You see that everywhere. Even within countries that aren’t classed as developing nations. The UK massively shot itself in the foot with the disaster that was Brexit thanks to nationalistic propaganda and outright lies from campaigners, and US liberals have faced “anti-American” backlash for their views.
To be fair, every country believes their culture is superior in some way, partly because it’s beneficial for governments to instil a sense of nationalism in its citizens. India’s not alone in that.
Case 3 is one separate text string containing the words ‘Complete or Cancelled’ (hence the quotes).
Cheers yeah, that is standard usually. I was just having a whinge rather than asking for a solution. In this case the customer was trying to preempt having to complete a change request form (similar to what you’ve described) and get the relevant sign off etc, and had emailed over a “minor alteration” to an existing request, for which they should know better at this stage of the project.
I’ve been a SQL dev for years. Last week I spent half an hour reading up on why wrapping a bunch of queries in a transaction was giving me incorrect results compared to when they were separate committed statements. I was investigating locking or what might be happening in the execution plan that was throwing it off.
Turns out I just fucked up the where clause. I didn’t even consider the schoolboy stuff. This kind of shit happens all the time.
If it was serious they didn’t mean it, and if they did it was a parody, and if it was we didn’t understand it, and if we did it wasn’t funny, but thank fuck mean orange man gone.
None of the messages that were sent to people have appeared in the chat history for that person. Except there are two new chats in her messages to people that she doesn’t know, containing only the rogue message.
Interestingly, her entire chat history with me has been wiped.
Yeah, no question
This is likely the best explanation, although there’s plenty of highly physical/athletic sports that are popular in hot countries. Football, arguably the most athletically demanding team sport, is popular in a bunch of places where I’d rather stay in the shade with a beer.
Mate, football and cricket are mandatory in those same schools, you absolute ring binder.
And 2 million people in England are registered players. That’s 3.5% of the population. That’s just official registered players, not even fans. Your comment is absurd.
Rugby isn’t popular in England? Are you mad?
How would this be possible? How would an individual employed by a company withhold tax from their wages, if they’re paid net? Surely it would need 100,000 self-employed or businesses themselves to withhold tax from HMRC?
Yes I’m aware of this, I’m just saying that arbitrarily speculating on the potential original price for 1 item does nothing to change the current actual situation. If the cost was £10 for 1, I wouldn’t have bothered taking a photo.
Alternatively you could take the viewpoint that Next has already worked out that the price of 1 shirt is a minimum of £8, hence the costings for multiple units. Any price they put over £8 for 1 unit is additional profit, while the expected revenue per unit is £8+n where n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.
Additionally, the 2x and 3x offerings are not, and were never, discounted. The sticker reduces the price of 1 shirt, but if you were in the market for two, there’s no saving based on when you buy them. There might have been a saving originally, we assume, against the cost of buying 1 twice, but that’s irrelevant if you want two shirts at any point. Obviously the pricing would have been to incentivise the purchase of two when you would potentially only have bought one, so that is the driver for the sale, at which point the price per shirt is £8, and remains £8 per shirt for any multiple purchase, both before and after the sticker price amendment.
Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.
Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting was solved. You’re positing scenarios whereas I’m presenting facts - the photo. Which, for the consumer, is mildly infuriating.
Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.
There is no curve.
Does it though? The moment 2x is £16 , the cost of 1 shirt is £8. Therefore there’s no scaling at 3x. It doesn’t matter how much the starting price was or how much the later prices were, if the 2x price is £16 and the 3x price is £24. The cost of 1 shirt is only ever £8 if you buy more than one, meaning that any pricing variant over 2x is pointless.
That’s why we take no chances and mow them down with blue light vehicles.
Police car repeatedly rams escaped calf