Reviewing the article, it describes Loblaw, Sobeys, and Metro as the "three largest" firms accounting for grocery conglomerates, which implies there are other firms in the grocery industry up there. Since there is more than one parent firm, this describes–at worst, an oligopoly. Oligopolies do exert control over prices by virtue of the few suppliers in the market, but their price-setting isn't monopolistic.
To the first point you've mentioned, my argument is towards support of price-discrimination, and not monopolies. The article does indeed demonstrate third-degree price discrimination (same product, different store/market segment, different price), but I did not try to connect these two.
To the second point, the reason for there to be an oligopolistic market is the natural result of an industry that has the kinds of barriers-to-entry that a grocery store seems like it might have: the substantial investment required to purchase the initial inventory, the real estate, and the labor costs.
With respect to Canadian consumer protections, I have no input.
When this happens to me, I pick out the most obvious thing in the general direction my partner has pointed and say something about it, like “wow, that is a lot of trees!”
Makes my partner immediately explain what they saw, and I remind them that they’ve got to be specific. It’s gotten better.
There are some arguments and scenarios which support price discrimination, OP's article is a prime example. Price discrimination encourages firms to sell more output (at all levels), which enables more customers to purchase goods at each of their willingnesses-to-pay. The natural consequence is, yes, the producer captures more profit. This seems ideal if we are to accept the theory of a capitalist economy.
Monopolies do exert a great deal of control over price and therefore price discrimination to the detriment of the market, but reasonably competitive firms also have some influence over price in ways that are supplemental to the market.
You may (or may not) be surprised to learn that modern jet liners have much higher glide ratios than small planes (like a Cessna 172), though even the glide ratio of a Cessna is pretty damn good at about 9:1, getting 9,000 feet horizontally for every 1,000 feet of altitude.
All pilots are trained in engine-out procedures as part of their license training and, while unequivocally an emergency condition, is fairly benign until it’s time to land—preferably on a suitable landing surface.
Face your fear and go on a discovery flight with a flight instructor at your local municipal airport.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal. lt;[ They are here]
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
I used to have two separate note systems, a journal and linear academic notes. Journal was always free-form and digital; academic notes started on paper using the Cornell method and moved to digital a couple of years ago.
Very recently I’ve moved to a digital Zettelkasten via Obsidian.md and I’ve basically combined the two, previously separate, systems.
Journal type entries are still kept generally segregated from my Zettels, but cross-linking can now happen.
My specific speed at digital note-taking has always been good, but what was lacking before was the a ability to backlink, which is a substantial strength in Obsidian.
Imagine your own personal Wikipedia for the bits of knowledge relevant only to you. That’s Obsidian. If you need a framework, that’s Zettelkasten.
But to answer your additional questions, I take notes to reference and retain. I’ve never been able to trust my complete memory recall, but I can usually recall a cue or keyword. With notes, especially digital notes, a cue or keyword search will get me right to what was on the edge of my mind. This has been especially helpful as I work on my undergrad, and as I move into the portion of my undergrad requiring more research, I anticipate large dividends from my Zettelkasten.
Adding phrases to become law which have nothing to do with the scope and intention of the overall bill, and are generally wild additions that have no hope of passing on their own.
Sometimes they’re added to intentionally bog down a bill so it won’t pass. The riders are used as a sort of narcissistic bargaining chip in political “negotiation”.
That’s how they started out. In 2007 I had the seven-at-a-time package because my wife and I would watch a movie a night. Shipping took 3-4 days, so by the time I got to number 7, I’d have only had it for 3 or four days before it went straight back into the mailbox.
It was a different time. As fast as things were starting to go, in retrospect it was all still pretty slow.
Conceptually I mean some structure large enough to do something with respect to a star. Yes, it is different literally, but not in the sense I was trying to refer.
667 @ 667 @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 77Joined 2 yr. ago
This is exactly that episode of Black Mirror. The use case is different, but the concept is identical.