Target/Walmart/BestBuy. They both have fast shipping options as well as store pickup. Sometimes (if you live somewhere more rural) they have _faster_ shipping times than Amazon.
Walmart / Home Depot / Lowes / Kroger are generally going to beat Amazon on quickest delivery for most people for most items, if they want to, by virtue of their local brick and mortar footprint.
One reason I imagine Amazon pushed so hard for short delivery times was knowing eventually their legacy peers would leverage this against them.
Not to mention a long delivery time gives people more opportunity to simply go to the store and get something, while they’re out running other errands.
I live in a well populated suburban area. If I’m willing to actually leave my house, I can get most things much faster than Amazon can deliver them. This also helps keep those local businesses running, so shipping doesn’t become the only option in the future.
Coming from Claude Code, I initially went with opencode but switched to pi.dev after a while and I think I like it more. It's lighter weight. It's worth trying both.
In 2003, my first burn, I camped next to embassy around 7:30 and esplanade. One of the guys in my camp brought a VoIP phone and connected it to whatever internet was available at the time. The phone was a lifeline for many people, back in the days when communicating from the playa was incredibly hard.
Your version is way cooler. Thanks for bringing a little magic to the playa.
I'm seriously considering just ordering two of these and taking them into the office. My only fear is that someone else will feel slighted thinking I got special monitors, even though I bought them myself.
If you want to buy a smartwatch for your kids, or you want to have your kids wear something you can track, but them an Apple Watch SE. It has cellular and GPS, you can call them, you can see where they are, but they can't do much with it besides call you (and people you approve) and text people on an approved list.
It's private, it's secure, and it works with the stuff you already have.
But note that when you set it up in guardian/child mode, Apple - not your service provider - blocks it from international roaming.
Nice little Easter egg for you to only discover when you travel to a different country with your kid, or for your kid to discover alone when they travel! A family size surprise of the worst kind!
It works if you get a local sim card. The hardware is there. Just not allowed to roam.
FWIW, you can plug your iPhone into an external monitor to do a Keynote presentation. You need a USB-C (or Lightning) to HDMI dongle in most cases, but it works fine.
I'm always reluctant to do non-standard stuff for presentations. There's enough that can go wrong even with a direct HDMI out. I've done it in a pinch but pretty much always carry a laptop with me when I'm presenting along with local copies of my presentations. I've actually gotten a text in the middle of the night asking me if I can fill in for another speaker who forgot and are in a different country :-)
In California at least (I'm not sure about Florida law), you can go to court and state "the state hasn't proved that I was the driver," and if the photos are too blurry to show who the driver was, the state loses. You don't have to tell them who the driver was, just show that they don't have enough evidence that it was you. I believe this approach is more consistent with the constitution.[1]
There have been cases of benzene being detected in sunscreen. It's not an intentional ingredient, just one that is common in industrial manufacturing. I don't think that's what the parent was worried about though.
No, benzene was specifically what I was thinking of to the point that I assumed it was so well known that it wasn't question as being a thing any more. Just like asbestos in baby powder
That’s thankfully no longer really a thing - the world has realised that there is no such thing as asbestos-free talc, so baby powder is now mostly corn-starch AFAICT.
Okay, and? If you can’t see a difference in benzene as a byproduct vs an ingredient people lather in their skin and rub in sold as a way to protect against skin cancer while giving you chances of a different cancer as something totally different, then your being deliberately obtuse and not contributing to this conversation in any meaningful way.
As long as they spend so much on marketing, it's hard to believe them when they say the only way they can recoup their R&D investments is to charge high prices.
- *For many large pharmaceutical companies ("Big Pharma"), marketing costs often exceed R&D spending.* In analyses of the top 10 drugmakers by revenue in 2020, 7 companies spent more on sales and marketing than on research and development. For example, Johnson & Johnson spent $22 billion on marketing compared to $12 billion on R&D; Bayer spent $18 billion on marketing vs. $8 billion on R&D[1][2].
- The combined marketing spend for these top 10 companies exceeded R&D by $36 billion (about 37%) in 2020[1][2].
Imagine how much cheaper healthcare could be if the US simply banned direct to consumer drug advertising.
Surely that's something that would be easier to get bipartisan support for, somewhat avoiding the "socialism vs capitalism" chasm between the parties that prevents meaningful healthcare reform.
If this bill passes[1] that's exactly what could happen. It won't, because this regime is irredeemably corrupt and controls all four branches of government, but it could.
The best piece of writing about the Economist you've ever read is a piece by an author who admits that "until last week, I had not read The Economist since high school"? This is the author whose opinion on the Economist you trust?
I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold.
It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
> I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold.
I strongly disagree. Well reasoned means nothing if it is not based on anything real except own imagination. And it means nothing if it was not checked against reality.
Our tendency to favor "sounds plausible and logical" even when the person writing it never bothered to check reality is just yet another logical fallacy.
The author has discovered that The Economist is pro-market.
As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset.
Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
The best take on The Economist magazine that I saw (after subscribing for several years) is that it's News of the World for policy wonks. To be read for laughs. For maximum effect, leave your paper copy aside for six months, then read it.
Is it true that most of their writers are twenty-somethings?
I accept the article's assertion that their kneejerk free-market philosophy is, at the least, limiting. But to me, the tone has always suggested middle-age journalism grads, rather than the right-wing business-school types the article is suggesting.
They have a bias, but they don't seem stupid or inexperienced. So much of free-market thought in the US, and recently the UK, has been caught up in culture war, and the Economist is staunchly against that.
Which is to say, they don't read like twenty-somethings to me. So if I'm wrong about that, I need to take another look at the lens through which I view their writing.
reply