They’re not describing any kind of burnout; just fatigue from working or being overstimulated. Taking a break a the exact remedy for this condition, but many people take breaks in a way that’s not actually restorative (phone scrolling, etc.)
OpenWRT updates are very much discouraged on an ongoing basis primarily because most devices running it use very cheap flash chips which are small and fail quickly after too many writes. They’re nowhere near the level of SSDs, or even SD cards, that can handle many flash cycles.
Almost as important is the fact that updates do not overwrite the original packages, because those are in a read-only partition. Updates are written to an overlay file system, so every updated package uses twice as much flash space. Installing updates weekly would quickly fill the flash.
But as far as vulnerabilities go, what’s the actual exposure? From the outside there’s no ports open, and on the inside only a few for device management, and basic services like dhcp, etc. Those have been around for decades and are pretty well hardened by now.
Pricing for any item is set by one thing: what people are willing to pay for it.
If a business raised prices because of tariffs, and consumers paid the higher price, that was a successful test that consumers are willing to pay that higher price for the item. Once that’s been established, the business has little incentive to lower prices once the tariffs go away. Prices only go down if competition with other companies pushes them down, but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
Pricing for almost every item is set by the lowest price the producer is willing to accept, not by what people are willing to pay.
It's the "one price rule" in economics.
Everybody is willing to pay different prices. If you're starving, you're probably willing to pay "all my money" for food. But you don't, you pay the same price as everybody else who aren't willing to pay that much. The seller can't set the price to "all your money" because somebody else will be willing to sell for less.
> but every player in a market has little reason to do so when they’re enjoying the higher profits.
In that case any producer willing to defect from this implicit pact and lower their prices slightly will be able to make all the profit. Anti-trust should be ensuring there are enough producers that there's always somebody willing to goose their profits at the expense of their competitors by lowering prices.
In reality these work very well for many of the important things. Ask any farmer who sells a 60 pound bushel of wheat for $6, producer of $10 blue jeans or maker of those $400 60" TV's. They're not swimming in profit.
The exceptions are far fewer, but far more noticeable. Housing and health care don't follow the one price rule. The exceptions dominate our mindshare because they're so painful, but the non-exceptions outnumber the exceptions.
One price rule for commodities isn't super relevant for consumers though? Commodified markets are well understood so long as there is decent competition.
What we are increasingly seeing on the consumer side of the market - even on grocery items - is price segmentation. Grocery stores (moreso their suppliers) learned that many (most?) consumers are willing to pay much more for staple food items that are not commodities but quite common buys. Like chips or soda or branded packaged foods. They set a regular retail price to 50% more than it was a few years ago over time, and then to capture more of the price sensitive consumers they offer incentives like coupons, in-app deals, random sales, etc. to induce those consumers to purchase.
This is getting to be extremely aggressive and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Uber/Instacart for example have plenty of whistle blower insider types who have written about how price segmentation on an individual basis based on personal information and habits happens. Such as the type of credit card on file (Amex holders get charged more), how much gift card credit balance you have, your trends like accepting higher prices once from a given location/destination pair and time, etc.
If you go to the McDonalds drive-thru and simply order at the window you will be likely paying considerably more than the person who has the app installed and orders through that method.
Airline tickets perhaps follow this model as well - browser history and cookies will present a higher price to one consumer vs. another for the same book at exactly the same time. Some court cases are attempting discovery on this recently, so it will be interesting to see if true.
The price of an individual consumer transaction is absolutely set to what the company charging it believes the market will bear. Increasingly that "market" is the size of exactly one consumer.
I listened to a few earnings calls for fast food and consumer staple companies during COVID. Executives were absolutely incredulous that they could continue to increase prices and have it not impact volume of sales much if at all. What was taught in MBA school simply was not reality on the ground, and COVID times exposed this fact. The US consumer at least as a whole has simply lost the ability to price shop and is not as price sensitive as the textbooks say. This may change, but it's the current state.
About the only thing producer prices set is a pricing floor.
Yeah but, that vagary is literally the exact same wording that can be applied to "prices are set according to what consumers no; not it's value" that sparked this thread.
I don't see why this matters a single bit. You can easily flip it around and say that the businesses were clearly fine with all this because they kept importing, so why shouldn't the entirety of the tarriff refund go to consumers?
Oversimplification. Businesses can exist when the the cost of a good is less than the price they can get. There are many possible prices that this might be true, and there is some price that maximizes net profit.
When an item's margin becomes large, the risk/reward equation becomes favorable for new competition to come in. That puts downward pressure on prices.
For a given good, let's say that tariffs increased the business's cost for that good. If that cost goes away and the price stays constant, then the margin increases. That triggers more competition.
> Pricing for any item is set by one thing: what people are willing to pay for it.
Pricing is set by two things: supply and demand. Tariffs make supply more expensive, less supply is brought in, therefore the consumer must either pay higher prices or go without. Yes, they can just choose not to buy, and then the importer can choose not to import.
Every player has an incentive to lower the price: it attracts customers away from the other players.
They were able to raise their prices all at once because of tariffs. If they'd done that by simply agreeing to raise prices, it would be collusion.
Once the tariffs go away, prices would be naturally expected to fall back to their previous equilibrium because the same forces apply.
It's even more complicated than that, of course. But if there was competition before tariffs then there is competition after tariffs and you'd expect them to act similarly.
Only for optional goods! Exploitative inelasticity for necessary goods usually leads to investigations, regulations, and occasionally jail time. So it’s important to be sure to lower prices in a timely manner if you’re e.g. an egg wholesaler/retailer, otherwise you start having to declare new material risks to the SEC.
It’s not binary. Some customers were willing and some weren’t. Even if the company was able to keep selling the item profitably, it may have reduced its total profits at the higher price point (fewer sales) and would gladly revert once the tariff is gone.
This is why when the price of oil goes up, so does the price of gasoline, but when the price of oil comes down, well... When's the last time you remember gas suddenly costing a whole lot less?
Figuring out how to document stuff for others forces you to think things through at a deeper level yourself, and that’s the main point of the idea being presented here. Forcing yourself to organize your own thoughts is where the personal growth comes from.
The juice is still much less healthy. It’s the act of having your guts extract the nutrients that makes fruit healthy, because it reduces how quickly your body absorbs it. Once you make it into juice (or a smoothie) by mechanically digesting it prior to consumption, you’ve removed the need for that.
You forgot about chewing. Nobody swallows oranges in chunks. You chew and that presses out the juice. Drinking the juice and then eating the pulp is no different although it does sound silly. At that point just eat the damn orange like a normal person.
> Drinking the juice and then eating the pulp is no different although it does sound silly. At that point just eat the damn orange like a normal person.
It's less silly than taking a shot of vodka and eating an orange. Tastier too.
Zip drives arrived at exactly the same time as digital art, the web, and most importantly Macromedia Flash. Maybe the CS people with a few source code files didn’t fully use the space, but the art kids certainly did.
There simply was no other option at the time than Zip drives. Others did not strike the right balance of price, capacity, responsiveness, etc. Maybe Iomega paid to get them installed, I don’t know, but there really was no other option so I can easily see schools buying them just because they needed a solution.
USB thumb drives started appearing not long after, and they didn’t suffer from the click of death, so those became the preferred media by the time those people graduated school.
Sounds like you’re overdoing it when you do exercise. Focus on just getting some kind of motion, not pushing yourself until your muscles or heart feel like they’re working hard.
Even if you feel like it’s not really doing anything, something is better than nothing. The rule of thumb for a lot of basic cardio is that you should be able to hold a conversation while doing it without pausing because you’re out of breath.
The idea that it’s just “more bits” it’s wrong, so I’m not sure your assessment is valid. Maybe at the packet level it’s just “more bits”, but at the network level a lot of processes changed. IP assignment, router discovery, etc. are different.
What you seem to be misunderstanding is that your whole process of nuking IPv6 is more work than studying the issue for a few minutes and then listening on both protocols. Setting a service to listen on a port will use both IPv4 and IPv6 by default, and if yours isn’t means you’re probably already doing something wrong or also have other bugs.
reply