|
Haifisch posted:The hot new YA dystopian movie, coming out next summer: Because of the target audience's disdain for intillectual property and in an effort to stick it to the publisher regardless of whatever pittance the writer gets in royalties, the book bombs because of rampant piracy. The author then tries to sell digital copies themself on a pay-what-you-want system hoping someone will believe that they'll be willing to pay more on account of all prodits going directly to the author. Instead, only a handful of buyers actually pay for the book and use a currency with a value less than an American cent and the author has to pay the escrow service for what few cents they earned for maintenance costs and the digital book is distributed on file sharing websites. The author then commits suicide. Star Man fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Sep 10, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:Man having a sales tax implemented in the midst of the Great Depression must have sucked real bad. It's weirder than you'd think. Often you'd use these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax_token Because otherwise you'd have to round sales taxes up to a full cent, and that would be basically equivalent to rounding up to the next 20 cents now due to inflation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:How are you going to advertise the 200 valid and distinct prices for your national release product like a Samsung Galaxy S 9 or iPhone 8? What part of there being a massive number of different tax jurisidictions is so hard to get here? Especially consider that unlike older days where your product might only be available for purchase at retail, and could avoid a good deal of the jurisdictions simply by not being for sale there, with the modern internet people need to pay their specific local rates on the major ordering sites. (And for that matter, shouldn't internet prices then require advertising with shipping included? But that'll vary itself...) If advertising the product at one price but selling it at a different one is not currently a problem, why does it become one if you put the price you're charging on the label at the store?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Why are so many poor americans duped into supporting regressive taxes that make them pay more to support the mooching millionares? no actual representation and has no money to support bribing politicians towards actual progressive taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If advertising the product at one price but selling it at a different one is not currently a problem, why does it become one if you put the price you're charging on the label at the store? Because people already expect advertising to say what the price is, which it does now. Introducing a law where the advertised price and the shelf price differs is confusing at best, illegal in a lot of places straight up. Like if the ad says "Our widget is $500" in many places the store needs to have the price of the item itself be $500. Changing the price to include the tax would put the ad out of compliance, leading to fines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If advertising the product at one price but selling it at a different one is not currently a problem, why does it become one if you put the price you're charging on the label at the store? What are you even talking about? If the new Galaxy was advertised at $599 but sold in your local store for $655.91 we'd still be in the exact same situation we are now and you'd still be bitching about it. Ad says one thing, receipt says another is already how things work, and you hate it. Are we doing this endless debate all for what, the posters up in the physical stores? Just don't look at them if they bother you so much. fishmech posted:Because people already expect advertising to say what the price is, which it does now. Introducing a law where the advertised price and the shelf price differs is confusing at best, illegal in a lot of places straight up. Another good point. Truth in Advertising laws are a really big deal. Cicero posted:Honestly that sounds like the kind of thing that online ordering + better automation should be capable of fixing. Why is typing in your measurements into a website to get clothes custom made by a robot not more popular? That probably will happen someday, but making clothing is really complex. You have to do tiny detailing, turn the garment inside-out, modify construction techniques for different fabrics - robotics just aren't there yet. You can buy human-made custom clothing all over the place online though, and I highly recommend it if you can afford it. Also: Custom-made shoes. Never look back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
I'm failing to see how not putting the tax on the price tag where possible is somehow less truthful or transparent. You're still making people pay it, you're just not putting it up front. I also fail to see why doing it the other way benefits anybody except people trying to get money out of consumers. Where possible you should indicate prices as you will pay them. If the law doesn't support that then the law is bad. We have advertising standards here as well and they work the proper way. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm failing to see how not putting the tax on the price tag where possible is somehow less truthful or transparent. Because if the price doesn't match the ad, the ad is in error and often illegal? Not sure what's hard to get here. Your country has almost the same, uniform, tax on sale goods all throughout it, that's what makes it easy to have the tax included. Canada instead has at least dozens of sales tax jurisdictions, and America has over 9500, and thus both countries do not include the taxes on goods that get prices advertised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
In Japan they used to have to put the price after tax on the labels but a few years ago some tax stuff changed and it was no longer necessary to do so (the country also has a flat sales tax rate). Almost overnight all of the retailers removed the tax part and made their labels pre-tax. I remember there was on retailer in particular which advertised that their prices are after tax and tried to promote it as "you'll know exactly how much you're spending, our stores are the easiest to understand!" After a few months they posted a notice that they would now be displaying things pre-tax, I'd imagine they got a lot of comments from people complaining that the prices were higher than the competition. It was a real shame because I went to that store specifically because I wanted to support that kind of pricing system, but I guess not enough people saw the value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because if the price doesn't match the ad, the ad is in error and often illegal? Not sure what's hard to get here. The price doesn't match the ad, though, it's just that you only get told about that when you pay for it, not when you look at it on the shelf? The ad is in error either way, you simply find out about it earlier. The transference of that knowledge forwards is to the benefit of the consumer and thus should be what the law requires, not the other way around. Why should laws protect retailers at the expense of consumers? I appreciate that different sales tax rates mean that national advertising cannot, practically, be 100% accurate, and I don't require that. But I don't see any credible argument for attempting to conceal that inaccuracy as much as possible when there is a very simple and very obvious way to improve it, put the tax in the price at the store level, that should be what the law requires. Loads of stuff is only priced at the store level and the stuff that isn't, you can certainly stick a label over it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Grognan posted:no actual representation and has no money to support bribing politicians towards actual progressive taxes. With this many gun nuts in this country mad about government overreach, why havent any tried the 2nd amendment solution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The price doesn't match the ad, though, it's just that you only get told about that when you pay for it, not when you look at it on the shelf? No, the price matches the ad. The item costs $500, the tax due on that changes quite a bit. Nothing is improved by making the ads become inconsistent with the price on the shelf, besides making things more confusing. Also we're not talking national advertising as the only issue, here's how easily sales tax rates change in a major metropolitan area:  Over the course of 21 miles in a single metropolitan area, the sales tax rate on general merchandise in Delaware is 0%, hop the border into Pennslyvania and it's now 6%. Then cross into Philadelphia and the city-county's local rate of 2% applies as well for a total of 8%, cross the river into the bulk of Camden and the rate is now 3.4375% and then just a little ways more into Woodlynne or one of the outlying districts of Camden and the rate is the normal New Jersey rate of 6.875%. What's your dumbfuck idea for which of these rates to use in advertising? Whichever you pick, you'll be at least 4.5625% out from one of the prevailing tax rates, and you could be as much as 8% out, naturally. Nothing is being "concealed" as it is now. People know what their local sales tax rate is. They also usually know if any jurisdiction near them is lower or higher than theirs, and plan their shopping on it. Stores will usually have the rate posted up around a customer service counter or something, or can ask any of the cashiers if they're unsure. This is simply the least confusing way to have everything work until someone actually implements a nationwide rate, or better yet abolishes sales taxes altogether as the regressive tax it is. fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
I dunno what's going on in your head but the price of something is what you pay for it. Advertise the pre tax rate if the advertisement is being run across multiple tax jurisdictions, fine, I'm willing to be nice to the poor hard done by national retailers on this point, but when you go into a store, or onto a website, to buy a thing, put the tax on the price tag, because that's the price, that's what you're paying for it. People will know even better then, won't they? What is the argument against that other than either "oh the poor retailers will have to do extra work to be complaint" or "we've always done it the other way"? As a consumer why should I give a poo poo about anything but the money coming out of my pocket? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Arlington, Virginia has a state sales tax, a county sales tax, and a local "Restaurant Tax" for prepared food and drinks. They briefly considered requiring restaurants to reflect the actual prices of their items and there was a massive uproar. The biggest complaints were: - It would hurt the Arlington economy because when people looked up prices online they would see the true cost at Arlington establishments, but not for D.C. establishments. - It would make it more difficult to set prices that ended in .99 or .95 that complied with state sales tax, county sales tax, and restaurant tax rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno what's going on in your head but the price of something is what you pay for it. The price is a separate thing from the tax. Duh. The price is consistent all over, the tax you pay changes rapidly. Hence it is massively impractical to have the pricetags be the same with tax included all over, so they won't match with advertising, which is causing needless confusing. I'm not sure what you don't understand about "you have 5 different sales taxes on a single 21 mile path" and how that means having pricetags match advertising and the multiple different sales tax plus price totals is completely impractical due to how much the prices vary. If we were talking something like "some places are 0% tax and some are 0.2% tax and some are 0.1% tax" then sure the differences are small enough that you could have a standard price and be able to actually have it be bearable by both the customer and the retailers. But instead, here we have the rate vary by 8%. In other places it can vary 9% or more over similar distances. Across the entire country, it varies by about 13%. Edit: And remember, we're not even getting into the weirdnesses like how certain organizations or business of certain types making certain purchases are allowed to either only some, or none of the same sales tax that the average member of the public does. Or how different categories of goods may be covered by tax in one place and not another, or may have reduced taxes compared to other goods. fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Arlington, Virginia has a state sales tax, a county sales tax, and a local "Restaurant Tax" for prepared food and drinks. I mean my response to those would be that the first one illustrates the need for inclusive pricing on a national level if non inclusive pricing is, by the sellers' own admission, deceiving customers of the costs, while the second is a good argument for rounding up because coppers are annoying. fishmech posted:The price is a separate thing from the tax. Duh. To who except whichever idiot wrote the law? To the consumer what matters is what you pay for a thing, that is the functional cost of the item. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Original_Z posted:I remember there was on retailer in particular which advertised that their prices are after tax and tried to promote it as "you'll know exactly how much you're spending, our stores are the easiest to understand!" After a few months they posted a notice that they would now be displaying things pre-tax, I'd imagine they got a lot of comments from people complaining that the prices were higher than the competition. It was a real shame because I went to that store specifically because I wanted to support that kind of pricing system, but I guess not enough people saw the value. It's like how people can be fooled into thinking a bigger container always means a better deal(even though sometimes it's not), since they don't pay attention to the price per weight/volume/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean my response to those would be that the first one illustrates the need for inclusive pricing on a national level if non inclusive pricing is, by the sellers' own admission, deceiving customers of the costs, while the second is a good argument for rounding up because coppers are annoying. You can't do inclusive pricing on a national level, because the inclusive pricing varies by 13% depending on where you are. What exactly is so hard to understand here? Again even just selling goods within a small area often gets variances of 8%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
What's your position on retailers advertising one price for an online item and then adding shipping in afterwards? Theft, fraud, rape, or worse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You can't do inclusive pricing on a national level, because the inclusive pricing varies by 13% depending on where you are. What exactly is so hard to understand here? Again even just selling goods within a small area often gets variances of 8%. I mean mandating inclusive pricing nationally Like you have a national law that says people must, where possible, price things to include tax. As in you can't whinge that the place next door isn't doing it so why should you have to? I know the prices will be different from place to place but they should always include tax on the store or website level. Edge & Christian posted:What's your position on retailers advertising one price for an online item and then adding shipping in afterwards? Theft, fraud, rape, or worse? Shipping is a service you are paying for and comes in different grades, so obviously it's separate? It depends where you want them to send it and how quickly. Sometimes you don't even have to pay shipping as it can be either free if slow or involve you collecting the item yourself from a store. Sales tax on the other hand does not magically change depending on the phase of the moon within a single store which is where I am suggesting it should be included. As for websites not including sales tax/vat it's shifty as gently caress and I'm glad most of the ones I shop on don't do it unless they're trade outlets. I wouldn't trust a website that did it as a rule. Also I dunno if it's different in the US but over here places put the P&P up with the price, as a rule. Dunno if it's required but it's a good practice. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
First, youre not going to get such a law since thats extremely up to the states but secondly, as pointed out, the method of having 9,600 unique printed receipts mostly results in even more issues and compliance problems which are all alleviated by customers understanding "where I am i pay x% sales tax" Like, advertising would never, not even digitally, mention a price again and youd probably see a complete collapse in flyers and any business not large enough to automate the process is probably not going to show you a price either until the register to avoid compliance issues. In addition, youd have no real way of knowing as a consumer if youre getting ripped off on items unless you look up each one against other areas and backsolve the tax additions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean mandating inclusive pricing nationally Like you have a national law that says people must, where possible, price things to include tax. As in you can't whinge that the place next door isn't doing it so why should you have to? I know the prices will be different from place to place but they should always include tax on the store or website level. Right. That's impossible because the taxes vary far too much, yet advertised prices are often required to be available at the matching store or for the matching product. What's so hard to get here? You would need to first harmonize the rates or bring them so close together that they may as well be harmonizedm I'm not sure why this isn't getting through to you, building in wide scale pricing that can tolerate swings of 8%,13% is hardly possible for the vast majority of products. We already do include tax in the shelf price WHERE POSSIBLE, which is goods that are not advertised on the their price outside immediate range of the selling location. Alcohol nearly universally has all taxes built in, but also it is almost completely illegal to advertise alcohol prices besides signs on your store or on the store's own website. Same thing with cigarettes and most other tobacco products - illegal to advertise well basically at all anymore, always includes tax. Fuels prices are advertised just on premises, occasionally with a tall billboard on site or located within a close distance on the highway for a specific location only - all levels of tax are included in the price. And there are many more specialty goods categories like those where special circumstances of sale means the massively variable taxes don't matter, like vending machines, concession stands and similar at many events, dudes opening up a card table on the streets selling random stuff etc (though he's probably not paying his proper sales tax on to the state anyway). Like there's no TV ads for "Texaco Gas, $3 a gallon" because gas prices have about a $1.50 range per gallon just within the lower 48,let alone what happens with Alaska or Hawaii gas, and that's not even just from the varying state fuel taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The price doesn't match the ad, though, it's just that you only get told about that when you pay for it, not when you look at it on the shelf? But the law does. What is so goddamn hard about this? OwlFancier posted:I mean my response to those would be that the first one illustrates the need for inclusive pricing on a national level if non inclusive pricing is, by the sellers' own admission, deceiving customers of the costs, while the second is a good argument for rounding up because coppers are annoying. You're calling a lot of people "idiots" when you're the one needing the same very simple concept explained to you fifty billion times. And it's "whom," genius. Can you pick a different basic fact of the world to throw a tantrum about? This one's incredibly boring. Got any strong feelings about gravity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
I suppose I don't see it as a fact of life as much as a fact of lovely government? Retail is an important public service and should be legally bound in accordance with that. If the law fails to provide that, the law is at fault. If the system of government can't provide a better law, it's a lovely system of government. National sales tax rates and national advertising laws should be standard. I see no reason to defend anything less, though I am prepared to be charitable and say that a halfway measure would still be a slight improvement. But yes sure discussing retail practice in this, the retail thread, is patently absurd. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I suppose I don't see it as a fact of life as much as a fact of lovely government? Demanding things to be simple because your thick head can't understand them isn't good policy and doesn't impress anyone. Tax rates are one of the most direct ways governments influence behavior. They are complex because we have over 300 million people in this country. Many of these people, like you, are stupid and pigheaded, yet we use our tax money to take care of you all the same. The only reason you can inflict your ignorance upon the rest of us is because of the taxpayer-funded R&D of the internet. If you really feel compelled to debate federalism you're going to need a time machine, because studies indicate that we've had states for 241 years now. Maybe you could move to a smaller country, if you could find one willing to put up with your tantys every time someone expects you to do math.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Isn’t OwlFancier is a Brit? That might explain the conceptual disconnect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Isn’t OwlFancier is a Brit? That might explain the conceptual disconnect. You seem to have misspelled "twat"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I suppose I don't see it as a fact of life as much as a fact of lovely government? But the law is already the best it can be given the situation? Since all the different taxes exist, we advertise standard prices and put them on the price tags. This way shoppers can reliably compare what the store charges them with other stores and any relevant ads. Additionally people already know their local sales tax and have easy reference to it in a store through customer service desks or cashiers. The system works perfectly well, which is why it's done both here and in Canada. Half measures would just introduce pointless confusion for the benefit of, frankly, a few random tourists and people who have never even set foot in the country. We already label as many products as possible with the tax included, including many things people buy on a daily basis. Also sales tax shouldn't exist in the first place, due to being a regressive tax that shakes down the poor so millionares can have another vacation a year. Any plans to make a federally unified sales tax should set it to 0% while keeping existing excise taxes. The sales tax revenue should come from additional progressively administered corporate and personal income and capital gains taxes. It is goddamn criminal how everywhere in the EU is required to have ridiculous 15%+ VAT rates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
I understand the position being explained perfectly well, I simply disagree with it because I have no patience for any law that is not consumer oriented. Though yes I would also prefer no sales tax and more income/corporation tax but if you're going to have it, not on the ticket is the worst way to have it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I understand the position being explained perfectly well, I simply disagree with it because I have no patience for any law that is not consumer oriented. Your entire meltdown is basically about the impossibility in your mind of ever remembering a single numerical fact about where you live. The rest of us don't have that problem. Not to brag but I walk around knowing several numbers every day. My phone number has ten of 'em! "The law" (thousands of laws, but let's not trigger another one of your episodes) is consumer-oriented, it just made a very bigoted-against-Owl-Fancier assumption that the consumer is not a moron. "Just remember it's 9.5% where you are." "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! REWRITE EVERY LAW IN THE NATION! YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME WITH MATH!" Edit: If you noticed what I edited I hope you have enjoyed laughing at me. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I understand the position being explained perfectly well, I simply disagree with it because I have no patience for any law that is not consumer oriented. The law as it stands now is consumer oriented, it makes it easy to compare prices regionwide and nationwide. Changing the prices in the store to include tax immediately makes any calculations you need to do for this harder, and introduces huge problems for truth in advertising laws on the actual advertising Also what do you mean not on the ticket?? The receipt always has it, and the local prevailing sales tax is always widely known and easily accessible to any person who is passing through or new in town. You keep thinking in a way that only makes sense in a small country where the tax is consistent 99% of the time from town to town. It would indeed be silly for the UK to abandon labeling in the tax, but only because you have essentially the one rate. And hell, most foreign broadcasts coming in won't even be in the same language or currency as your shops are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Now that brits are slightly less empowered to rape, murder, and enslave everyone else on earth they have to redirect those corrosive impulses towards telling other countries how to govern themselves. The entire world must rearrange itself for british comfort - rumpled corduroy slacks and unseasoned chicken for everyone!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You seem to have misspelled "twat" My sister is about to get walloped by Irma. I needed that laugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Truly the height of imperialism: disagreeing with tax law on the internet.fishmech posted:You keep thinking in a way that only makes sense in a small country where the tax is consistent 99% of the time from town to town. It would indeed be silly for the UK to abandon labeling in the tax, but only because you have essentially the one rate. And hell, most foreign broadcasts coming in won't even be in the same language or currency as your shops are. I'm afraid it still makes perfect sense to me for things to be labeled at their sale price in the store I'm in regardless of whether the store down the road might have a different one. Whatever the reason for that discrepancy might be. That's just the retail environment I want to shop in. I suppose it could be worse in that it could be one of those stores where they don't put prices on anything but that's a low bar to clear. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Truly the height of imperialism: disagreeing with tax law on the internet. But your disagreement makes no sense given the material circumstances - it is clearly better to handle the variances this way than any other way. People need to do comparison on cross jurisdiction basis routinely and this simplifies it. And the real solution would end the need to show the now abolished tax at all. Either way, you're not getting general merchandise with tax added to the price on the tag. OwlFancier posted:
They are already labeled at the sale price. Which is not the same as sale price plus tax. fishmech fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My sister is about to get walloped by Irma. I needed that laugh. Jesus, I hope she'll be okay. I have a friend organizing evac efforts if you need help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Jesus, I hope she'll be okay. I have a friend organizing evac efforts if you need help. She won't leave anyway. Been texting her to evacuate since Thursday. She has a pet with medical issues she can't (won't) take to a shelter. At least the eye isn't going to pass over Ft. Myers anymore. I'm more pissed about my parents. Dad was put into a we aren't closing keep working or you're fired situation. But my parents finally made it to a shelter late today. The major grocery chains deserve what they have coming. No loving need to keep a liquor store open until 5pm today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Truly the height of imperialism: disagreeing with tax law on the internet. These folks still use Imperial measurements and cheques, you're tilting at windmills.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
As an Australian you Americans defending your backwards wacky tax shenanigans sound completely loving insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That is true, but the difference is fairly small and sizes aren't that granular. I actually researched this for a school project way back in the day and the biggest variance I found was half an inch. Your clothes could easily vary that much just by stretching in wearing/shrinking in the wash anyway. I'm on team actual-measurements. Oh, yeah. I wasn't implying that's the reason behind a '36' that measures 41", just why you aren't going to get perfect consistency across sizes. And while I doubt couture made by robots is ever going to be a thing do the intricacies of making fitted clothes; I could see some sort of setup where you go in and get scanned for your measurements, and then a 3d printer spits out a manikin that tailors use as a guide to make you clothes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 07:38
|
|
