jasode
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
34,998
Submissions
4,750
Member since
Feb 28
Recent submissions
Comment · 7 days ago
Comment · 8 days ago
>We still have public libraries. They usually have a pretty sizable collection
The public libraries in major cities like the New York Public Library have sizable collections. The smaller libraries in the outer suburbs have a much smaller selection. Yes, there's also inter-library loan system for the suburbs to pull from the big city library but there are restrictions such as only having 3 items at a time.
The neighborhood public libraries are wonderful resources but there can be limitations (quantity of titles) that prevent it from being a sustainable substitute for streaming for someone that wants to watch ~2 hours of content every day. My friend tried the public library and it was only a temporary reprieve from the ads on streaming platforms. The library simply didn't have enough content for her to watch.
Comment · 8 days ago
>"physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Physical media is only cheaper if the user is ok with re-watching the same videos repeatedly. The higher cost of the DVD/Blu-ray discs can be amortized over multiple repeat viewings. (Good example is a 5-year old kid wanting to re-watch Frozen or Shrek cartoons again for the 100th time. A DVD player is cheaper than a Disney+ subscription in that scenario.)
Digital streaming subscriptions are cheaper if the user almost always prefers watching new shows instead of re-runs. That's the viewing habit of the vast majority of subscribers. Trying to only buy physical media to get a constant diet of new shows -- even buying the cheaper used discs from thrift stores -- will cost more than a subscription. Also, the physical discs are not immediately playable on an iPad/smartphone so requires extra hassle of ripping/transcoding that most normies don't want to do. Also, buying harddrives for the NAS server to store the rips isn't cheap either.
I'm all too aware of people preferring brand new shows because I've ripped several hundred DVDs to a stack of terabyte harddrives that nobody ever watches. Instead, they'd rather see what's new on Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ ...
EDIT to add an update of a previous comment about my friend's defiance against ads added to Amazon Prime Videos by borrowing DVDs from the public library. She lost that battle because she finished all the DVDs she wanted to watch so had to go back to Amazon Videos for new content. She now endures the Amazon's ads. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42388626
She really tried to fight ads by avoiding the platform but couldn't sustain it because she ran out of free DVDs to checkout from the library. This means buying DVDs to get something new to watch if trying to stick with physical media and unfortunately, that costs more than streaming platforms. She deals with the ad interruptions by multitasking on an iPad when they come on.
Comment · 12 days ago
>a database small enough to be served from a computer from the 90s?
Putting ~170 million .com records into a RDBMS on a 90s computer is not enough infrastructure to serve ~746 billion DNS queries a day : https://www.verisign.com/about-us/
They don't use off-the-shelf Redis/PostgreSQL/MySQL and they have more uptime reliability than Github, AWS us-east-1, Anthropic Claude, etc.
Verisign may still overcharge for what they do but nevertheless, the computing infrastructure isn't trivial.
Comment · 15 days ago
>You're trying to push an agenda here,
No agenda. I've been a Amazon customer for almost 30 years and not trying to run a smear campaign. I buy from them every week. I'm just explaining why I've revised my thinking about the "shopping hack" of buying 3-and-return-2 that I used to think was harmless and supposedly a "win/win" for both me and Amazon. My intuition thought Amazon would always restock and resell the other 2 was wrong. Maybe they will but there's a good chance they won't and I'm not interested in being the cause of more environmental pollution. So I try to be more conscientious and avoid frivolously returning things.
Several reasons combine to cause the "illogical" disposal of undamaged returned goods:
- delayed vendor payments (NET90) and how Amazon can deduct the cost of customer returns. That the hidden "perverse incentive" that reduces Amazon's "skin in the game" and motivation to resell it. They're no longer financially on the hook to pay wholesale costs for those returns.
- vendor calculates it's not worth the cost of re-inspecting and re-stocking the merchandise. If the NEW item is now OPEN BOX and must be priced much lower, it negatively affects the ROI calculation even further.
- vendor decides that the extra risk of customers tainting the returned items and causing the next customer to leave a 1 start review (which lowers future sales) is not worth it
The above factors are especially relevant to clothes. I'm ok buying and then returning a Bosch power drill for $200 because I'm confident that the reverse logistics will go through a liquidator instead of the landfill. However, I don't have the same confidence for a $50 shirt. It's the ~$5 vendor's cost not the $25 wholesale cost that must be used as basis for calculating ROI of risk-vs-resale and we have to be realistic that will often favor the landfill.
Comment · 15 days ago
>But it is completely false to say that Amazon is generally able to pass on the cost of all its returns to manufacturers, that this makes returns zero-cost for Amazon,
The vendor agreements say if the returns are Amazon's fault, they will not deduct from remittances. If you're a vendor/seller, you use the Amazon Vendor Portal to look at the account status of invoices, purchase orders, inventory, returns, payments, deductions, etc: https://vendorcentral.amazon.com/
When a customer returns something, they can pick from a menu of reasons such as "not as described", "changed my mind", or "wrong size", etc. For those reasons, the amount is always deducted from the seller's account because none of those reasons are Amazon's fault. (Again, Amazon didn't spend the ~$25 for $50 shirt that they're desperate to recover as you're claiming.) In many cases, the seller doesn't want to pay extra to ship the returned items back so they just let Amazon throw it away. That's how a high volume of perfectly resellable items end up in the garbage -- especially before the bad publicity in 2019. Amazon has reduced the environmental pollution of customer returns by giving more options to sellers to restock and resell but it's still not totally eliminated.
EDIT to reply: >Under first-party, Amazon is still purchasing the goods wholesale. Amazon absolutely spent the $25 for the $50 shirt. That is just how it works.
In a 1P relationship (not 3P), Amazon will deduct the wholesale $25 amount caused by customer returns from the next payment to the vendor/supplier. That's how it works. Yes, Amazon acting as 1P buys wholesale -- but they can also deduct the wholesale amounts owed to the supplier for customer returns that are not their fault.
I can't copy&paste the Amazon 1P vendor agreement but here's a similar one from Costco and notice the verbiage:
>14. CUSTOMER RETURNS. Costco may pursuant to Section 13.1 reject or revoke acceptance of and return to Supplier any Product returned by Costco’s customers. For any Products returned by customers, Costco reserves the right to return such Products to Supplier or to salvage, donate, dispose of, re-use, refurbish or recycle such Products at Supplier’s sole cost and expense.
Similar wording for the big retailers like Walmart, Target, etc.
>Nobody on either side is throwing away perfectly good, sellable merchandise just for the fun of it.
You keep repeating this but the investigative reports with GPS trackers put inside new items immediately returned to amazon to trace where they go and hidden cameras at landfills and industrial shredding facilities that receive truckloads of Amazon customer returns shows otherwise. The volume of it has been reduced somewhat, but not eliminated. Amazon doesn't throwaway all resellable items, but they still throw away a lot of it.
Comment · 15 days ago
>Amazon most certainly does not generally operate on a consignment model
No, not a consignment model. A "chargeback model".
>, but this doesn't change the fact that they still have to pay suppliers.
Not for the returned items. The returned items are deducted from the next unpaid vendor invoice. (The "vendor chargeback" or "vendor clawback" in industry parlance). All the big retailers with leverage such as Walmart/Amazon/Target/HomeDepot/BestBuy etc do this. It makes the financial hit from customer returns mostly the vendors' problem instead of Amazon's.
>, has a little to do with the fact that it has been returned (except for things that are so damaged
The new law in France was trying to stop Amazon from destroying undamaged products because of investigative reports. Again, Amazon didn't care about sending undamaged returned merchandise to the landfill by the truckloads because of the chargebacks above. In other words, Amazon never "bought" the items the customers returned.
If it was expensive items like electronics, they would ship it back to the supplier or a liquidator for resale but that often didn't happen for clothes because it wasn't worth it the extra costs to the supplier. That's why a lot of it went to the landfills.
Comment · 16 days ago
>If Amazon is selling a shirt for $50, then they are probably acquiring it for $25-30. Believe me, they don't want to throw away that $25-30.
The key you're missing is Amazon didn't have to spend that ~$25 in the first place.
I'm guessing your assumption of Amazon's out-of-pocket cost is the source of your insistence that Amazon is determined to restock and re-sale instead of throwaway. That mental model of how big retailers operate is incorrect.
The giant retailers like Amazon/Walmart/Target don't pay upfront for merchandise. Instead, they use a complicated "chargeback model". They just deduct customer returns from the ongoing rolling invoices "net 90" etc.
https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+walmart+target+%22net...
So, Amazon doesn't really "lose money" for customer returns if they don't re-stock & resell. It's the manufacturers and sellers that take the financial hit. (Which would be the much lower ~$5 instead of $25.) The above chargeback model is why Amazon was so nonchalant about throwing away perfectly good items that were returned by customers. Amazon wasn't incentivized to bother trying to re-sell it. Instead of taking a risk with a tainted customer return, just mathematically deduct it from the next vendor's payment. No ~$25 wholesale cost needs to be "recovered" because Amazon never spent it.
>That's not how businesses operate.
It is (or was) how they operated. That isn't FUD. Canada, France, Germany did investigative reports with hidden cameras and GPS trackers to discover that billions in Amazon merchandise was being dump at landfills and/or burned at incinerators. (What Amazon euphemistically calls "energy recovery"). This includes lots of expensive items that were more than ~$4 such as new coffee machines. The public relations backlash at Amazon destroying so much product was so bad that France passed a new law targeted at Amazon to stop doing it: https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+france+passes+new+law...
That's when Amazon started a more earnest "re-sale or donate" and reduce the destruction of customer returns.
Comment · 17 days ago
>You will observe official Amazon Resale listings for many items, which is precisely Amazon restocking the returned items.
To clarify, I'm already aware Amazon re-sells returns. I often buy "Used Like New" electronics from Amazon Resale which are obviously customer returns that Amazon re-boxed. However, the category of clothes is different where it customer returns are often thrown out.
>What Amazon sends to landfills is when items (mostly third-party seller items) aren't selling and the seller doesn't want to keep paying for warehousing or to have them shipped elsewhere so Amazon sends them to landfills.
No, that's not the full story. What's also happening is that a seller has different options for Amazon's reverse logistics and they have different costs.
E.g. pay $1.50 for Amazon to inspect and resell or pay a lower $0.52 to throw it away. A lot of sellers just pay 1/3rd less and let Amazon throw it out.
That possibility of me inadvertently adding to landfills is enough to stop me from buying 3 sizes and returning 2. Maybe in some circumstances the other 2 returned items won't be thrown out -- but I can't know for sure so I won't do it. I'll continue to buy clothes from Amazon but only do so when I'm 100% sure I'm going to keep it no matter what.
Deep link to a video comment about online returned clothes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66qOop6J8Q8&t=2m56s
Comment · 17 days ago
>If you return unopened wine to Costco, for example, they throw it out
The food and groceries I already knew about. However, Amazon throwing out returned clothes was a surprise because I've seen clothing retailers like Macy's just put the returned items right back on the rack for re-sale. When you go to a shore store, they don't throw out every pair of shoes that customers tried on and didn't buy. So I just thought Amazon just did the same thing at their warehouse. I've also returned car wax to an OReilly's Auto store and I watched the clerk just put the bottle right back on the shelf for the next customer to buy.
It was disconcerting to find out I was adding to the landfill just because I returned clothes to Amazon. Nowadays, I don't order clothes from them unless I'm 100% sure I won't be returning it.
It isn't about being superior, mysterious, or clever. The following "nobody understands" type of quips and thought experiments are different ways of saying our intuitions don't help us understand it :
- "God does not play dice with the universe.", Albert Einstein
- "Shut up and calculate", N. David Mermin
- "Schrödinger's cat" being both alive and dead
- various interpretations/analogies explaining quantum physics leading to absurdities or contradictions
Yes, humanity has harnessed quantum mechanics with mathematic frameworks and repeatable experiments to make useful things... but that's a different layer of "understanding" than the deeper levels in the above quotes.
"Nobody understands what gravity is." ... Wait, if nobody "understands" gravity, how did we send people to the moon?!?
Because those are different usages of the word "understand".