Aliexpress listings can have multiple different items, and the price displayed in the search results will be that of the first of those (in your case, probably just an antenna) rather than the actual item you searched for or even the item image shown on the results page.
Not just the first, seems like the cheapest. I did a quick search and one result listed the second object's price, which was some permanent adapter board. But it's hard to fix such a thing. For example what if you really did want to buy another antenna for the device? Ok so maybe you require the listed price be the maximum. But what about like a raspberry pi kit where maybe you don't want the case or high capacity sd card or RAM, which could bring down the cost dramatically.
Especially when there is strong incentive to work around any such fix. Individual sellers do it deliberately often to make their listings appear more attractive, if this is "fixed" they'll find another way to be deceptive about the price that appears in searches, bitch & moan, or (much less likely) actually leave in favour of another marketplace, or some mix of the above. It is one of the reasons I simply ignore such places (others including delivery times and reliability: will I actually get the right thing that I think I'm ordering, or anything at all?) - yes, there might be genuine bargains to be had, but if you count the time and effort to find them amongst the deliberately deceptive listings, and the other concerns, I've found that I'm better off not bothering.
It isn't just on marketplace type sites like AliExpress, Amazon, and such, it is also often done on individual sales pages in order to game shopping search engines like google's, though it is more common, to the point of being ubiquitous, on Ali and their ilk.
One answer is that the individual products should be there own listing in the search so if I'm searching for the whole thing it is easy to see the price of that, same if I just want an individual part or add-on. If showing the lowest price, make sure any image is of that list price item not the more expensive one most likely being searched for. But that requires the sellers to properly file the listing details, and good luck enforcing that when they have competitive incentive not to.
There is also the issue of very similar items: the same thing in different materials/colours/etc (things like 3D printer filament) where the price might vary. In that case perhaps an answer is to display a range on the search results ("from £x to £y") though that becomes a new problem to solve when the user selects to order by price.
Fusion was so terrible and unreliable in my experience. they were still selling fusion iMacs till 2020, and it honestly seemed faster to just disable the fusion and let it be HDD only. I saw so many failures and data loss with that.
It is wild to me how much money Apple used to spend on ANYTYHING but a fast internal hard drive. The SSD-only days have at least got us out of the slooooww 5k rpm drive nightmare that was every consumer Apple device for decades.
I think because they have next to no overhead living on a boat is a major reason why they can do so much creative output. When you dont have rent to pay and other major bills, you have more idle time to do fun things you enjoy doing.
Yep, boat maintenance is an ongoing predicament. It would be nice if you could build it and leave it be but the sea is harsh to all things and maintenance is necessary.
crudely. apache2 logs are parsed every 5 minutes. if the IP address exists already in post-processed database, ignore the entry; if they didn't exist in database, a script parses user agent strings and checks against a list of known "consumer" browsers; a whitelist. If they match, we assume they're human. we then delete the detailed apache2 logs and put just the IP address, when we first saw them (date, not datetime), and whether they were deemed human or bot into database. faking user agent strings or using something like playwright would confuse the script; but the browser list will also inherently not have all entries of existing "consumer browsers".
every day, a script checks all IP addresses in the post-processed database to see if there are "clusters" on the same subnet. I think it's if we see 3 visitors on the same subnet, we consider it a likely bot and retroactively switch those entries to being a bot in the database. Without taking in millions of visitors, I think this is reasonable, but it can introduce errors, too.
Exchange historically had a tendency to mangle emails sent through it (whitespace changes, line wrap, etc), which is obviously bad news for patchmails. I dunno if it's any better these days.
From the high level, yes RISC-V is open, but as far as I can tell, When a chip is designed, nothing is preventing it from being closed like this SF21H8898
reply