Tbf, it depends. I just bought a pair of converse for 25 bucks. Granted they’re an unpopular color, but hey 25 bucks for a pair of chuck 70s is a good price.
Sometimes it will be $1099 $899 but they may use subpar quality for Black Friday models compared to standard models.
Like TVs for example, certain models that are discounted on Black Friday have lower quality displays, fewer HDMI ports, cheaper speakers, etc. when compared to the “standard” model from the same line, and the ads will downplay or obscure the exact model number so you think you’re getting something better than you are when you look it up.
These transcriptions are getting incredible. I never would have thought it was possible to accurately convey a comic through text, while keeping the meaning and humour intact.
I kinda assumed it would still be “striked through”, or maybe “stricken through” because of the typographic term “strikethrough”. But “struck through” also seems like it could be correct
I’ma need an expert typographical linguist to weigh-in on this matter. The world needs an answer
Struck is simple past, stricken is the past participle. It’s the same pattern as “write, wrote, written.” Striked through is not “right” here, but at the same time, it’s a totally valid way to say it in various dialects, so that’s right enough for most purposes. In my dialect, workers might have “striked,” but that’s also nonstandard.
Just a regular linguist, which means I’m obligated to make it really clear that prescriptivism is bullshit, but does really simplify things for non native speakers
It’s a relatively new (became applicable in 2022) thing called price indication directive. The TLDR is what the other guy said, the only addition is that member states can set different rules for certain goods.
Wouldn’t a loophole be to relist something to include some extra trinket with the main product (e.g. lens cleaner with a camera) and argue the “new” listing is something completely different than before?
Or raise the price 31 days prior, and “drastically discount” it after. It seems like a cool policy in theory, but it also sounds like it doesn’t really have any teeth. Like a “political theater” kind of law. But who’s to say, maybe it could be someone’s poli-sci thesis some day.
Or I’m just dumb and don’t understand something fundamental about it; I also except that
It seems like a difficult thing to regulate. I hope that this can be a starting point that will be potentially expanded later as needed, but we’ll see.
Maybe the 30 day decrease in profit would be worth the additional units sold later (possibly at a slightly elevated price), due to the marketing of a perceived “deal”.
I guess there’s a lot of variables that could come into play (type of product, inventory, how many units need to sell over a time period to break even, etc), but it doesn’t seem implausible, so much as it does dependent. But idk, I still can’t figure out how the fuck magnets work, let alone accounting
Oh… Im so sorry to hear that. Second thing I do is check the second hand stores near me. I have one that validates their products and offers a 1 year warranty on the second hand stuff I buy from them, and it’s kind of awesome. They even rate the quality.
If robbing a bank got you 10 million dollars, and the legal penalty for robbing a bank was a few thousand dollars, why would you choose to refrain from robbing the bank?
files.mastodon.online
Oldest