is different from gross margin. The products are still marked up way higher than that bottom line number. PMn is the margin after you add in all the over head costs and those really have little to do with whether they are loosing money by selling a product under their target mark up.
Best Buy making a gross $250 on a $1000 priced TV or $50 when discounted to $800 still isn’t loosing any money unless they are at their credit ceiling and cannot replace the good sold. They make zero if A customer standing in their store deciding not to even give them $50 and giving it a to a competitor on their cellphone. Tho is absolutely profit opportunity lost, even if it is small.
>Retail/amazon operate at a much higher margin than most people realize.
This statement encompasses the whole business, for which the profit margin is the relevant metric, not gross margin. And it is clear that the standard retail business is not one in which you can earn a lot of money. Just because a specific item sells to a customer for more than what it costs to buy just that specific item from the supplier, does not mean the business's margins are high. There are myriad costs that have to be accounted for, such as spoilage, theft, inventory, transportation, labor, returns, etc.
Some things sell for higher margin, some things sell for lower margins, but at the end of the day, the stores clearly operate at very low margins. Hence why so many go out of business all the time, and all the brick and mortar we have left are the biggest ones with the largest volumes.
That is not what we were talking about though. We were talking about how much discount you can force out of a retailer via price matching which is a function of its Gross Margin. a 25% discount at the register doesn't mean a bottom line 25% subtraction from Net Margin. Those numbers are distantly connected and most operating costs (minus COGS) are fixed.
That might work for a few customers, for a few products sold at high margins. But mathematically, if the business started giving everyone 25% discounts, and they already only have a 2% profit margin, then it doesn’t pencil out that it could survive.
Bottom line is if a business, and an entire industry in this case, has 2% to 5% profit margins, across 10+ publicly listed businesses, across decades of operation, it means they are selling goods at about as low of a price as possible (averaged over all goods). Some will be high margin, some low margin, some negative margin, but at the end it’s only resulting in a couple percent of profit.
Consider the case of a business operating at excessive margins with huge room to discount but doesn’t. Their fixed costs must then be spread over few transactions and lower their net margins to almost nothing. Instead a business operating at a much more socially optimum price point sells a huge amount of goods at a lower mark up and gets to spread those fixed costs over a lot more transactions. Their Gross markup may be less than the high priced store but their net margin can be higher.
I set a lot of prices during the pandemic. Any average business found that they were granted some degree of monopoly power and could generate higher net margins with less competitive prices. Many of us found the simplest solution was to just pass on all costs to the consumer because they had no choice but to take our price or not get their good.
Times are different and there is competition but many businesses have still forgotten how to increase gross margin by having a sale.
Not to get into politics but tariffs are the same way. The elasticity of demand for a good determines the monopoly power of the supplier/retailer and how much of the tariff gets passed on to the consumer. Highly interchangeable products will not see the full tariff passed on to the consumer because that would mean forgoing all sales. The importer will determine how much gross margin they can give up without loosing money…but the producer in the foreign country also does the same math. Do they completely give up the American market to save inventory for other markets or do they eat some top line profit and still make some sales.
Many goods will indeed be pulled from the market, but if the producer fails to find replacement customers in other markets they will look back at 300M Americans and reconsider whether they can give their importer a better price while still making something. If the good expires, like say a case of white wine, or becomes obsolete in the case of say a lightning charging cable there is additional pressure to make the decision before the surplus simply becomes unseeable.
If a good has no viable alternatives and is relatively shelf stable expect all tariffs to be passed along because the products price is already disconnected from its cost and the business producing it is closer to a monopoly than not.
Amazon pricing isn't always that good and they lie about the discounts and retail prices, at least here in the UK. My US colleagues tell me the same is true in the US. I've actually found that general high street crap seller Argos here tends to have better retail prices than Amazon. I can just amble on down the road and get what I needed same day pick up in person rather than wait for a delivery to turn up.
If every person price matched every item, they'd be screwed, but: most people don't, many items just can't be, and if eg you're price matching a $20 cpu cooler, you may also be buying a $500 cpu or a bunch of other components that they'll actually make money on.
This is also why different stores have different skus for items - that $20 coolermaster 40mm with red LEDs is cm40rl-w at Walmart and cm40rl-a at Amazon.
Retailers will absolutely budge on this technicality, this is to disarm those that aren’t aggressive. Everyone’s retail margins are wayyyyyy higher than they want the consumer to believe and their holding costs are non-negligible.
I thought the purpose of that was to let them avoid price matching on certain items despite having price matching policies. I have never heard of one budging on this. Have any?
It is so the manager has a policy to fall back on to say no. It is just the second round of negotiation.
I am not saying everyone will play ball, but managers whose pay is a function of sales likely will. Have you ever negotiated buying a car before? Indicating you will let corporate know they lost a sale by not budging on price will almost always win the negotiation with managers who think they can just be lazy without consequence.
In the standard retail environment, I have definitely had businesses price match products with the same specs but very slight SKU differences, you just have to be open about a willingness to forego the instant gratification because that is the only service in person retail provides today. That might mean actually completing the sale online and then asking again. They know when there is actually a material difference to the products.
Businesses that are legit monopolies will not budge.
It's not too uncommon for retail stores to match Amazon, as long as it's specifically both "sold by Amazon" and "shipped by Amazon". Best Buy does too, for example.
I've definitely come across the one-way flight costing more than a return
My guess is the airlines think one-way people are business folks (so the price doesn't matter because it's getting expensed), whereas return travelers are paying their own way
A papad-like thing can be made from potato flour, but I struggle to equate it to a poppadom since potatoes are not native to the subcontinent. The classic papad is made from urad lentil flour. They are infamously tricky to make from scratch. Anecdotally, all the Indians whose houses I've been to use the brand that has the little boy photo on the sleeve and Lijjat papad brand in Hindi script in big letters across the front.
"Ingredients: Corn, vegetable oil (corn and/or canola oil), and salt."
Some of you may have read my story of the Olive Section at Carrefour in Catalonia. The same thing had happened with the same friend when she visited me in Phoenix. She had heard tell of a vast selection of crisp flavours. So we went to the convenience store/Subway/gas station on the corner, where half of the store shelves are chips, dip, and salty snacks. She was impressed and chose two bags, including a chili lime flavour.
And here I sit with the Kalamata olives and the Manchego cheese. Jamón Serrano is not easy to come by; sometimes I settle for Prosciutto.
The MTA in NYC can't seem to make this work correctly for trains
At our (penultimate aboveground) stop you can look down the track and see if there are any trains waiting - even if there aren't, the live board still likes to claim there's one 'coming in a minute'
My only guess is it works off of what should be happening, and not what actually is going on
It works fine for the trains and busses, you either don't live in NYC or don't know what you're talking about? The MTA app and displays are almost dead on accurate for arrival times for the busses and trains. Sometimes there's a minute or so of a difference from reality but that's more than small enough to be useful.
Ended up in a loop of support asking for logs ad infinitum, while ignoring the fact that when I installed the client and game on a separate computer it crashed at the same point. Chalked it up to experience and just decided to not give them any more of my money
reply