LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
a huge % of his wealth is tied up in Amazon shares which as he is the founder and CEO makes them pretty illiquid.kingstongraham said:If he wanted to thank those who have helped him, he could give every Amazon employee $100,000 and still get by on the leftover $141billion.
Might not be great for retention, but maybe it would if he gave one in a thousand employees a $1,000,000 bonus once a year at random. That would cost him about 0.3% of his wealth each year.0 -
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
0 -
I think both amazon and google really want to dominate the data/web services area (they're certainly don't at the moment).
At current rates it will be only a handful of companies that manage almost the entire world's data.0 -
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
0 -
My experience is the complete opposite of that.TheBigBean said:Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes, that is more interesting, and whilst I know nothing about it, I hear it mentioned occasionally.elbowloh said:I think both amazon and google really want to dominate the data/web services area (they're certainly don't at the moment).
At current rates it will be only a handful of companies that manage almost the entire world's data.
0 -
To give you example, a while ago Amazon drivers decided they couldn't be bothered to deliver to flat doors and would just lob all parcels in the lobby of a neighbouring block. It's also really hard to complain about that sort of thing.pblakeney said:
My experience is the complete opposite of that.TheBigBean said:Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.
0 -
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.0 -
I have had nothing but really good delivery service from Amazon, but yes you can often find cheaper on specialist dealer's sites for many products (rather then "we sell everything" Amazon".
You also now have to filter out a load of shite from non-Amazon sellers which can often be fakes or shipped from overseas without you realising.0 -
+1 it is close eough to cheapest that I no longer look elsewhere as it is not worth the bother of registering on another site.kingstongraham said:
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.
I don't agree with the monopoly argument as Amazon is a tiny % of total retail spend.
I would also give a shout out to clicks and mortar retailers doing a great job like Argos, Majestic, Screwfix and Next
and the philanthropic supermarkets delivering food to you at a loss0 -
I agree with this. Delivery has always been good for me unlike most of my other deliveries that used to get left in a "safe place" because I wasn't home even when I was home and they just didn't bother knocking athough lockdown has helped with this as they now seem to appreciate that people are probably home in the day. Most of those parcels also stink of smoke, something I haven't had with Amazon deliveries.kingstongraham said:
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.
I also stay away from the marketplace type stuff on the site if I can in the same way I generally avoid eBay unless it is literally the only place I can find something I really want / need.
I've got an Amazon Echo and despite what they say it definitely listens in (that and / or my phone) as targeted adverts or "things you might like" on social media pick up on random things mentioned in conversation that I've certainly never typed into a phone or computer.0 -
I have done the same (paying slightly more for the convenience), but I am finding the convenience is fading. So, I am far more likely to pay Ocado more to limit my choice to a few reasonable quality items, or pay Argos so I can pick it up when I like or pay John Lewis to reduce my selection to reasonable quality items. Or pay a specialist such as Wiggle for things I buy more often. Etc.surrey_commuter said:
+1 it is close eough to cheapest that I no longer look elsewhere as it is not worth the bother of registering on another site.kingstongraham said:
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.
I don't agree with the monopoly argument as Amazon is a tiny % of total retail spend.
I would also give a shout out to clicks and mortar retailers doing a great job like Argos, Majestic, Screwfix and Next
and the philanthropic supermarkets delivering food to you at a loss
My point really is that I wonder if Amazon shares are overpriced, but it's not something worth listening to me about. I don't understand how Facebook kept going when everyone's mum joined i.e. I expected it to replaced by something more fashionable.
0 -
both of those companies (like Google) have continuously reinvented themselves. I do not know the numbers but the future has to be AWS and TV.TheBigBean said:
I have done the same (paying slightly more for the convenience), but I am finding the convenience is fading. So, I am far more likely to pay Ocado more to limit my choice to a few reasonable quality items, or pay Argos so I can pick it up when I like or pay John Lewis to reduce my selection to reasonable quality items. Or pay a specialist such as Wiggle for things I buy more often. Etc.surrey_commuter said:
+1 it is close eough to cheapest that I no longer look elsewhere as it is not worth the bother of registering on another site.kingstongraham said:
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.
I don't agree with the monopoly argument as Amazon is a tiny % of total retail spend.
I would also give a shout out to clicks and mortar retailers doing a great job like Argos, Majestic, Screwfix and Next
and the philanthropic supermarkets delivering food to you at a loss
My point really is that I wonder if Amazon shares are overpriced, but it's not something worth listening to me about. I don't understand how Facebook kept going when everyone's mum joined i.e. I expected it to replaced by something more fashionable.0 -
facebook just buys them.TheBigBean said:
I have done the same (paying slightly more for the convenience), but I am finding the convenience is fading. So, I am far more likely to pay Ocado more to limit my choice to a few reasonable quality items, or pay Argos so I can pick it up when I like or pay John Lewis to reduce my selection to reasonable quality items. Or pay a specialist such as Wiggle for things I buy more often. Etc.surrey_commuter said:
+1 it is close eough to cheapest that I no longer look elsewhere as it is not worth the bother of registering on another site.kingstongraham said:
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.
I don't agree with the monopoly argument as Amazon is a tiny % of total retail spend.
I would also give a shout out to clicks and mortar retailers doing a great job like Argos, Majestic, Screwfix and Next
and the philanthropic supermarkets delivering food to you at a loss
My point really is that I wonder if Amazon shares are overpriced, but it's not something worth listening to me about. I don't understand how Facebook kept going when everyone's mum joined i.e. I expected it to replaced by something more fashionable.0 -
-
Onto economics and there seems to be snippets of news from various firms that they are moving away from very aggressive "just in time" models to more stockpiled models, which you would think would eventually be passed on in high prices i.e. inflation.
Will keep an eye out.0 -
I think it's pretty good now. Used to be abysmal.rick_chasey said:John Lewis online is properly pants.
0 -
I think that it is pretty clear that the bigger and less time sensitive you are the more chance you have to adapt and survive.rick_chasey said:Onto economics and there seems to be snippets of news from various firms that they are moving away from very aggressive "just in time" models to more stockpiled models, which you would think would eventually be passed on in high prices i.e. inflation.
Will keep an eye out.
But yes all of these sub optimal solutions will negatively impact choice, quality and price.0 -
Data is naturally migrating to the big providers for many reasons and will continue to do so as there is no compelling reason not to.TheBigBean said:
Yes, that is more interesting, and whilst I know nothing about it, I hear it mentioned occasionally.elbowloh said:I think both amazon and google really want to dominate the data/web services area (they're certainly don't at the moment).
At current rates it will be only a handful of companies that manage almost the entire world's data.
Hardware is expensive and needs maintenance. That requires bodies. Other than in very large organisations, the bodies don’t provide a good return on salary, unless you are big enough to have 3 or 4 bodies you have a risk of departures leaving you screwed.
GDPR, security, downtime, Disaster recovery are all overheads.
Alternatively slap your data in a big data centre and it seems quite expensive but by the time you’ve totted up all the costs of doing it yourself it is surprisingly cost effective, your organisation has a predictable expense and can focus its core business.
The big data centres have economies of scale on employing the skilled staff to make it work. We have customers systems go slow, we let Microsoft know and you have a reason and fix in very short order.0 -
People have researched this, and find that it's pretty good at this even when the mic is properly disabled.Pross said:
I've got an Amazon Echo and despite what they say it definitely listens in (that and / or my phone) as targeted adverts or "things you might like" on social media pick up on random things mentioned in conversation that I've certainly never typed into a phone or computer.kingstongraham said:
No, it's not the cheapest, but it's usually among the cheapest, and if I'm paying £20 for something I could get for £18 somewhere else, I don't care. Because their delivery is spot on (for me in my house), particularly while there's always someone here.TheBigBean said:
I suppose I contest the decent price bit and that restricting to Amazon helps. I'm not saying that Amazon is expensive, but it is usually not the cheapest online seller and can be more than actual shops for small items. Also, their delivery is typically terrible due to the amount they pay for delivery.kingstongraham said:
If you're careful and only actually buy from Amazon, you get a decent price and it gets delivered quickly and returns are reliable. And you get free delivery if you pay a few quid a month for their TV channel.TheBigBean said:What's Amazon's USP these days anyway? I feel like they it has gone downhill. For any given item you typically get a range of thousands of fake, overpriced items. Who would buy bike stuff from there?
But if it's sold by dodgy Dave and fulfilled by Amazon, I'll hesitate and look elsewhere.
I'd never want to have an Alexa device though. That's paying to let them listen to you all the time to learn how to more effectively sell you stuff.
It's more about the power of connection - they're not just going on what you search for, but their accumulated data on you (remember that tracking cookies are genuinely scary about hoovering up everything you do online) - and also on your friends. They (I think this was FB but can't remember for sure) claim they can predict who you will vote for based on, like, 7 pieces of info.
All that and confirmation bias of course - the times when it gets it right make a much bigger impact on your consciousness than all the ones you don't notice.
Still, in the Bomp family we have a standing joke where everyone suddenly starts talking loudly about ear wax removal. How we laugh whenever an ad actually crops up.0 -
Maybe is a generational shift thing. Me, must be an old retrofart as the concept of having a 3rd party monitoring device active in my home... eh don't think so. Whereas daughter has an Alexa just there, all the time.0
-
I can not remember if this is where we discussed Andrew Bailey (it could have been trivial things that annoy/amuse or Brexit) but the events this week really do prove what an absolute fvckwit he is.1
-
We did briefly - you mentioned his time as the head of the FSA as a reason not to put him into the BoE role?surrey_commuter said:I can not remember if this is where we discussed Andrew Bailey (it could have been trivial things that annoy/amuse or Brexit) but the events this week really do prove what an absolute fvckwit he is.
0 -
in a nutshell a number of scandals were allowed to happen under his stewardship and the official enquiries are starting to roll in.rick_chasey said:
We did briefly - you mentioned his time as the head of the FSA as a reason not to put him into the BoE role?surrey_commuter said:I can not remember if this is where we discussed Andrew Bailey (it could have been trivial things that annoy/amuse or Brexit) but the events this week really do prove what an absolute fvckwit he is.
Now it seems that not only is he incompetent but also a fvckwit as he tried to have his name removed from responsibilty in the official report and then angrily denied it to the Treasury Select Committe. The judge who named him has now released communication from his lawyer asking for his not to be named as responsible.
He should never have been appointed and Woodford will not be his downfall but it will be amusing to watch as a lot more (Tory voting) people were negatively impacted by his inaction0 -
Rick - I'm sure it's a typo, but he (Bailey) was head of the FCA not its equally incompetent predecessor the FSA.surrey_commuter said:
in a nutshell a number of scandals were allowed to happen under his stewardship and the official enquiries are starting to roll in.rick_chasey said:
We did briefly - you mentioned his time as the head of the FSA as a reason not to put him into the BoE role?surrey_commuter said:I can not remember if this is where we discussed Andrew Bailey (it could have been trivial things that annoy/amuse or Brexit) but the events this week really do prove what an absolute fvckwit he is.
Now it seems that not only is he incompetent but also a fvckwit as he tried to have his name removed from responsibilty in the official report and then angrily denied it to the Treasury Select Committe. The judge who named him has now released communication from his lawyer asking for his not to be named as responsible.
He should never have been appointed and Woodford will not be his downfall but it will be amusing to watch as a lot more (Tory voting) people were negatively impacted by his inaction
The LCF Mini Bond fiasco is what he was answering questions on in front of the TSC. The report is utterly damning of the FCA, it's internal cliques, no communication between departments, refusal to listen to whistleblowers, and the FCA head claiming he knew diddly squat.
However the Treasury (trying to hide their lack of action in getting the SFO involved) are happy to dump this on the FCA who will try to dump it onto the FSCS, even though the greedy and gullible purchased these pieces of shit directly, without advice.
It's time for the FCA to be answerable to someone, and the senior management to be made culpable for their cockups, not rewarded with knighthoods and promotions.0 -
Old habit. Same organisation, just with a different reporting line.
I am sympathetic to the problems of the regulator. They don't have the legal teeth they need, and they don't have the financial firepower to keep hold of anyone good unless they are absolute hardcore zealots (and you don't get many of those).0 -
I don't think there's any reason to be sympathetic to the FCA. The powers are there, but that might mean they bring in outside agencies such as the SFO.rick_chasey said:Old habit. Same organisation, just with a different reporting line.
I am sympathetic to the problems of the regulator. They don't have the legal teeth they need, and they don't have the financial firepower to keep hold of anyone good unless they are absolute hardcore zealots (and you don't get many of those).
They are answerable to literally no one and regularly over the years have shown open contempt to any oversight the TSC have tried to impose.
There are many very good people within the FCA in lower levels, but the management are useless.
They act as a bully, are incredibly arrogant, and pass the blame elsewhere for their repeated failures.
the senior management aren't interested in bringing the other culprits to book when their regulation fails because they are looking out for their role post FCA with many of those organisations. So I'll add the senior management are corrupt too.0 -
I don't think the powers are there and I don't rate the talent in them tbh.
All the good people leave.0 -
they have enough power and just need somebody to read the personal finance sections of the sunday papers and prioritise info flow from reliable industry sourcesrick_chasey said:I don't think the powers are there and I don't rate the talent in them tbh.
All the good people leave.0 -
I see the Culture Secretary is looking to require charities and cultural organisations to promote a state approved version of of history. As if it is in some way under threat
Must say I'm slightly embarrassed for Chris Hope having to 'report' this confected drivel.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
