Isn't French brutal about that, where you're often required to move sounds from one word to another?

"Now, now, we're not saying you people have to reveal your reporters' names ... we're saying you're not people."

(Apologies to South Park freak show episode.)

Jim Hopper from Stranger Things.

If they comment on the Frosty from Wendy’s … God help them.

No no no, she didn't squeeze his testicles, she had her karate instructor mentor figure do it/Cobra Kai

Why is this something that's elected? What voter opinion would be relevant here?

"Oh yeah, I just love how Jack Johnson does accrual accounting, it really reflects the values of South Carolina. I mean, not the slavery stuff, but the good ones."

Edit: My state does it too, which also doesn't make sense.

… So the title is still oniony, and the subject is still hypocritical. What’s the problem again?

So it was always about doublethink. Gotcha.

Okay thanks for confirming you don't know what you're talking about -- would have saved time to say something like that before though.

What changed in terms of cartelization. "The pandemic is what changed" is consistent with the (more probable) supply shock explanation. Again, why not do it in e.g. 2009 when they could have "obfuscated" it with swine flu?

Again, they're always greedy. Why isn't competition restraining it this time?

That's the same thread, and didn't answer the question there either.

Edit: lol blocked for applying basic economics. You guys sure are thin-skinned.

That's not evidence of cartelization. Again, what changed so that they couldn't or wouldn't do this in 2018, or 2009, or ...?

Like I said, that doesn't work generally because of competition. If you have actual concrete evidence of cartelization, then you can cite the evidence of that.

I don't like appealing to "want to increase profits" as an explanation for price increases. They are always wanting to increase their profits, so it doesn't help explain any particular price surge.

Generally what stops arbitrary price increases is the fact that it draws competitors into the market. So if you see them succeeding in increasing profits, it's because said competitors can't or won't, and if they can't, then that's rightly called a legit supply shock.

Now, if there were actual cartel schemes to hold supply down (the "won't" branch), that would be a valid explanation for malevolent price increases, but even then, that mechanism should be what you're appealing to, not "lol greed".

Edit: Economically ignorant people in this thread, don't bother.

SVB collapsed because of their long-term Treasury bonds, not their conventionally-risk investments like startups or crypto.

When is this misconception going to die?

It’s a weaker burden in a civil case though, just “more likely than not”. So, if “we really can’t know” then we should assume the average response to flight terror, not the lowest.

*Glucose Guardian Appreciation Day

Reminds me of the time Brits were upset that some condiment's packaging still had Big Ben on it even after production moved to the Netherlands.

Agreed, law enforcement in the US likes to light up patrol cars like a goddamn Christmas tree [1]"for officer safety", but really they just create a massive distraction that increases the risk of collision or unnecessary slowdown.

[1] Even that's understating it, their lights are brighter than most xmas trees I've seen, even the lavish public ones.

Agreed, but, I mean, they use the same logic for other things, like alcoholism and kleptomania.

“Don’t you sheep realize that Big Ag has been on a century-long campaign to convince Americans there’s nothing wrong with heavy consumption of sugars?!?”

‘Cookie Monster, you’re not you when you’re hungry. Have a snickers.’

“C is for cookie and that’s good enough for me!”

>Wiktionary probably isn’t the most useful source of information here.

Okay but neither was the original parent.

From their link:

>Bailiffs are allowed to force their way into your home to collect unpaid criminal fines, Income Tax or Stamp Duty, but only as a last resort.

> If you do not let a bailiff in or agree to pay them:

> - they could take things from outside your home, for example your car > - you could end up owing even more money

That sounds like law enforcement powers.

It sounds like the difference is:

> If they are presenting themselves as police officers then it is very much to their advantage to do so, as people are much more likely to let them into their home, and generally to do what they’re told.

Which would have been nice to be told in the original comment so I couldn't figure out what subtlety distinguishes bailiffs from police officers.

Okay, sorry, I'm still lost here (USA), even after reading those links and the articles. From wiktionary, the UK meanings of bailiffs still show that they have law enforcement powers.

I don't understand what would make them more scary if perceived as "police officers" and what rights they could falsely dupe someone into believing, as police officers, that they would not be able to if correctly perceived as bailiffs.

Can you explain that part?

Edit: Like, from me, this reads as, "Drug Enforcement Agency agents impersonating FBI agents to confiscate drugs." Like, what? The agents have the same powers, and they'd be able to seize drugs as DEA already.

That's much less oniony.

Also, semi-related: I went to a Greek restaurant that added olive oil to ice cream. It's actually not bad!