I feel like that explanation is missing a verb or something.

Yeah, that’s the main blocker for me, too.

“So just uninstall Facebook.”

You literally can’t on the last two Samsung phones I’ve owned.

Probably because it seems to mostly be targeted at Chinese-Canadians on Chinese language platforms that are often hosted in China. Like good luck regulating what happens on Weixin/WeChat.

For stuff like radio and print based in Greater Vancouver, yeah maybe there are some levers to pull, if we could ever decide what exactly is not allowed.

Their prices stay lower, so if the person buying the laptop ships around even a little bit, they will likely buy from one of the non-affiliated sites.

So… I don’t think that’s necessarily how it works, at least not in aggregate. The first issue is the market capture you mention: Amazon has a sort of “soft” market capture-- you’re free to buy stuff from wherever, of course, but Amazon encourages customers to stay in their ecosystem, and also doesn’t permit sellers to set prices lower off-site for products that they list on Amazon (e.g. if they want to have a sale on their own website, that sale price must be reflected on Amazon, too). Those are some of the ways that Amazon exerts “soft” market control, which we both recognize is enough for algorithmic pricing to work.

Google also has this kind of “soft” market control… And they are generally much wider-reaching than Amazon. For instance: You suggested that people will “shop around.” How do people shop around? They probably use a search engine, and their search engine is probably Google. If Google was trying to interpret intent and guide their shopping decisions, why wouldn’t they privilege companies using “personalized pricing” in the search results, and bury non-participating competitors? Similar things already happen with ads. So when the user “shops around a little bit,” they are probably doing so in the context of the first page of Google results… Which, of course, Google is in control of.

Some people will clue in and search through other channels, or have retailers that they prefer, and visit directly… But many people will not bother/know to, just like they don’t bother/know to check CamelCamelCamel for Amazon price history to see what the algorithms are doing. Sometimes it’s lazy or complacent, but lots of the time they just don’t understand that it’s happening, or the degree to which it affects them.

It’s hard to tell exactly what to think about this… Like the story doesn’t mention anything about uncovering a CCP-sponsored media agency, or radio ads paid for by the CCP or any kind of credible threats against voters who vote “wrong…” It just says “These messages were amplified through repetition in social media, chat groups, posts and in Chinese language online, print and radio media throughout the [Greater Vancouver Area].”

Okay? Amplified by whom? Amplified how? It sounds like just normal run-of-the-mill political propaganda, and it isn’t even clear (from the article) that the CCP is even involved.

But then:

“According to Chinese Canadian interview subjects, this invoked a widespread fear amongst electors, described as a fear of retributive measures from Chinese authorities should a CPC government be elected,” the report says.

“This included the possibility that travel to and from China could be interfered with by Chinese authorities, as well as measures being taken against family members or business interests in China.”

So still, it’s kinda like… Well were threats actually made? But that’s the thing with authoritarianism-- People don’t need an explicit threat. They just need to know that somebody has tools of oppression and an opinion about how you should behave, and they might be paying attention to you.

Like how a mobster can get away with “that’s a nice family you’ve got there.” That’s not a threat, merely a friendly observation.

So it seems like the conclusion of the article just amounts to “well whatever it was, it doesn’t seem to be illegal,” which feels a little… Unresolved.

Uhh I dunno if there’s any salvaging that hypothetical, lol… But if bananas start costing $1 each, we’re in trouble.

And their customers (e.g. manufacturers, transportation providers) factor in both those price hikes and the carbon taxes that they themselves need to pay, and pass those costs on to their customers, and so forth until finally end consumers are paying for several rounds of carbon tax that’s priced into more expensive goods and services.

In many cases, there’s nowhere for market forces to displace the inefficiency, so things just get more expensive without changing supply chains much.

Thanks… Yeah that makes sense. I can understand that sometimes the trade-off would make dumping fuel the right choice… I just wonder if the environmental impact factor in.

60% seems pretty good though? Like 40% for everyone else still sounds like alot of garlic to go around.

This is the most parsimonious hypothesis so far.

You don’t think companies would opt into letting Google manage “dynamic pricing” for them on a per-user basis? Travel sites already offer this for airlines after you signal intent, such as a destination and date range… And sellers on Amazon already use tools like Sellery to algorithmically reprice items without human supervision. Some products change price hundreds of times per day as a result.

Big retailers like Walmart are trying to make “personalized pricing” work, which tries to anticipate price tolerance based on past shopping behavior on an individual basis.

So it’s not a stretch at all IMO to imagine Google offering a “personalized pricing” service that you can install on any website, right under the script tag for Google Analytics. Or Amazon, or Walmart, or whoever-- They all have mountains of data on us.

I don’t understand Jim’s deal. He wanted to charge our protagonist MORE money per bulb than he would charge someone buying less garlic? Why?

Was it a deeply shortsighted, cynical attempt to turn a quick buck? Was Jim weirded out by the dynamic forming with TokyoSunbather and was trying to put some distance between them? Was there some sort of subtle dynamic occurring where TokyoSunbather would take the best bulbs and leave only shitty ones behind, and that was causing subsequent customers to perceive Jim’s stock as low-quality, thereby negatively affecting his reputation?

I don’t understand. Something is missing. TokyoSunbather is either holding something back, or is overlooking a key detail. Either way I want to know. It doesn’t make sense. Jim doesn’t make sense. What is the missing piece I need to know.

You know, I knew from the other comment what to expect, but the picture still caught me off guard and cracked me up.

Let me know if you find out lol

it all worked out

ARGH DON’T JINX IT

Interesting. How do you find that out?

And in fact, they never did.

Mine is that, except they DON’T complain. Like when someone is showing me a YouTube video on their device and an ad shows up 30 seconds in… I lunge for the mute button while I scan the room for a blanket, clipboard, or other item to shield us, yelling “AVERT YOUR EYES!!” but next to all of my commotion, they’re just nodding along placidly like “Oh Coinbase, interesting.”

Like… Aren’t you affronted that some company paid another company to make it less convenient to do the thing you’re trying to do?! Does the gaudy, pushy tone change to too-loud propaganda designed to coax you away from your money not gall you?!

“Idk sometimes the ads are interesting. Free month sounds good.”

Jesus christ he’s too far gone.

So does “dump fuel” literally mean “sprinkle a large volume of jet fuel over a large swathe of countryside?” Does it become diffuse enough that the environmental impact is negligible, or do we get a big splash that kills everything in an AoE?

Like… I’m surprised the fuel cost is the focus here, and not the environmental impact of releasing jet fuel just… into the air I guess? But maybe it doesn’t work the way I’m picturing.