Amazon are just using their competitive advantage. The world has changed, potentially through the introduction of Amazon, whereby consumers now want cheap products, now! Amazon can do that. People who are shopping for the first product they see don't have any brand affiliation and therefore it makes sense. If I loved a particular brand of coffee I would seek them out on Amazon.
Amazon are using their platform to cover off those customers who are neutral in their brand preference.
I find that the phone creates a version of the picture that it thinks is best, probably to look good on social media. Where as a DSLR has the functionality to make manual adjustments to create a photo to your own specs. Sometimes having a photos with high/low exposure, or grainy effects created authentically via DSLR are preferred.
Phones are designed with the implicit assumption that they offer you more storage than you'll ever need. If you start shooting RAW, this assumption crumbles very quickly.
Galaxy S20 comes with 1TB expandable storage. With 20MB RAW images you can store 50000 images. Also you can always pay for cloud storage, you can get 2TB for $10 a month.
But the cooperation of legislators is required because of the fixed deadlines. If the government would be allowed the right to extend the provisions on their own, they probably would try to do that in perpetuity. With a legislative branch that actually cares about civil rights, the former is the much better option.
Agreed. can we just live in a world where we can have a little bit of privacy. I'm OK using a card to pay for a journey, if that means it takes me a few seconds longer to take it out of my wallet.
Alot of this kind of technology is implemented without your consent, take facial recognition in airports. You have to go through the process with no easy alternative.
The comment 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about' is so old and such a weak argument. People have fought for years to defend the freedoms of people and it is being thrown away and disregarded by corporations and governments.
Agreed. Black cabbies have had it good for such a long time, cash in hand, monopolising the taxi business in London . I got in a cab booked using a taxi version app and the driver complained about paying % fee to the app and only getting paid once a month. Welcome to the rest of the world where people pay taxes and only get paid at the end of every month.
> Welcome to the rest of the world where people [...] only get paid at the end of every month.
Wait, what? You get paid once a month? Is this a UK thing? Every single job I've had over here (Canada) was either once every two weeks, or two times a month.
Same in the UK. Traditionally here the lowest skilled jobs were paid weekly and higher skilled monthly but I think that's rapidly disappearing, if not completely gone, now.
Certainly not standard. I've never encountered anything but every two weeks or twice a month. I have little doubt monthly exists but anecdotally it's not super common.
That's very surprising to me. In case I wasn't clear, I'm referring specifically to salaried pay and not hourly pay, where more frequent payouts are the norm.
Admittedly, I only have my own anecdotal evidence among my own experiences, friends, and family, but I can't think of anyone I've had the salary conversation with that mentioned getting paid other than monthly and would be curious to see what the actual breakdown is in the US.
Edit: This [1] article states that 59% of the US workforce is hourly, so it's accurate to say that bi-weekly is the most common frequency among all jobs in the US, but I can't find any resources that focus on the breakdown specifically among salaried workers.
This BLS breakdown [1] doesn't break down salaried vs. hourly. However, it does say that "A look at the chart reveals that semimonthly is the pay period in which businesses pay the highest average hourly earnings, followed closely by monthly." (And biweekly after that.) Hourly earnings are probably a reasonable proxy for salaried vs. hourly.
So the data suggests that being paid every two weeks is somewhat more common than monthly. (And, for larger businesses, biweekly is overwhelmingly the norm.)
Thanks for the followup, this puts a lot in perspective. The article notes:
> In March 2013, 94.8 percent of private businesses were single-pay-period businesses
meaning that most companies pay all workers on the same schedule. Therefore, if a company has any hourly workers that get paid more frequently than monthly, everyone salaried in the company is going to get put in the same pay schedule as well. All the orgs I've worked at either paid monthly uniformly or were part of that rare 5.2% that had different pay schedules, so I admit that my experience is an outlier here.
The other interesting thing about the numbers is that biweekly becomes much more prevalent relative to semimonthly as the businesses get larger.
I assume this is because small businesses (and many employees) prefer a pay schedule that's aligned with their (often monthly ) bills for cash flow reasons. Whereas larger businesses prefer to keep payroll expenses from fluctuating a bit depending upon how many days are in a given month.
The other child thread helps to explain where my discrepancy came from. Most companies prefer to have a unified pay schedule, so if there are workers in the company that you'd expect to pay bi-weekly/semimonthly (such as hourly wages), the entire company will be put on that schedule.
My own personal experience has been in the post financial crisis tech industry, and I wonder if tech pays monthly more often compared to others (and if funding plays any role in that).
Amazon are using their platform to cover off those customers who are neutral in their brand preference.