Supermarket's don't produce anything. They buy stuff from distributors or producers and then resell it. Are you suggesting supermarkets you go to are buying things for x and then selling it for 4*x, or are you suggesting that they buy it for x and then sell for (x+c)*4 where c is a proportional amount of all their other costs?

I'm talking about profit margins which subtract out all their costs. Everything I can find says that grocery stores typically operate on 1%-3% profit margins. Nowhere near the absurd rate you're suggesting.

What supermarket products have a 300% profit margin? Remember, profit is after all costs. A 300% markup is not the same thing as 300% profit.

Yes, I know profit margins are a thing. But my question is whether those margins are reasonable, compared to other kinds of products (say 5%-15%), or is it almost entirely profit, (like does it only cost them like $50 to make). That's why I said "even close".

I wonder if Chanel No. 5 is even close to that expensive to produce or if it's entirely just an exclusivity thing.

I find that typically the fastest and most direct routes are not on the main path at all.

It's easy, just stick to confirmation bias and never remember all times you played and lost. You'll win every time!

And you just know that a dude that does wipe doesn't wash his asshole either.

That's just the decoy key put there to ensure you don't bother looking for the equally dumbly placed key under the rock right next to the door.

>*in a classical universe; not sure whether GR or QFT impact this statement.

Yeah, I would assume that the permeating presence of the electromagnetic field as represented in QFT would alleviate the need for there to be a magnetic monopole.

I'm disappointed that the robots being made are not the same kind of robots making the robots.

Pretty sure it's happening from their fingernails.

Didn't say a virtue ethicist can't consider the system, just that only a virtue ethicist could get away with not considering the system and remain consistent.

>you'll live in a world where the unlikely never happens

No, I'm living in a world where there is a wide range of probabilities and where I'm taking into account all available data instead of just basing the probabilities on a single factor. We had mountains of polling data both before and after the democratic primaries on people's willingness to vote for Obama, and it was far from impossible. But after he won the democratic primary, the conditional probability for him winning shoots way up.

You're living in some weird world where there's only one degree of "unlikely". If something has less than a 50% chance of happening, it's "unlikely". Sure, maybe Obama had a less than 50% chance of winning. But any third party candidate has less than a 0.000000005% chance of winning. It's not just "unlikely" it's "implausible", it's "nearly impossible", or in colloquial terms it is impossible.

If you wanna bank of nearly impossible outcomes because they might happen, go buy lottery tickets.

>that helped us figure out who would win in 2016?

Yes, it helped us know that no third party candidate had any chance of winning. And it helped us know that both the R and D candidate had a reasonable chance of winning.

>how are people supposed to know in advance of the election that they are voting for losers?

Because we have past data on voting patterns. We have countless examples of third party candidates failing to get even a single electoral vote. We also have plenty of survey data and mountains of other evidence that points to the fact that many voters just vote for whoever has the R next their name every time or whoever has the D next to their name every time. We do have evidence that there are voters who aren't fixed in their voting patterns, and who sometimes vote R, sometimes vote D, and sometimes vote third party; but these non-fixed voters do not represent a large enough proportion of voters to be able to elect a third party on their own. So, we KNOW with very high certainty that in order to win, you MUST win either the voters that only vote D or the voters that only vote R, while also capturing some of the voters that aren't fixed. Therefore, we can rightly conclude that any non-R or non-D candidate has virtually zero chance of winning; more surely than one's chances of winning the powerball.

No. You're speaking in absolutes when the person you replied to said "no chance", which means near zero probability. Because you don't know the outcome ahead of time, but you can still reasonably predict no third party candidate will win. Hillary did have a chance. Indeed, she won the popular vote.

You're trying to weirdly pretend like we both:

A) don't have any predictive power about the likelihood of a third party candidate winning.

B) Have complete predictive power about who will win between the two main candidates.

But we have neither of those. We do know that no third party candidate has any chance of winning. And we do know that both of the candidates from the main two parties have a reasonable shot at winning, but that it will be close, and therefore voting for one of the main two does stand a shot at affecting the outcome.

Voting third party only makes sense in a different voting system like ranked choice. The Nash Equillibrium for a first past the post, single vote system where we have access to limited information about voting patterns of others and engage in repeated elections is for two dominant groups/parties/candidates to emerge that vie for control. Go learn some game theory.

The thing keeping third parties from being relevant is the voting system itself. One cannot sanely advocate for third parties without first advocating changing the voting system itself to something else that would allow for the relevance of third parties like some kind of ranked choice voting. The Nash Equilibrium for a first past the post, single vote system where voters have some information about past and current voting patterns is a two party/candidate hegemony.

Voting lesser of two evils is a strategy induced by the voting system itself and the fact that you know something about how others will vote. That this article doesn't even talk about the system is silly. I don't know how anyone can expect to work out the ethics of actions within a system without considering the structure of the system.

Except for perhaps under virtue ethics. Maybe there you don't need to consider the structure of the system, and you can not vote for the lesser of two evils. But almost no one subscribes to virtue ethics cause it's dumb.

Would have to be longer specifically within the right temperature and pressure range, but yes.

It's not about the lasers being accurate, it's about the vision system used to recognize the weeds, and rye was close enough to wheat and barley to fool human eyes at least some of the time.

But we've only had to resort to this because the weeds are becoming resistant to the chemicals. This is just gonna cause the weeds to adapt to look more like wheat so they don't get lasered by the robot. Do you want rye? Because that's how you get rye.

(no joke, it's thought that due to early human farmers pulling weeds out of their crops of wheat and barley, rye evolved to look more like wheat and barley, and thus reducing its chance of being spotted and pulled. But eventually, it was so much like wheat and barley that it was a good enough crop to grow and harvest on its own)

I have an aunt who named all her kids "Jo-".

Now, if only the museums in the UK could take a hint.

Yeah, from the title I thought this was gonna be another one of those "capitalism is fucked, but here's a reframing to make the situation seem heartwarming" like all those stories about gofundme's being fulfilled for live saving medical procedures, teachers giving up their own PTO for another teacher who ran out because they had to miss so much work for chemo, or like some 8 year old selling lemonade to make money to give to homeless people. Thought this was gonna be like "9 months pregnant firefighter forced to be on the job fighting fires because her county doesn't allow any maternity leave".