|
Morbus posted:Wow that's a novel idea what will you guys think of next Butthurt American spotted. You people need to fix your consumer protection laws eternally stuck in the stone ages yourselves.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
there wolf posted:Everything I've see that's "robot makes shirt" has been the usual robotic arms doing what human arms do, but slower, and with less dexterity. In my head, true robot-made-clothes is going to involve an automation process that completely re-engineers clothing construction the way sewing machines re-engineered how to make a stitch. Textile manufacturing in New England was based somewhat around the concept of making stitching that machines could do instead of duplicating human methods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
i am immensely obese but only from the waist up, i have long elegant legs and look like a plum impaled on a pair of chopsticks
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:i am immensely obese but only from the waist up, i have long elegant legs and look like a plum impaled on a pair of chopsticks hell 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Butthurt American spotted. You people need to fix your consumer protection laws eternally stuck in the stone ages yourselves. It's cute that the yank mentioned Tesco and missed this: https://www.tesco.com/scan-as-you-shop/
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
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? Is there somebody doing made-to-measure for a price now? I'd be in the market. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Kerbtree posted:It's cute that the yank mentioned Tesco and missed this: https://www.tesco.com/scan-as-you-shop/ And Safeways were doing that over here in the UK 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
ellspurs posted:And Safeways were doing that over here in the UK 20 years ago. Sainsburys have been rolling it out, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Is there somebody doing made-to-measure for a price now? I'd be in the market. MTM men's suits and shirts have been A Thing for uhhh, Quite A While. As far as being able to do it online, still been a thing for a while (within the last decade or so). There are also a couple of MTM leather jacket makers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Butthurt American spotted. You people need to fix your consumer protection laws eternally stuck in the stone ages yourselves. Pls someone protect me from having to multiply by 0.1 in a base 10 number system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Noctone posted:You must not get out much, this isn't even remotely true about Denver. Actually I spend quite a bit of time outside in Valverde, Barnum, Harvey Park, and Westwood, which are - surprise, surprise - suburbs of Denver and the most Latino and Asian neighborhoods in the city. I work with a non-profit that helps those neighborhoods get the tree cover they deserve by providing free trees and tree care service to poor neighborhoods. Nice try though, tiger. call to action fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Butthurt American spotted. You people need to fix your consumer protection laws eternally stuck in the stone ages yourselves. Weird how you think making ads not coincide with prices protects the consumer, but ok. Kerbtree posted:It's cute that the yank mentioned Tesco and missed this: https://www.tesco.com/scan-as-you-shop/ Is that meant to be impressive? I haven't been to a supermarket without it in at least 10 years, and there still plenty that had it in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Noctone posted:MTM men's suits and shirts have been A Thing for uhhh, Quite A While. As far as being able to do it online, still been a thing for a while (within the last decade or so). There are also a couple of MTM leather jacket makers. I literally bought a suit for prom online, cut to measure, in 2002.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Pls someone protect me from having to multiply by 0.1 in a base 10 number system. I was referring to the whole "declaration of price per unit" thing. But no, multiplying by 0.1 in a base 10 number system won't get you the exact price you're going to pay at the till in most places. And it doesn't explain why the current situation is preferable, anyways. fishmech posted:Weird how you think making ads not coincide with prices protects the consumer, but ok. Yes, I care about "prices", not what I'm actually going to pay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:I was referring to the whole "declaration of price per unit" thing. But no, multiplying by 0.1 in a base 10 number system won't get you the exact price you're going to pay at the till in most places. And it doesn't explain why the current situation is preferable, anyways. So you want consumers to have no idea what the price will be until they go into a store. Got it. Doesn't seem very consumer-friendly to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:I was referring to the whole "declaration of price per unit" thing. But no, multiplying by 0.1 in a base 10 number system won't get you the exact price you're going to pay at the till in most places. The whole joke I made earlier was that the task of adding up the price of items in your basket is at least as involved as the task of figuring out the sales tax. And yes, multiplying by 1.10 won't get you the exact price. But neither will adding up the listed (~*~tax inclusive~*~) price of the items in your basket unless you do it exactly, which nobody does. And anyway, if you know your sales tax is 7%, that's just halfway between 10% and 5% which are both trivial to calculate. The point is that some degree of rough mental arithmetic is taken for granted if you want to figure the price of what you are buying. Whether you include or don't include the tax has a trivial impact on the overall amount of arithmetic that is required. And anyway, most of the time you either aren't paying in cash, or if you are it isn't even close to exact change. I swear people from the UK complaining about sales tax in the U.S. is like the British version of Americans complaining about separate hot and cold water taps. It's a trivial non issue that people get riled up about for some reason. It's hilarious and depressing that you can almost 100% guaranteed get a more passionate discussion going about the inclusion of sales tax in a price tag than you can about the far more important issue of whether there should be a sales tax in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So you want consumers to have no idea what the price will be until they go into a store. Got it. Doesn't seem very consumer-friendly to me. You are deriving this argument from the premise that the price of an item is the number on the label and not the amount of money you pay, which is not a premise others accept. If the price is the amount of money you pay, then what you're describing isn't a new problem created by putting the amount of money you pay on the label, it's a problem which already exists that simply would not be fixed by changing the labelling rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, it's different for guys. Very very different. A typical women's store might order 30 pairs of size 0 pants and four pairs of size 10. This is the normal way purchasing is done in women's apparel retail. 'OK, 80% of our customers buy these sizes, but corporate wants those sizes to be 10% of what we stock. How do we fix this?' It's not like it stops clearance racks from being mostly populated by XS/S/XXL, though. I wonder what bean counters keep seeing that and going "hmm yes, we're stocking stores correctly to maximize sales."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:I have to wonder how much responsibility that has for vanity sizing. It might be part of it, but the fall-off is so sharp it doesn't really explain things. If you're really an 8 but wear size 6 at this store there still aren't going to be hardly any "sixes" compared to the "twos" (fours) and "zeros" (twos). I wonder about the clearance rack thing too, but I think it's evidence of perverse incentives. I know at some point in the clearance rack life cycle things get bundled off to be foisted on low-income people in other countries, so there might be a tax-writeoff at that point. But mostly I think the tiny sizes are there in the vain hope of attracting more willowy shoppers so the store can be "cool."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
From the sound of it, the clothing market might be vulnerable to completely loving imploding overnight once a less Kafkaesque alternative makes itself available. Which would probably bring about the mallpocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
When ever I go shopping I have a hard time finding smalls, everything's always giant. And this is at "nice" department stores. It's hard to ever take advantage of sales or clearance stuff because it's always XXL-Tall or all the unfitted poo poo no one wants. I just want a small fitted shirt but they sell out super fast leaving only the dumpy unfitted cuts left, and usually in larger sizes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:You are deriving this argument from the premise that the price of an item is the number on the label and not the amount of money you pay, which is not a premise others accept. If the price is the amount of money you pay, then what you're describing isn't a new problem created by putting the amount of money you pay on the label, it's a problem which already exists that simply would not be fixed by changing the labelling rules. The price of the item is the price of the item, something that is standard across multiple tax jurisidictions. That's also what will be in advertising. The tax is a seperate variable that changes wildly from place to place, and people in each place know what their tax is. You can't "change the labeling rules" and fix this, because you either need to list impractically many prices (I already posted a map showing how moving over just 21 miles in and around Philly, you get 5 completely different tax rates ranging from 0% to 8%) or you need to make it legal for advertising to lie about the prices by allowing them to only advertise the one price. I'm not sure why you people have such a hard time grasping this concept. It would be far less consumer friendly for the advertised prices to not match shelf prices, and it would also be less consumer friendly as well as impractical to list all the possible valid tax-included prices, which for a national product goes into hundreds of unique valid tax-included prices. That's we don't do tax-included on things that get advertised with prices, morons, we only do it with things that never get advertised with prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:From the sound of it, the clothing market might be vulnerable to completely loving imploding overnight once a less Kafkaesque alternative makes itself available. Which would probably bring about the mallpocalypse. I doubt that would ever happen, because almost nothing about the clothing industry is about fit or even quality, and clothing plays such a huge part in how the world perceives us. We're going to run aground on exclusively-homosocial goons going "well I never noticed that problem so it must be made up!" soon, but women are socially and professionally censured if they don't dress "right." So magic internet robot clothing wouldn't just have to work and be affordable, it would have to be socially advantageous to wear. If there's too much marketing emphasis on comfort or on fitting non-model bodies, wearing recognizably robot-made clothing would just mean you "aren't making an effort." The mall is -pocalypsing just fine on its own though, because of the oft-discussed "people don't have enough money anymore to want to waste it on ugly useless crap" issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
All I know is that I love it when I'm in europe and I see something marked 120 euros and to pay for it I need to give them 120 euros and I don't understand why we can't do that here when seemingly every other country on earth lists prices on products as the actual amount of money you'll need to purchase the item. They're usually nice round numbers too so you can have cash in hand right at the till. I've shopped in both systems and vastly prefer when the price listed is the price you pay at the till. I actually have no idea what any of my local taxes are, they change, it depends on the type of product. All I know is that it's going to be "a bit more" than what the tag says and will generally be some very not nice round number. The tag says $120 but there's 7% tax so now it's $128.4, but there's another 5% tax so it's $134.4 plus a $4.42 electronics recycling fee and if you want want a bag that's 10 cents too. The final price at the till is always a bit of a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:All I know is that I love it when I'm in europe and I see something marked 120 euros and to pay for it I need to give them 120 euros and I don't understand why we can't do that here when seemingly every other country on earth lists prices on products as the actual amount of money you'll need to purchase the item. They're usually nice round numbers too so you can have cash in hand right at the till. I've shopped in both systems and vastly prefer when the price listed is the price you pay at the till. Well "why we can't do that here" has been explained for several pages now so if you still don't understand that's really not anyone's problem but yours. We aren't going to abolish truth in advertising laws just to get you out of learning one math problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Canada doesn't have the fractured tax problem like the US though. It's only 10 provinces and most of them have nearly identical sales tax rates. If 51 countries in europe can have properly listed prices in-store I'm sure 10 provinces could figure it out. I'm sure there's a million reasons why north america is just too exceptional to have true prices listed on the stickers in stores or on restaurant menus, but if all the member countries of the EU with their differing VAT rates can figure it out so could we. But a lot of people don't want to figure it out, don't want it to change. I always assumed those were just retailers wanting to advertise prices far lower than what you'll actually have to pay. but I guess some north american consumers seem to actually prefer it. I vastly prefer the system most of the rest of the world manages to use despite also having differing sales tax rates from location to location, but that's just me. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:All I know is that I love it when I'm in europe and I see something marked 120 euros and to pay for it I need to give them 120 euros and I don't understand why we can't do that here when seemingly every other country on earth lists prices on products as the actual amount of money you'll need to purchase the item. They're usually nice round numbers too so you can have cash in hand right at the till. I've shopped in both systems and vastly prefer when the price listed is the price you pay at the till. You can't do that in Canada because you guys also have massively varying taxes across the many jurisdictions. I mean your federal government has tried to get all provinces, territories, etc to hew to that one federal rate that totals to 15%, but that's only succeeded in full in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Canada doesn't have the fractured tax problem like the US though. It's only 10 provinces and most of them have nearly identical sales tax rates. If 51 countries in europe can have properly listed prices in-store I'm sure 10 provinces could figure it out. Canada has a tiny fraction of America's population, you loving idiot. Seriously, every single problem you are having in this conversation is because you were apparently eating lead paint when you were supposed to be in math class. "IF LICHTENSTEIN CAN DO IT WHY CAN'T WE??" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
lol at implying that Americans would be incapable of accurately pricing products like the machines that print out the prices can't solve some kind of gigantic problem like tax rates differing in locales tbh poe's law is kinda kicking in for me though so plz dont be mad if that post is sarcastic
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Canada has a tiny fraction of America's population, you loving idiot. Seriously, every single problem you are having in this conversation is because you were apparently eating lead paint when you were supposed to be in math class. Calm the gently caress down you raging lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol at implying that Americans would be incapable of accurately pricing products like the machines that print out the prices can't solve some kind of gigantic problem like tax rates differing in locales So then the prices don't match the ads... which is illegal in some places flat out, and goes against expectations in the rest of the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol at implying that Americans would be incapable of accurately pricing products like the machines that print out the prices can't solve some kind of gigantic problem like tax rates differing in locales There's never a discussion long-running or clearly-explained enough that some goon won't take a quick break from jacking off to anime tits to chime in and completely miss something that's been discussed several times over already. The issue is advertising, stickypalms. You know that word that's been in most of the posts on this topic? The thing that fishmech has taken time out of his busy trainspotting schedule to explain repeatedly, using progressively smaller words? Advertising. Ask an adult to help you sound out the word. Ad ver tis ing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
There's a provision in the deceptive pricing code that accounts for regional differences, so it's not at all clear to me that this is an insurmountable problem. quote:(g) On the other hand, a manufacturer or other distributor who does business on a large regional or national scale cannot be required to police or investigate in detail the prevailing prices of his articles throughout so large a trade area. If he advertises or disseminates a list or preticketed price in good faith (i.e., as an honest estimate of the actual retail price) which does not appreciably exceed the highest price at which substantial sales are made in his trade area, he will not be chargeable with having engaged in a deceptive practice. Even if not, are you two really trying to argue that it would be impossible to make an item advertised at 500$ ring up as 500$ if the tax was included on the sticker? It is not a difficult math problem and it doesn't seem any more complicated than the system you've already been describing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:01
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:There's never a discussion long-running or clearly-explained enough that the some goon won't take a quick break from jacking off to anime tits to chime in and completely miss something that's been discussed several times over already. What part of this horseshit is even remotely helpful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:There's a provision in the deceptive pricing code that accounts for regional differences, so it's not at all clear to me that this is an insurmountable problem. So wait, you want the item that's $500 to still be advertised at $500, ring up on the receipt as $500, but be on the shelf for say $540? Do you not see how this is a bit insane and isn't helping anything? How is this supposed to help anyone that can't handle the current system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:There's a provision in the deceptive pricing code that accounts for regional differences, so it's not at all clear to me that this is an insurmountable problem. This is more relevant to actual tag differences, usually a result of logistics e.g. Alaska, not a difference between tax. It is impossible as resale in a heavier taxed area (which once again can be across a street) would have to take the hit on their bottom line. To reject this you must reject allowing municipalities and states to set their own taxes which is not going to happen in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
bloodysabbath posted:What part of this horseshit is even remotely helpful? NFS is about as stupid as you are, if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So wait, you want the item that's $500 to still be advertised at $500, ring up on the receipt as $500, but be on the shelf for say $540? Do you not see how this is a bit insane and isn't helping anything?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:What? Why would it be 540$? Because the sales tax is 8%? Aren't you complaining that the sales tax isn't included on the price tag now? $500 item with 8% sales tax, that's $540.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:NFS is about as stupid as you are, if that helps. OH YEAH GOONLORD?! WHY DON'T YOU GO JERK OFF TO WAIFU TITS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY MATERIAL THAT IS YOUR NAMESAKE?! (Apologies in advance if this is considered untoward, the continued tolerance of TB's bullshit led me to believe this sort of thing flies here.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:15
|
|