To account for possible changes in package sizes, we focused on the price per unit, whether it was an ounce of salsa or a square foot of aluminum foil.
It doesn't say that they accounted for possible changes in item quality. Tide detergent claims that their new 80-oz bottle of laundry detergent can wash 64 loads just like the previous 100-oz bottle because it's more concentrated, and I suppose NPR (if they'd retained a sample of the previous product) could have brought that to a chemistry lab to test and verify that claim, but I have no idea how you'd objectively prove that an ounce of salsa had truly remained the same product.
Sure, but they are accounting for size shrinkage which the original poster was saying they didn't.
I don't really know how you can account for quality either. User surveys? Ingredient sourcing? But then again I think this kind of reporting is just a general barometer. Some other comments are pointing to data sources that might do more of this.
The amount of detergent per load is set by the manufacturer, who can injection mold that measuring cup in whatever size they want. FTA:
> The amount of liquid had shrunk to 92 ounces from 100 ounces before the pandemic, and the price had risen by a dollar. After that, the cost stayed the same, but the contents shrank to 84 ounces in 2024 and then to 80 ounces in December.
> The label continuously promised enough detergent for 64 loads of laundry.
> ...Tide specifically got the "most significant upgrade to its liquid formula in over 20 years," according to the company, with a "boosted" level of active cleaning ingredients and updated dosage instructions.
> "The result is superior cleaning performance in a smaller dose," a Procter & Gamble representative said.
Do you take them at their word for that? I'm specifically wondering whether the 84 ounce, 64-load bottle with a cap that measures out 1.3125 ounces per load contains the exact same liquid as the 80 ounce, 64-load bottle with a cap that measures out 1.25 ounces per load. I prefer powder detergent with a prewash dose, I know my clothes get clean, but I don't know that anyone outside a lab would be able to inspect clothes post-wash and notice the difference in cleanliness caused by the removal of 0.0625 ounces of detergent.
They have three ways to protect or boost profits: Raise prices, decrease quantities, or decrease quality. NPR and the
I might have missed it, but I don't see this quote in the article. Either way, it feels disingenuous when a place like business insider posts these criticisms of FIRE like it is the ultimate gotcha.
Finding a purpose outside of work seems like the main issue most people struggle with when doing FIRE. Once you get going, the saving is automatic and addictive to some, but figuring out what to do with your life to give it meaning outside of a traditional work context is not just an issue with FIRE.
I’ve recently learned to downvote/flag and not respond to green names. The number of new accounts coming in hot with inflammatory takes lately has seemed higher to me, but admittedly this is purely a “vibe,” I have no numbers to back it up.
The U.S. government won’t have a seat on the board and agreed to vote with Intel’s board on matters requiring shareholder approval “with limited exceptions.”
The cumulative ROI for basic research is positive, but I don't think that is true for many individual research efforts, which is what a company is more likely to support. An individual company seems much less likely to benefit enough from an aggregate pool of research that they will actually contribute. Look at the state of open source software with respect to company investment in maintainers.
No you cannot. While it is 1 to 1, you still need to know where to start as if you start at the wrong place data will be interrupted as an asm instruction and things will decode legally - but invalidly. It is worse on CISC (like x86) where instructions are different length and so you can jump to the middle byte of a long instruction and decode a shorter instruction. (RISC sometimes starts to get CISC features as they add more instructions as well).
If the code was written reasonably you can usually find enough clues to figure out where to start decoding and thus get a reasonable assembly output, but even then you often need to restart the decoding several times because the decoder can get confused at function boundaries depending on what other data gets embedded and where it is embedded. Be glad self modifying code was going out of style in the 1980's and is mostly a memory today as that will kill any disassembly attempts. All the other tricks that Mel used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Mel) also make your attempts at lifting machine code to assembly impossible.
It definitely isnt a 1:1 process, as there are multiple ways to encode the same instruction (with possibly even having some subtle side effects based on the encoding)
reply