Btw, the cosmetics industry functions similarly, but worse. Although I suppose the health dangers are lower (the monetary ones are not).
For anti aging stuff, the workhorse ingredient is retinol (with a few formulation variations).
However, it is very difficult to buy _just_ retinol - most beauty brands bundle up retinol with a bunch of other ingredients. This has a couple of issues:
1. You won't know your retinol dosage. These creams almost never tell you the retinol proportion and concentration.
2. You're overpaying by _a lot_. The luxury name brand cream will cost maybe 10x more than the similarly sized $9 bottle of retinol from the ordinary, but it will only contain some fraction of retinol.
Tbf this has been slowly changing and I see even La Roche Posay sells retinol bottles for $50. Insane markup, but smaller than what was the case 5 years ago.
This is all compounded with the fact that it's very difficult to tell if your anti aging cream is actually working from your own experience:
- its effect is slow acting
- it's difficult to compare the result with the counterfactual, unless e.g. you only use it on half your face
I'm all for hating bad infrastructure, but this roundabout seems pretty straightforward? Maybe it's different when you're actually driving on it, but from a topdown view it's clear it's a central roundabout with some extra sidelanes to avoid the roundabout if you're immediately turning right.
"fair" involves a value judgement and requires a moral system.
"even" is pure mathematics.
> I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly?
Agreeing with that is easy. Agreeing with which jobs should be compensated more highly is hard. Because everyone has different morality systems.
> To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands
I know people who strongly believe Bezos and other billionaires are being <fairly> compensated for the value they've brought to their customers via their businesses.
> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.
> In other words, after arranging the five black pieces, it must be impossible to place the white king anywhere without it being in checkmate.
I think this is a bit ambiguous and, strictly speaking, wrong for the solution as given.
In particular, this asks for the king to be in check _mate_. Does this require all black pieces to defend each other? Otherwise, white king on the board would not be in checkmate if you place it next to a queen and can immediately capture.
From the solution, you can see it's not a checkmate requirement, just a check requirement.
Does this logic still applies if the company is getting other benefits from having me as a user? (Genuine question, I can see arguments for both sides)
For example, if I am using the free tier of a service and "paying" by seeing ads, should I have similar expectations?
I'm not saying that's how users pay for github - in that case it's more subtle, for example by giving up control of some of their stack and bolstering github already near monopolistic network effect.
You should actually try saying something instead of vaguely insinuating something.
Like, I legitimately am trying to understand what you're saying but it's frustratingly vague. I feel like you're wasting my time with your attempt to seem like you know more than everyone else.