Yup - and this is where we're at with car safety too. Car marque CEOs are free to say "Yeah, it'll cost hundreds of millions to fix, it's cheaper to pay out per death for a rare event".
We're all worn down by this and, in essence, we operate on blood money.
Because people who you want to come and work in the UK won't bother coming if it's hostile. The quality immigrants will simply not bother turning up. There are not the British bodies to fill these roles.
Instead, you'll be left with the less desirable and desperate.
Do you really want a workforce of those who grudgingly turn up, or would you rather the happier workforce of those who can enjoy family life?
What about training local to do these jobs? Have you considered the fact that importing skilled labour from low income countries is a selfish act? The higher income country doesn't have to train these workers and the higher income country is creating a brain drain that leaves the low income country with one less skilled worker. You're effectively poaching talent from worse off countries.
You can get residential interest only mortgages - at least here in the UK.
I used to have one, but remortgaged to repayment ten years ago.
It's quite common to see "buy to let" mortgages as interest only rather than repayment, where the owner is concerned with cashflow rather than the asset itself.
It is the law, with an exception for small shops, food "to go", etc. But, it only applies to the ordinary price. Any multibuy or conditional offer is excluded. Now stores have started putting the real price behind a free loyalty card without a unit price, and a ridiculous fake price (like, 2x or more) on the ordinary price tag. The Competition and Markets Authority has started an investigation.
That's good to know an investigation has been started. I can't believe anyone would fall for the "clubcard price" nonsense but requiring a clubcard and displaying a fake ridiculous price should both be illegal.
Tesco pioneered some of the most hilariously sharp practices that mean
you really need to have your wits (or enough money to not care) with
you.
"30p each or only 3 for £1" isn't a joke. I saw this in a London store
when they tried making multi-pack offers near the checkout actually
more expensive than picking up separate items.
"Meal Deals" are a fantastic scam that charge you more for eating
less. If you don't take the crisps or drink it doesn't "count" as the
meal-deal, and the individual items cost more. I end up buying an
extra bag of crisps I don't want and giving it to the homeless person
outside.
Like many British supermarkets they operate a three tier pricing
structure, normal, discounted (with yellow labels) and "Clubcard"
prices. These are applied to similar items on proximate shelves, so
you're never quite sure which ones the offers apply to. Sometimes
those little yellow stickers don't scan, and surprise.. you pay the
original price.
And don't get me started on automatic checkouts, which are basically
"mugging robots" designed to rob humans.
Supermarkets are playgrounds for screwing people over with little mind
games. What a desolation of human life for those who waste their days
thinking up this shit.
> "Meal Deals" are a fantastic scam that charge you more for eating less. If you don't take the crisps or drink it doesn't "count" as the meal-deal, and the individual items cost more.
How is "If you add a third item the price sometimes goes down" a scam?
I don't think that's quite true. If I just want a bottle of water I wouldn't buy a meal deal to get the real price. Some of the meal deal items are subsidised more than others, it's true, but that doesn't make it a scam. Paying £3.50 or whatever for quite a lot of stuff is pretty amazing.
You don't honestly think the supermarkets are letting you have it our of the goodness of their hearts do you? It's obvious what is going on:
* £3.50 is the price. That means they'll make a profit on that. It's a "low" price because it's garbage, tasteless, low-quality junk food,
* The supermarkets know which items are more likely to sell separately. Like your bottle of water example. So those items are individually priced higher while others that rarely sell separately (like sandwiches) will be individually priced low. Whatever it really is, the supermarket has all the data, they know how to win.
Similarly, it's like how people think shoplifters steal from the supermarket. The supermarket knows how much stuff gets stolen each year. They price accordingly. Shoplifters steal from you.
> * £3.50 is the price. That means they'll make a profit on that. It's a "low" price because it's garbage, tasteless, low-quality junk food,
This is wrong. They won't always make a profit. On some items they make a loss.
> * The supermarkets know which items are more likely to sell separately. Like your bottle of water example. So those items are individually priced higher while others that rarely sell separately (like sandwiches) will be individually priced low.
This is also wrong. These items a) have an actual unit price, which will differ depending on various factors, and b) compete with other vendors selling the same or similar, and c) need to be there or shoppers won't go the the shop in the first place.
There are many forces acting on these prices. Thinking profit is the only force is bound to be wrong.
Tesco posted a profit of about £1.5bn in 2022. Where exactly do you think this comes from?
I know about loss leaders, but I severely doubt meal deals are loss leaders considering they are placed at the front of the shop and customers often come in to buy them at lunch time. They are competing with the likes of Gregg's here.
It doesn't matter about the individual technicalities. What matters is the bottom line. You aren't beating Tesco.
> Tesco posted a profit of about £1.5bn in 2022. Where exactly do you think this comes from?
I think it comes from everything they sell. You're taking the business' overall performance and seemingly attributing it all to people not buying meal deals when they could.
> I know about loss leaders, but I severely doubt meal deals are loss leaders considering they are placed at the front of the shop and customers often come in to buy them at lunch time.
This is the definition of a loss leader. Bring people in to buy it, and they'll buy a few other things at the same time.
> What matters is the bottom line. You aren't beating Tesco.
These conversation-ending grand statements aren't relevant. I'm not trying to beat Tesco.
That an implementation problem. In the Netherlands self checkouts are very quick and painless. There are no weird ceremonials or a bagging area or whatever.
In the USA the implementation of self checkout varies wildly, and seems to be linked to the socioeconomic condition of the neighborhood.
Grocery shopping in rich neighborhood = scale has a large tolerance and will not stop you from continuing to scan if you place something unexpected on it. You can scan and bag in whatever order without the machine making any accusations.
In a poor neighborhood = you scan an item and put it on the scale, then put your bag from home on the scale to bag the first item. The scale is set to a strict tolerance and stops scanning items “UNEXPECTED ITEM IN BAGGING AREA” and you have to wait for an employee to unlock it.
As they say “there’s nothing more expensive than being poor”, and bad self-checkouts is just another factor in that.
In Finland in some shops you can take a barcode reader and bag the things directly as you go. In the automated counter you just put in the scanner and pay.
There are no scales and nobody would notice if you just don't scan the item. In theory there are "random" checks. I've never seen one happen though. Not having a huge desperate underclass makes many things a lot smoother.
When the unit price is only shown for the non-discounted price, I usually pull up my phone's calculator out of spite if I don't know what it works out to mentally.
Another thing that annoys me is there being no indication of how long a sale or promotion is running. Lidl does this correctly, and puts a to/from date on the price tag in tiny text. (for internal use, I assume. but still super useful)
"Clubcard prices" somehow avoid the laws on misleading discounts as well, where the price you're discounting from needs to be the lowest price that product was on sale for for the preceding 30 days.
The units are disingenuously applied in Tesco at least though which makes it difficult to compare.
For example you might have price per sht (well you need at least 4 per sh*t ;) but there will also be a 2 for 1 offer with no price per sht and then a multi pack with no offer on it with a different price per sht. So you have three factors to compare to work out how many sh*ts per sht are best value. And then there's the confusion of loyalty card only prices.
I have got to the point I'd rather shop at Waitrose because they don't pull that sht.
On that note I think I'll go to Morrisons today and be mugged differently.
The author talks about many aspects of traveling in London as though they are novel.
Signs to hold on to the handrail, or to report antisocial behaviour are not new in London - and many famous styles of public information poster originate from this area, in particular, the Underground.
The opening paragraphs suggest a level of paranoia, frankly.
I’m British, but coming back to the UK after some time living abroad was a shock: how many cameras there are monitoring every moment of your life and how many signs there are telling you what to do, what not to do, how to behave, keep off the grass, stand to the right, report all wrongdoings, no loitering, no waiting, wait here (1 hour max).
When first encountering it it feels dystopian, oppressive. You get used to it living here, to the point you don’t notice it, but it’s not normal.
Early stages of a police state or totalitarian regime. Consider the mass surveillance of all our communications, that's an absolute hallmark[1] of a police state. And getting people to rat each other out as well, that's shocking. Even worse is how people have accepted this as "normal" and necessary for their safety.
Well, if they will imprison you for the act of reading certain texts and/or web sites here in the UK, then what do you expect, that's a de facto police state, and if the public finds it acceptable or necessary, it shows how much the frog has slowly boiled over the decades.
And not just surveillance, but also direct involvement of the police.
There was a video clip about russia arresting people for stuff on social media, and how supposedly 400 people got visited by police 'that year' which seems a lot, but in comparison, 3300 got visited by the police in UK.
Yes, though a ‘visit from the police’ in the UK is not the same as an arrest. It can be to give a warning, or simply be to help the police with their inquiry. Certainly can be used as a threat though.
I wouldn’t say it was early stages. The technology is new but every other country has that technology too. There is something deeply embedded in British culture that enables it.
Orwell’s 1984 was a commentary in 1948, not a piece of speculative fiction.
I felt this back in the late 90s after only a month in SE Asia. That authoritarian edge, with stern demands to conform-or-be-noticed, becomes really obvious when you spend some time out of the country.
I thought this was great writing with some very telling observations.
Then I got to the Subscribe Here part. I suppose it was inevitable and more credible than "Send me a fiver through the post and I'll send you home-printed and photocopied articles every month or so."
Cognitive dissonance, even so.
But is it even possible to have a disintermediated digital economy? Bitcoin was supposed to be that, and look at how quickly that aped[1] corporate ethics.
That's the real difficulty with these systems. A decade or so ago Atlanta had the most surveillance cameras per capita in the western world but inevitably each time there was a crime near one, it would turn out that the video wasn't available. Sometimes because the cameras were broken and never fixed. Sometimes because the feeds aren't recorded and no one was watching them. Sometimes the recording equipment was broken. They had endless cameras everywhere but hardly anyone was watching them. It was another case of a government that loves new initiatives that lets them spend a bunch of capital but then doesn't allocate the required operating funds to keep things going.
Companies like Ring already use machine learning and related buzzwords to help filter doorbell camera feeds. That might be the big thing that these huge networks of government cameras in public areas need to meet their full potential (good or bad).
True, same with "Mind the gap". There's always been a strong raised finger there. Similar to Holland though that's more because of its Calvinist influences, sadly.
However ubiquitous face and iris recognition around the airport is pretty bad IMO. I doubt this would be permitted in the EU.
Of course since Brexit all privacy brakes have come off and it's now a free for all for big commerce. I think this is the main thing the article refers to.
I do see more anti commerce sentiment here in Barcelona as the author mentions though it's important to realise most of it comes from extremist groups like antifa. Not exactly mainstream.
But yes personally would avoid London nowadays. Not just because the ubiquitous surveillance but because of the Brexit mentality. They don't want us there, I don't want to deal with them. I even refused to go to a Google business conference there. If they want me they can host it in the EU, ideally the Schengen zone so not Dublin either.
The only Brits I still socialise with are expats who are heavily anti Brexit. They're ok. Like myself they have heavily dissociated from their own country. I'm Dutch myself but I'm also competently unaligned with their politics (especially now with the extreme right becoming huge there)
London still wants you! The city as a whole voted 60% to Remain. Every single borough except Sutton (arguably more culturally Surrey than London) was majority remain. City of London was 75% Remain, Westminster was 69% Remain.
It's 60% vs 40%. That's a difference of 20% of the total population of millions of voters. It's a pretty big difference in anything relating to politics and policy.
Yeah, the writing style is what I'd call "intentional, funny unhinged" and while the read was amusing, I also couldn't help but feel slightly worried for the author. Maybe they could use a few mental health counselling sessions (don't mean this in a snide way; therapy helped me a lot personally)
Very disturbing to read this, the author's article is in no way paranoid. That's what they did in the Soviet Union, if you went against the state ideology they would accuse you of having mental health problems [1]. It's the standard technique abusers use, whether it's a totalitarian government or an abusive parent or spouse.
In many cases psychiatry itself can and is a tool of the state, except for obvious things like psychosis and other severe disorders, the diagnostic criteria are often arbitrary and many of the behaviors can be explained by individuals having gone through extreme hardship, abuse or poverty instead.
I've grown up in an abusive house hold, so I'm familiar with gaslighting. Also, I'm not trying to call the author schizophrenic, or insane.
My mention about the author benefitting from therapy was mostly around some of the exaggerated emotional reactions the author expressed; they felt too guttural for what they were reacting to.
On a second read through, I actually don't think they need therapy. I think they were very intentional in their populist tone and exaggerated style to elicit emotional responses in the reader (as any good writer does, I suppose).
I agree with a lot what was said, but also a few of the claims feel only critical for the sake of being cynical (eg some of the underground posters and the contactless commentary mainly). So, it doesn't do the article as a whole any favours.
I feel the author's reactions are still in the range of behavior that shouldn't be considered abnormal. I feel that saying people have to go to therapy for expression negative emotions at such things, is unfairly pathologizing people. We are creating a homogenized "correct behavior" for everyone, removing any space for differences, that are a natural part of the human condition.
If we neutralized any "paranoia" over these dystopian cameras/posters/etc., then we would not have any resistance or protest in society, so things would get rapidly worse.
Many decades ago, having millions of CCTV cameras in London, together with posters encouraging people to rat on each other, would be considered absolutely dystopian, and there would be widespread protests and/riots if they were suddenly introduced. However, because it has crept up on the population so slowly, people became accustomed to it, and few now protest. Thus explaining the situation we are in now.
I know you’re trying to be kind, but I honestly think this response is part of the discourse the author outlines. Individualising distress and pathologising the rejection of surveillance capitalism as paranoia troubles me.
Funnily, left London in 2004, feeling much the same as the author does now. The direction of travel was clear, and the inauthenticity and authoritarianism inherent in corporate ownership of all public space was becoming apparent event back then. 2005 bombings just made it worse, because individuals were also rightly fearful and I think this accelerated acquiescence to surveillance and control of public spaces even further and faster.
What is odd about European cities now is that the energy of youth is completely bound up in the ways the author describes. The only authentic communities are smaller ones, away from the periphery. But unlike in the past these are not dominated by young people and youth cultures, and so lack some of the energy and excitement that London or NY in the 70s seem to have had.
Therapy is great, but arguably the people who don't seem to notice all the surveillance and inauthenticity of corporate capitalism need it just as much
"Surveillance capitalism" can't matter that much - you can tell it's not making anyone rich because it's happening in the UK. If it worked, it'd be happening in countries whose economies are actually performing well.
Admittedly the title is 'what seven hours in London teach...' rather than 'what seven hours in every city of the world teaches' There's nothing in the piece that says 'this only happens in London'
I'm from the edge of the balkans, and have travelled all over europe, and only London gave me the feeling of some future dystopia (exaggerated, but pointing that way), where they tell you to mind the gap, keep to the left, see something, say something, cameras everywhere, and a news story every now and then about someone getting arrested because someone got offended.
Compare that to eg. the Balkans, where noone tells you anything and everything is chaotic in a "manage it yourself" way, similar with eg. spain and france, and the "everyone is adhering to a set of rules, but noone will tell you, unless you figure it out yourself" going from austria to germany and north, with some exceptions here and there (noone will "officially" tell you not to walk on the bike lanes in eg. amsterdam, but many locals may yell at you if you do).
Other cities won't face this to the same degree - but it's exacerbated in London because it's such a popular destination yet with antiquated infrastructure due to such structures being built so ahead of the curve - thus surprising platform gaps and corridors far too narrow to support massive commuter flows of a metropolis that has grown so much.
An aimless tourist could be knocked over if they don't follow conventions or aren't made aware of unusual hazards that more recently built transport systems won't have.
It’s only paranoia as long as you’re on the side of the guys behind the camera, this can quickly change say if for example you are attending a rally that condemns the ongoing Genozide in Gaza [1]
Yes, and those campaigns by public authorities have little to do with "capitalism", in fact they remind me of slogans in socialists countries.
In any case, they can be over the top and really annoying. In some stations they have presence detectors at the bottom and top of each flight of stairs so that as soon as someone passes through they are told to "hold the handrail and take care"... Which means that when walking from entrance to platform you may be told 4 times to "hold the handrail and take care".
At this point I just want to rip out the handrail and destroy the loudspeakers in a rage... But I am conflicted because TfL also keeps telling me that I should be kind [1], patient [2], and considerate to others [3], plus someone might report me [4]
Perhaps there is a reason Black Mirror is British.
"Hold the handrail", "mind the gap" and so on are there because falling down escalators and falling between train and platform are the leading cause of injury on public transport in Britain, especially London. There are also signs advising people not to run down stairs.
I think "MIND THE GAP!" (when a recorded male voice pretty much shouts it[1]) on the platforms with the sharp curves and wide gaps is fine — it's unusual, and especially useful for visually impaired people.
The more common "Mind the gap" with the female voice is worse than useless, as it is used far too often, when there is barely any gap, and detracts from the significance of the other announcement.
"Hold the handrail" is ridiculous; we should expect some personal responsibility from people. I laughed the first time I heard this, 15 years ago in China, and was disappointed some years later when I first heard it in Britain.
It would be interesting to see statistics on accidents before and after these messages were introduced.
"Hold the handrail" is thoroughly ignored so the effect is going to be zero. It's even more ridiculous when you realise that it is simply impossible to do in a crowd, anyway.
Either it's the nanny-state gone mad (with people trying to justify their jobs), or it's the lawyers who advised that "that way they can't sue us". Either is plausible in 21st century London.
Both are great examples of trying to cover up bad UX with words.
Any time there is "helpful" commentary like that, whether in a tube station or in software, it tries to make individual consumers responsible for what is in fact a design flaw.
I think everyone will agree the curved platforms on the London Underground are a problem. So far, no engineer has found a suitable solution.
I'd hesitate to call it a "design flaw" though, bearing in mind the design for these stations was from the 1880s-1910s. There were much different requirements then: far fewer passengers were expected, all of them able-bodied and most of them locals. It's clearly a compromise, as it allowed the station to be where it was wanted rather than on a straighter section of track.
I don't know what alternative there is to escalators — lots and lots of lifts?
I think you're missing the point. This issue is not the mere existence of information signs, but their relationship with major commercial interests. And even if it's not novel, it can be perceived as a novel experience by someone who has lived elsewhere for a while.
The thing that's changed in recent years is who "owns" the practices. Traditionally they were owned by the senior GPs, they became partners (owners) in the practice they ran.
Now increasingly as older GPs who are partners in prentice's retire they sell their practice to privet equity backed groups. GPs don't want to buy into a practice anymore.
The result of this is significantly worse care and service as the PE backed groups try to extract profits from the system. It's an attractive deal for PE, guaranteed income based on patent list size, and an opportunity to cut costs to make a profit.
Doctor's practices have always been private businesses. It was the NHS that pseudo-nationalized them by making the government the only paying customer (more or less). The doctors recognized the dangers and didn't want it, so Bevin famously had to "stuff their mouths with gold".
It's curious you're seeing so many stripe fallback incidents. Is this a USA issue?