I hope every single corpo goes out of business and we can fix the world’s problems instead of perpetually transferring all our money to the ultra-rich and the elderly boomers who destroyed the world so they could vote for more racism and despair.
Unless you have evidence that supermarkets are artificially inflating prices this isn't going to fix anything. Goods cost money to make. Shoplifting doesn't pay for the production of goods. This isn't a sustainable way of supplying people with food. It raises prices for customers. It exposes shop workers to violence and abuse. It funds criminal gangs.
And then to top it all off people like you come swanning in thinking you're supporting Robin Hood and his merry men and that just a few more shoplifters will cause Tesco to collapse and that whatever replaces it (because you haven't actually thought about what replaces it) will be some Star Trek utopian paradise compared to the devilry of having to pay cost + a margin. (Hint: Robin Hood gave to the poor, not sold to the poor).
What you may notice about Co-op and Waitrose (one being a consumer co-operative and the other owned by a trust on behalf of its employees) is that they are on the more expensive side of supermarkets. They aren't transferring your money to the ultra rich. They aren't funding the campaigns of right wing would-be dictators. They are paying a fair price for the goods that they sell, and they are paying a fair wage to the employees who work there. The other supermarkets are often cheaper on many items. Mass shoplifting isn't going to help this.
The real problem is that the cost of many goods is too high. The real causes of this are climate change, international conflict, brexit and other tariffs, labour related costs, and to some extent, profiteering of the part of the producers. Notice how shoplifting doesn't address any of these issues.
Edit: Me again, Fine Print has just published this video on youtube exposing the food producers artificially increasing prices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f63qalvQADc notice how shoplifting from Tesco won't fix this.
Microsoft are also toying with renting people cloud desktops they will never own. They've already got cloud gaming, and they're as much in on AI as anyone.
By all means shop at Coop and Waitrose then, but you're missing the point: this is making things more expensive for everyone else. Shops have to raise prices to offset losses and investment in security.
If everyone bought stolen goods the legitimate shops would go out of business and the shoplifters would have nowhere to steal from. Your cheap goods are being subsidised by honest customers.
Producer - has already been paid by legitimate shop for goods, isn't affected by theft.Legitimate shop - pays for goods then doesn't get paid. Is affected.
Because the targets of theft then have to invest in more security while making less money, raising prices for customers.
The shop that bought the item legitimately has to pay the full price of the item from the manufacturer / distributor. They have to sell the item at cost + VAT + a percentage to make money
The thief can sell at whatever price they like because they have no costs and don't pay VAT on the sale.
The second shop has to sell the item at the new cost + new VAT + a percentage to make money. They save twice, on the cost of the item and the amount of VAT they pay.
The people who lose from this are:
The legitimate business owners who pay full price and make nothing.
Legitimate customers who pay increased prices
If the legitimate shop goes out of business then the whole system fails. Your cheap coke is being subsidised by honest customers.
You would watch criminal gangs strip your local shop of high value items to resell for profit, and then offer to pay for it? We're not talking about someone in need stealing essentials here.
This isn't people stealing chocolate because it's expensive, it's people stealing chocolate, cuts of meat, and alcohol etc. to resell. They aren't 'rebalancing' anything, they are organised groups who are stealing in bulk to make a profit. This actually increases prices of those goods for everyone else.
Fairly slim: there aren't a huge number of royals to begin with, only Andrew had a reputation for partying, only Andrew had ties to Epstein (there is enough evidence with Andrew in that any other royals with Epstein ties would be in there somewhere too), and at the end of the day it's not their decision.
Who gets to be in the line of succession is a matter for parliament, not the royal family.
I'm not sure the metaphor works, I'm the only person who uses my computer, I don't go down to the computer station and wait for someone to drive the public computer along.
A pc is much more like a car than a train; it is something you own and you are responsible for. You get to choose the operating system and the software that is installed, you get to choose the colour of the box.
Linux isn't public transport, it's a factory that lets anyone come and help build a car. If you have a better idea for a steering wheel, or think that there's a problem with the engine you can fix, Linux lets you into the factory to make those changes.
They also jam at every possible opportunity, the transfer belt stretches, the wheels and gears wear out, any stray toner will create smudges all down the page, and they weigh a tonne.
I think it was a different couple from Reaper Man who were part of the club that Windle Poons joined. The girl was Mrs Cosmopolitan's daughter if I remember. And the man was only a man three nights a month.
None of what is considered 'AI' is actually AI, it's just a rebrand of machine learning tech that has been around for a few years now (and is genuinely useful in certain circumstances). It's all 'AI', only the generative AI is worth getting mad about.
I see where you're coming from and will do my best to clarify my position. I am going to distinguish between Explicit and Tacit consent, and Explicit and Assumed Knowledge. The reason I distinguish between Explicit Knowledge and Explicit Consent is that you can combine them in different ways:
Yes Explicit Knowledge Yes Explicit Consent (interview)Yes Explicit Knowledge No Explicit Consent (bike thief being filmed)No Explicit Knowledge No Explicit Consent (Covert filming)
In order to give Explicit Consent to being filmed you must first have Knowledge of being filmed. This might be someone who agrees to be interviewed on camera.
The bike thief didn't give Explicit Consent to be filmed, but did have Knowledge of being filmed. If they didn't want to be filmed they could do something about it, such as leave the area, or confront the person filming. Because they didn't take action to prevent themselves from being filmed despite knowing that it was happening, they gave Tacit Consent.
You say that by this measure:
Someone could stick a camera in your face and follow you around
No, that's called harassment and is a separate offence.
The woman being covertly filmed doesn't have the Explicit Knowledge that she is being filmed and so cannot give Explicit Consent. She is also unable to take any specific action against being recorded because she unaware that it is happening: the filming is covert. (You misread my previous comment, I was saying she could have done something if she had known).
Here's the catch: this is all happening in public, and there is no expectation of privacy in public. This is where Assumed Knowledge comes in. When you are in public you must Assume that you may be recorded. It may be by someone taking a selfie, or filming ducks in the park, you may never see them. This isn't Covert, because you Know it may be happening (and if you see people filming or taking photos you can then deny Tacit Consent by not walking into their photo).
This has been my favourite tech story for the past few years, I hope the train company gets put in its place properly this time.
Edit: This article is from July last year.