Obviously "physical access is full access", but it's shockingly easy to break into a Windows box if you have access to the unencrypted drive. I learned with I was a teenager how to use the recovery partition to mount the C: drive, then copy "cmd.exe" to "utilman.exe" or "sethc.exe" and get an instant root shell on the login page. Takes about 2-3 minutes, can be done in the time somebody leaves their laptop to go to the bathroom at Starbucks.
To me that's the main thing about disk encryption, it's to stop a nasty rootkit from being installed trivially as much as it is about stopping the guy at the pawn shop from getting your tax info. Whether you're on macos, linux, or windows, it's really quite easy to fully compromise a machine if you have hands on it.
Agreed, specifically about the tax info concerns. All my drives are encrypted with either luks, veracrypt, or native zfs encryption if my server data.
My primary concern is a robbery while I'm not home. It's trivial to break in, steal hard drives, and then go pop them into another machine on your own time to scan the files looking for tax or other sensitive docs.
While encryption keys are a risk, you can always save the random key file or passphrase in cloud storage (using symmetric encryption) and/or in your password manager.
Curious: Are you specifically worried about a robber who is targeting your tax information in particular? Home breakins are relatively rare, and when they do happen, for the vast majority of them, the robber grabs whatever cash, jewelry, and other small, easy-to-pawn valuables, and are probably not going to care about computers. And for those rare robbers who actually grab your computer, what percentage of them are really going to bother going through the hard drive looking for tax returns of all things?
This attack concern sounds like a small fraction of a small fraction of a small fraction!
Unless you are a celebrity or billionaire business mogul where your tax returns or other sensitive documents might be worth something...
Maybe I am the fool. :) I think about crime in the way I would do it, which is to grab the valuables police are unlikely to care about (hard drives) that allow me to quickly clone and encrypt myself, so I can destroy the tangible evidence, and then I have unlimited time to crack and review the information, and then even more time to execute my malicious attack against identities or whatever other I information I do find.
Only slightly better than this would be to break in, install a root kit, and then leave everything else untouched so as to try and minimize the knowledge that I was there, but I'd still be concerned that my c2 server would eventually point to me.
Maybe I should read about these actual crimes or get meds. The first couple years of my first kid's life were full of anxiety that someone would break in and steal my kid while I was sleeping at night.
Thieves are typically not technical people. If they were, they'd be using their technical skills at a legitimate job, not relying on burglarizing to make a quick buck.
They also are interested in getting in and out as quickly as possible. They're not going to take the time to disassemble a computer to remove just the hard drive, they're gonna steal the entire computer.
> Maybe I should read about these actual crimes
You should, especially on the kidnapping front. The extreme majority of kidnappings are from a relative or someone the child knows who will run off with them during the day, not break in at night.
...
Not sure that actually will make you feel better, tbh.
I think it's a mistake to assume that just because the initial burglar is technically unsophisticated, that's the end of the story. Crime can become surprisingly complicated, with its own supply chains, service providers and tool vendors, specializations, middlemen, etc. (Credit card fraud is a good example.)
Imagine how your threat-model can change if the thief—still incurious and unsophisticated—just happens to "know a guy":
1. A thief steals your computer, with no thought to who you are or what you might have on it.
2. The computer is passed to a fence for a predictable immediate cut.
3. The fence sees a lot of these computers (or phones), and knows that there are ways to extract more profit.
4. The fence has a relationship with a data extractor, and runs a provided program that gleans as much exploitable data as possible before reselling the hardware.
5. The data-extractor sees those tax files pop up, and sells those details to another criminal group that specializes in tax fraud.
If a system exists to "use every part of the buffalo", then pretty much anything can cause you damage. I'm sure somebody is already developing tools to scan a drive trying to determine likely names of your first-pet for those stupid account recovery questions.
I do this on long drives, but always have to put it back to normal when it's time to park. It would be neat if cars would implement some sort of automatic switch between this configuration and the straight-back mode when reversing.
Lol, I forgot most ppl have electronic, motorized, smart mirrors. Here I am bringing my manual mirror bias to the table thinking that ppl set their mirrors by hand.
How else can you park? Assuming no 360* parktronic or no surround cameras. I must see just a tiny side of my car in a side mirror or else I would hit a column or a car in tight turns.
So you also angle the mirrors down a ton ? My old car (a VW) had an option to automatically do this on the passenger side mirror when in reverse. Not sure id want to do this manually each time though (up and down)
With manual mirrors I aim for driving and 'hope and pray' when parking.
My current car has cameras which show me the ground around it when I press a button which solves all my needs. Probably a better solution, but not on most cars from what I can tell.
Seems like a good plan. Canada has the third largest hydroelectric power production in the world, and quite a bit of nuclear, so let's use it properly. People talk about transmission infrastructure like it's difficult, but we're the ones who made the ~5,000 KM HVDC system that feeds the northern US from James Bay! I don't see why we can't quickly electrify transportation, it's the kind of project Canada seems to be pretty good at.
I mean, this is hiding a lot of geographic reality. You're using the word Canada pretty broadly here, when the reality is that the left-half of the country past Ontario (or arguably Quebec) is pretty shit in this regard.
Quebec has that hydroelectric power production. And their power grid is cheap and pretty clean. And their government and populace is highly pro-EV and yeah, it's great.
Ontario a bit second to that but reliant on nuclear, and those nuclear plants will be going offline for maintenance and its ... a whole thing.
Under Doug Ford we just keep increasing the amount of natural gas in the mix and the prices keep going up on electricity. (This being the guy who lied his way into power claiming that under the Ontario Liberals we had "the most expensive power in North America" [again a total lie])
The rest of the country? Oof. Have you looked at the prairie provinces power generation?
Sure, but nearly half the population of Canada west of Ontario is in BC (5.0M out of 11.8M west of Ontario), and 92% of BC's electric generation comes from hydro (89%) and wind (3%). I like these numbers.
The bulk of the rest of the west's population is Alberta and they generate most of their electricity from natural gas. That province is Canada's sore spot from an emissions and CO2 perspective.
Right, I meant to call out BC as a relatively positive example but didn't. I agree they're doing the right moves for now.
(I'm from Alberta originally, and fled during the Klein years. I have many ... sensitive ... spots about that place)
That said... electricity generation aside... Massive LNG terminals on the BC coast aren't exactly a positive for the planet. In fact the approval of the first by the Trudeau gov't basically blew Canada's possibility of ever meeting its international climate commitments just on its own.
Yeah, I agree. We have a large and persuasive LNG industry influencing government policy.
Not a lot of critical discussion is permitted because of the sheer money at stake. So many resource corporations, their employees, towns, and a heavily lobbied government don't want to sit and have a rational discussion about, oh, say, "How and when will we ween ourselves off LNG because we should?" :-|
I get the impression that BC is in a tough spot in that between the forestry/natural gas and speculative real estate "bread", there's not a lot of other meat & cheese in the economic sandwich. Not to say there isn't anything, but manufacturing, tech, and agriculture are proportionally smaller than in Ontario and Quebec. (Though I see more interesting tech positions in Van these days than I do around here in the GTA)
Especially when it comes to economic development in Northern BC or even outside the lower mainland at all, it's difficult to walk away from extractive industries.
The situation out west is indeed rough. Saskatchewan still burning coal and Alberta... Being Alberta. It's not to say we can't fix it, those are both places where you can build plenty of solar and wind power for very cheap.
These problems are very political, but also very fixable. I think (well, hope) once it becomes clear that cheap Chinese EVs are here to stay the tide will begin to turn. In terms of total lifetime cost, you can either spend 200K CAD on a Silverado or 50K CAD on a Dolphin.
If Smith fails in her attempts to gerrymander provincial ridings, there is a small chance (based on recent polls) that the growing split between far-far-right and far-right in Alberta yields another "accidental" NDP victory next election.
They're hardly anti-O&G but they do have a slightly more reasonable position around energy mix and renewables. Investing hardcore back into the green energy sectors that Smith tried to kneecap would really improve the situation there.
(If that happens, I'll probably move back to Edmonton after 25 years away. My daughter is doing her BFA at the UofA anyways, and my whole family is still there)
alberta is alberta because provinces are pushed into competition on using their local resources.
you cant fix it without nationalizing control over BC and quebec hydro and alberta oil, and using them to canada's benefit rather than the individual provinces'
I mean, I was born in the 70s in Alberta and hoooooy boy, I remember the reaction to the NEP even as a kid, which was a modest (and clumsy and malformed) attempt by Trudeau Sr to do some of what you describe.
If there was even a vague intimation of any of that happening now, the hair-brained small Alberta seppy minority would quadruple in size and funding.
That's the thing about SK... we do actually have a pretty significant hydro investment. Problem is that the untapped hydro resources are quite remote. We can't really extract a whole lot more energy out of the South Saskatchewan River without causing upstream and downstream problems.
My own research and modelling basically showed... if we're going to remain energy independent (i.e. the ability for SaskPower to power the entire province without net imports), including riding out the worst scenario (cold, dark, and calm in the winter) for a week while moving towards minimum carbon, it's going to pretty much need to be a strong mix of nuclear, solar, wind, and natural gas peakers. We keep the existing hydro capacity because it's great, but there isn't much more to be had.
Where it gets really gnarly is looking at also eliminating SaskEnergy and transitioning residential and commercial heating and cooling to electric (e.g. heat pumps) is going to require at least 3x the nuclear buildout that we've got planned PLUS significant energy retrofits to every house. Trying to move to electric-only HVAC without energy retrotifts adds like another 33% nuclear capacity requirements (+ additional solar and wind of course) and it starts to get financially infeasible.
It's strange to me that nuclear isn't a bigger mix in Sask with the Uranium industry so big there.
Related, it seems like the only pull that nuclear is getting in AB as an adjunct support for the fossil fuel industry, to help with oil sands extraction. Which just shows how distorted the political-economic system is at this point.
> It's strange to me that nuclear isn't a bigger mix in Sask with the Uranium industry so big there.
There's two factors to this:
- Before SMRs, we wouldn't have been able to build conventional Big Reactors without violating grid redundancy requirements. Currently we have about 5,300 MW of installed capacity. With a conventional 1GW+ reactor, hitting the N-1 redundancy requirements would've been challenging. Losing ~20% of your capacity because one facility goes offline isn't acceptable unless you've got tons of extra generation capacity (either sitting idle or nominally running for export)
- The Sask NDP has traditionally been very staunchly opposed to nuclear. The SaskParty won their first election in 2007 and that was a pretty tenuous situation. They certainly didn't have much of an appetite to make any bold/potentially unpopular moves early on in their tenure. There's a large contingent of swing voters who in the early days likely would've rebelled against the SaskParty proposing nuclear. Even now it's moving very slowly; I appreciate that we're letting Darlington build the first BWRX-300 before we start building our own (Darlington is already sited for it and is honestly a better place for FOAK).
Edit: I missed this line from your comment:
> to help with oil sands extraction
That was a joke I used to tell in the early 2000s to upset my further-left anti-nuclear college friends: we should build nuclear reactors in the oil sands so that we can use the waste heat to process the bitumen. I'm honestly pretty amazed that no one had an aneurism.
I'm curious how this might help with our biggest downtime-causer with postgres, which is major version upgrades. Poolers do a great job for failover and load balancing, but we consistently need ~10-20 minutes of downtime once or twice a year to do upgrades. Logical replication between old->new versions could probably help, but it would still require flipping everything over to the new cluster without partial writes or anything silly. Anybody have experience with this?
Logical replication is how this is typically done. If you have some infra-as-code setup, you create a new cluster with identical settings except for the major version, import the schema, start copying data from a read-replica running the old version, stop accepting writes from the old version (downtime starts), sync the sequence numbers, and point your services to the new cluster (downtime ends).
If you use something like CloudNativePG they automate parts of the process with cli tools and declarative syntax. Otherwise you take the time to figure it out by hand. It might sound complicated, but just practice on your staging DB, and if all goes well you do the same procedure in prod.
Seconded. Coming from MySQL this is a huge regression that makes Postgres look like something from the 80s. I still wonder why this isn't seen as the absolutely highest priority.
I have not ran MySQL for some years but it at least used to have exactly the same issue. Upgrading a database with MySQL can take a long time if you have many tables. The main difference is only really that PostgreSQL does it with a separate tool, pg_upgrade, while MySQL does it as part of the main binary.
For both MySQL and PostgreSQL you will need to use some kind of logical upgrades if you want no downtime.
No, the main difference is that MySQL bundles the code needed to interact with the old db version in the newer server binaries (effectively by not changing the on-disk binary format!) while pg_upgrade requires you to have both old and new installs living side-by-side to reuse logic/code from old binaries. It is a more bulletproof method and less susceptible to bugs and (upstream) developer errors, but is (or at least can be) harder for the sysadmin+dbadmin.
(For example, ports under FreeBSD doesn’t let you install multiple Postgres versions as they are marked as conflicting packages so installing one necessarily uninstalls the other. The saving grace here is that most (virtually all) FreeBSD installations have root on ZFS and you can employ ZFS snapshots (via the hidden .zfs folder) to access the old binaries after upgrading to the new postgres version, but not many people know this trick!)
MySQL has advocated for decades spinning up a replica with the upgraded version, waiting for it to catch up to master before promoting it to the new master. You can do the same thing with Postgres.
Exactly, MySQL and PostgreSQL are the same here. Maybe one is a bit faster than the other at doing major version upgrades but the behaviours are quite similar.
Even when MySQL development velocity was more rapid, they maintained binary table format compatibility across major version upgrades the vast majority of the time. Literally the only exception I can think of, which necessitated a table rebuild, was the fractional timestamp storage change when going from MySQL 5.5 (2010) to 5.6 (2013).
It is also a bit tricky tradeoff. You do not want to be stuck with the same data format forever. So databases like MySQL and PostgreSQL need a downtime when doing a major version upgrade. They both try to keep it short, usually seconds, but minutes can happen in either database.
What about Multigres[0]? It builds on top of Postgres and adds HA (based on Flexible Paxos[1]), sharding, etc. They're still not production-ready, but I'm highly optimistic they will solve a lot of the problems Postgres have.
For example, with Multigres, you should be able to achieve true zero downtime major version upgrade by simply resharding [2]. With vanilla Postgres + pgBouncer, you can only achieve near-zero downtime (few seconds at most), though it's probably good enough for most use cases.
Do other RDBMSs have this? I genuinely have no clue. I've been fortunate enough to be able to get away with one primary and multiple secondaries at my largest usage of Postgres. Multi-master is the kind of thing I am fully out of my depth on, so I'm curious if there's a well defined path for implementation here or what.
Commercial RDBMS (oracle/mssql) have had it in some form for awhile, with pluses and minuses. Open source DBs have had bolt-ons, including BDR for pgsql.
Multi-master is hard. The main issue is what to do with commit/replication lag. It's far "easier" if support for eventual consistency is ok with your use case. In some cases it's not. Also, the problems related to read-only lag can happen on multi-master instances. If somebody does a giant long running query on one of the masters, the target instance needs to hold the data state for the query, even if the underlying DB is getting updates. It also needs to still keep up with other masters. This means the whole cluster can slow down if the multi-master replication is synchronous. Depending on a variety of factors, that can chew up disk space, memory, etc.
There are ways of dealing with these issues (and others), but it comes with tradeoffs with performance, etc.
It has been tried many times. Good luck to pgdog, but there’s a reason these projects don’t stick.
Multi master, from even a conceptual perspective, is incredibly complicated. Databases, transactions, consistency, parallelism are all very complicated.
It’s something that always seems promising at the start but as soon as maintenance and long term improvements enter the picture(ie integrating new Postgres versions), the complexity becomes too much.
Logical replication needs a special 'upgrade' use case that will automate most of its pain points away. I understand why DDL does not replicate, and that you may want to replicate to a data warehouse that only needs some columns, etc, but there should be a case just for upgrading that handles all DDL, sequences all existing everything, and just works...
The toyota hybrid transmission is genuinely brilliant. Probably one of the most important and broadly overlooked innovations in automobile technology this century.
Who's accountable when it does something wrong? Surely Anthropic Inc won't take the fall for you. There's no errors or omissions insurance, no legal accountability, no attorney-client privilege, and no bar association to handle disciplinary action.
I think we should be realistic here, this is a more advanced version of those "will kits" that spit out a PDF. The legal system will not look fondly upon this stuff until something fundamentally changes.
And like, I would love if we didn't have to spend thousands of dollars to defend ourselves in a culture as litigious as ours. But I wouldn't put my life and well being on this thing.
> Who's accountable when it does something wrong? Surely Anthropic Inc won't take the fall for you.
Us lawyers. Using AI isn't a binary decision. Your attorneys can use AI to be more efficient, and you can use AI to better understand what's going on, what your lawyers are telling you, or to learn what questions to ask. Or you can use it in lower-stakes situations where nobody is going to pay for a lawyer.
I'm cautiously optimistic about AI for legal work. So much of legal work can be drudgery, mucking through documents, etc. There's a lot of room to apply LLMs even just for the kind of tasks we know they can do. But I think the Claude approach using agents is the way to go for legal work. LLM context windows are far too small to hold the documents for even a small case. So you have to use it the way programmers use it: to work on a file structure, saving state in .md files, etc. That approach is well developed for programming, but the legal AI companies haven't even scratched the surface of it. (And frankly, the products they have put together, which hide the LLM behind some sort of interface, aren't very good.)
Unfortunately, I think the example you mentioned (helping individuals defend against suits at lower cost) is where AIs won't help much. A lot of that work is people work. Something happened. Then you gotta talk to everyone it happened to, sort through conflicting stories, hopefully work out a deal, if not, try to persuade a judge in court, etc. AI unfortunately is more applicable to allowing big companies to throw more papers at each other in big lawsuits while controlling legal spend.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't people still ultimately accountable? You may be able to sue your lawyer for malpractice or they may lose their ability to practice (report them to bar) but in the end no matter where you get your advice from, you are accountable. Question is: who do you trust with it?
Like you said, its a no brainer to use both. Use it as a tool to expand, deepen, or teach. Same with doctors and AI. There may be a point where you build enough trust in the outputs and your understanding of them but until then its best to use it as a tool not put your whole outcome in it.
The user should be, user gets info from an LLM, a machine or a web post, it doesn't change anything, the one submitting the documents is the one responsible imo and it should remain that way.
A more charitable reading might be that the comment you're replying to was specifically referring to how jaywalking was a made-up offense that was specifically created and promoted to cynically protect the auto industry from liability. So there are parallels. [1]
That's is a deeply bizarre article. In a world where 90% of people would rather drive than walk, you'll obviously have laws that regulate when and where people can walk. You think that if the auto industry hadn't done that, we wouldn't have jaywalking laws today?
A 100 years ago that ratio was the other way around. There were powerful technological and financial insetives to change the public's attitude and the law.
It's crazy that they're using radio frequencies that are within the range of human hearing... Obviously sound and RF are different things, but it puts into perspective how a "high" sound is a very "low" frequency ;)
I get the allure, but it's not for me and my partner.
We live in a small apartment. We drive a small car. The pantry has a good amount of dry bulk & canned food, but we largely shop one week at a time.
Sure, we could "lock in" on two or three foods, buy weeks worth of them at a time, and save some money. But like most people we like a bit of verity. It's just not possible to buy such massive quantities of things with nowhere to store them.
What I want is an anti-costco. More like a bodega. Still curated, maybe a larger mark-up, but smaller quantities of everything. Half loaves of bread, small bags of frozen veg, enough sugar or flour to bake just a couple batches.
Trader Joe's is probably closest to what you want. It targets single shoppers with small quantities and low prices, and it rotates products frequently to keep things interesting.
Anecdotally I feel like a lot of TJ's shoppers shift into Costco shoppers as they age up.
The nice thing about Trader Joe's is that you can be in and out in 5-10 minutes if you're just buying weekly food items. The store is modestly sized and the checkout lines are short. I'm in there about once a week.
I go to Costco once every three months or so and buy paper towels, detergent, and other consumables that have long shelf lives. I don't feel drawn to it; it's just the warehouse for boring items to buy in bulk. Their hot dog is OK. But a lifestyle? No.
We only shop regularly at three stores: Costco (every 2 weeks), TJs (random stuff that we don't need as much of or that is cheaper/better at TJs, like organic peanut butter, or sometimes their cheeses and marinated meats, oh, and the kids love TJ takis, also wine), and our local grocer (makes fresh bread daily, and we get meat, milk and eggs there because they source locally).
Maybe it varies by location, but in my experience, Whole Foods is significantly more expensive than Trader Joe's. Trader Joe's is pretty affordable. It may not be Walmart cheap, but it's no worse than Target.
I don't think this is abnormal. I think every family in my (middle class+) neighborhood does both Costco and Trader Joes. We don't have a convenient Whole Foods though.
The basic membership is $65. If all you do is get a year's worth of detergent, toilet paper, and cleaning supplies chances are that will already pay for the membership. They also have grocery items that are kinda wholesale but not really. Pantry stuff like a bag of nuts that you can go through on your own in under a week that is marked down significantly from the grocery store. Oh also olive oil is another big one for me.
The issue for many apartment-dwellers is storage. You can't store a year's worth of detergent, toilet paper, and cleaning supplies in an apartment.
Costco really incentivizes shopping in bulk, from the huge value-pack sized portions to the focus on frozen & dry goods to the super-sized carts to the anxiety-inducing shopping experience. My wife and I shoot to go no more than once a quarter, just because it's a hassle.
We found our habits (and need for Costco) changed dramatically once we moved into a home and could now put in a chest freezer and pile toilet paper rolls in a corner.
Yes I'm cognizant of that. Not everything I get there is a large item. The dishwasher detergent for example goes under the sink. Bulk is basically a two pack. Coffee also just throw it in the pantry. Ditto for other drinks and food items. And electronics. I've gotten a MacBook air from Costco only for the extended warranty they offer. Another perk is free installs which I guess doesn't apply for apartment folks but I will say I got a dishwasher from them and the install being included was on it's own worth the price.
I actually only got Costco originally when I lived in Hawaii and it's kinda a requirement there but kept it cause it's actually really nice.
It's just nice to have cause of the gas price discount and the fact that a lot of the product in US big box stores is sold at relatively sane prices with shipping and handling taken care of.
We live in a smaller place and my wife and I just piggyback off friends and end up going roughly once a quarter as well. We do have enough space for a year's worth of toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc but even then it's often not worth the hassle of driving (we live in an urban enough area that we don't drive often), parking, fighting through lines, etc just to get stuff once a quarter.
>The basic membership is $65. If all you do is get a year's worth of detergent, toilet paper, and cleaning supplies chances are that will already pay for the membership.
Maybe savings are that large if you're comparing against regular prices at retailers, but if you wait for sales, they're as cheap, if not cheaper than Costco.
Depending on how close/far your Costco is, it could be worth it for fuel savings alone. They're generally $0.15-$0.30 / gallon cheaper than nearby gas stations. I've seen it as much as $0.60 / gallon cheaper on occasion. On top of that, their gas is Top Tier.
The simpler variant of this is to obtain a gift certificate. They are required to let you spend it it, so you can get into the store that way. Bring cash, though -- they don't love that people do this, so they don't always take credit cards on these transactions.
If you ever visit Japan, you can buy a Costco membership there for $35 and use it in the US.
I heard you can also get someone with a membership to buy you a gift card, and use the reloadable gift card for continued access. (Or buy one for yourself and then cancel your membership.)
If you do most of your grocery shopping there like me, you can get the executive membership which gives you 2% cash back on everything at the end of the year which for me makes the membership completely free. Pay with the Costco credit card and you get an additional 2%.
For the kinds of people who post on HN, the real savings of a Costco membership is that they regularly have high-end electronics, appliances, and home furnishings at $50-100 or more off retail elsewhere. Get a robot vacuum or a couch or a VR headset for $100 off and your membership's already paid for itself that year. For several years, if you need to replace a refrigerator or washing machine.
> Get a robot vacuum or a couch or a VR headset for $100 off and your membership's already paid for itself that year
I think one danger with Costco is that it encourages overconsumption. It may feel like you're saving money - but you'd save even more just not buying a robot vaccum or VR headset.
If you do the research and decide you would benefit from a robot vacuum, compare different models to decide on the best fit for your needs, and then check prices at different stores and find that it's cheapest at Costco - then yeah I'd say you're saving money. But I'd venture to guess that most robot vacuums are just bought on impulse during Black Friday sales (for example) - which I don't think counts as saving money even if you get a big discount from the MSRP.
To be fair, this isn't a problem unique to Costco. I'm guilty of buying a lot of junk on Amazon.
> If you do the research and decide you would benefit from a robot vacuum, compare different models to decide on the best fit for your needs, and then check prices at different stores and find that it's cheapest at Costco - then yeah I'd say you're saving money.
That sounds like you might well be spending more time than the money you're saving.
There was a point where two friends and I each lived alone in an apartment, and I was the only one who had a (2-door) car. We still occasionally did Costco runs.
We'd go in and walk the store - the whole store - aisle by aisle.
If I saw something like a 2-pound bag of tortellini, but thought two pounds was too big a quantity for me, I'd ask, "does anybody want to split two pounds or tortellini?" One might say yes, so we'd throw the tortellini in the shopping cart.
At the end, one person (the membership holder) would pay, and we'd divvy up the result of our haul into reusable containers, in the parking lot. One of us would then take point on itemizing the receipt, and we'd pay back the person with the membership.
In hindsight, I think we did this more to socialize than to save money, but we definitely did save money. Even as a single apartment-dweller, I bought my fair share of 24-packs of yogurt and 5-pound bags of frozen vegetables.
Growing up as a kid, we lived in the sticks and the small local grocery store had a limited produce section. My mom joined a little co-op where each person would put in the same amount of cash, but one person would make a trip to the downtown farmer's market. The purchase was split evenly between each member. Each trip a different person made the trip so the variety changed not only by what was available but by the person making the trip's preferences.
This was my introduction to collective buying and at the same time the fact there's a bigger world out there than where one lives.
This is what I did with 3 roommates in college. We saved a ton of money that way.
After college, I only had one roommate and Costco didn't work as well. The quantities for certain things are just a bit much. Buying 36 eggs for 4 adults made sense. Buying 36 eggs for 2 adults... not so much. I ended up going to Costco for toilet paper and gas, and that's it.
To this day, I'm still the "spouse" on one of those college roommates' costco memberships, LOL.
Some stuff like milk is a nonstarter. But most everything else I will go to costco for even living in a small apartment. Big costco thing of olive oil is far cheaper than olive oil anywhere else and not too hard to store. pack of trash bags again easy to store cheaper than anywhere else. likewise for dish soap, just as wide as a standard bottle but square and far cheaper. A lot of stuff with longer shelf lifes that I eat anyway in maybe 1.5-2x the volume as sold in a regular grocery stores and works out to be cheaper still somehow than that smaller volume unit at the regular grocery store. Cereal. Oats. I will even get my creatine there. My rubbing alcohol and hydrogen peroxide. My generic allergy medicine and psuedoephedrine (which is a RACKET at CVS by the way). There's been times I've had some baking in front of me and 24 rack of eggs made sense. I also get their golf balls and golf gloves. Cheap zinc sunscreen.
> What I want is an anti-costco. More like a bodega. Still curated, maybe a larger mark-up, but smaller quantities of everything. Half loaves of bread, small bags of frozen veg, enough sugar or flour to bake just a couple batches.
This is becoming even harder to achieve nowadays, there is all this variety in size of products and more and more over the years(at least in the midwest) it seems that grocery stores want to take the small product and apply minimums to deals.
there will be an 8oz offering and a 14 oz offering, the 8 oz will be on sale but only if you buy at least 2 or 3, its incredibly frustrating.
It has incidentally made my junk food habits better though, If i see 2 for 5$ for a package of cookies with no minimum purchase, I'll likely grab a box. As soon as they apply that minimum, i am gonna be thinking "do i really wanna eat all those cookies?" instead i end up with 0.
> the 8 oz will be on sale but only if you buy at least 2 or 3, its incredibly frustrating.
Have you tested this by buying just one, and checking the price on the receipt?
I ask because someone once told me this was illegal in the US; that a shop was allowed to display the sale price only for a larger quantity, but they had to honor the same price per unit if you only bought one. (I think we were discussing produce at the time, in case that matters.) I've long wondered if that was true or just an urban legend.
My grocery store does both. If the label says "Sale: 2/$5, Was: $3.99" and I buy one, I get charged $2.50. If the label says "2/$5, Single item: $3" and I buy one, I get charged $3.
Most likely that pricing rule was/is at a more local level. The national level in the US doesn't have anything like that, but there are some states or cities or counties that can and do.
iirc yes it did not apply on purchase as well, on the label it is always also explicit about cost if not bought in those quantities(2 for 5 in any quantity is still sometimes the actual offering). I am assuming my memory is correct because its baked into my shopping experience to ensure i am reading the label correctly now.
Meijer is slowly becoming a bad offender of these types of things, Jewel has been horrifying for years, to the point where i avoid their store entirely. The final straw was this limit applied to gallons of milk.
The computers are not dumb. If you do not purchase the correct number of items, the discount is not applied. Also, if you do not have a member/loyalty account, you do not get those discounts. They now have a new level that requires you to have their app for "digital" coupons that are on top of the loyalty prices. There are many times where I don't input my number in until the very end, and then see it calculate all of the deductions. Sometimes it's not much, but I've seen it drop $30 from the "member" price discounts.
I thought this was obvious, but to spell it out: I was suggesting that they might not necessarily be programmed to apply a different price depending on quantity. An item might have a flat price of $1 each, but labeled on the shelf/bin as "special: five for $5" to encourage larger purchases.
I have personally encountered this. Meanwhile, I do not recall an example of buying a quantity smaller than suggested and being charged a higher price per item. Hence my question about labeling and law.
> Also, if you do not have a member/loyalty account, you do not get those discounts.
> An item might have a flat price of $1 each, but labeled on the shelf/bin as "special: five for $5" to encourage larger purchases.
That's not a special, that's just math. I've only ever seen that kind of nonsense from Amazon. I've seen Buy 3 for $5, while the individual is $1.99. If you buy one you pay $1.99, if you buy two you pay $3.98, but if you buy three, you end up paying $5. The receipt will show 3 @ $1.99 with a discount under the item bringing the total to $5. My store routinely has various meat offerings of Buy 1, get 2 free. If you ring up one, it shows the price. If you ring up 3, it shows all three items, but discount the cheapest two prices so you only pay for the single highest priced item.
Major chains are not going to be futzing around with gotcha tags. They know they'll be called out for it. It would be the bodega style places that I'd be suspect of that kind of shenanigans.
> I'm not talking about membership discounts.
Why not? It clearly shows two different prices. If you are not using a discount/loyalty card, you pay the full price. A lot of times I've seen when you use a line with a human checker they'll have a card on stand by (probably their own) to get the points while giving the buyer the lower prices.
> I ask because someone once told me this was illegal in the US; that a shop was allowed to display the sale price only for a larger quantity, but they had to honor the same price per unit if you only bought one.
No, WTF? That's not a thing, why would you even credit such obvious nonsense?
The thing is you can save a ton of money on a few non-food items to make it worth it. Just over-the-counter medicines save me a huge chunk of the membership fee. Then there are just random household goods: paper products, trash bags, dishwasher detergent, etc.
I've been seeing more and more of these "weird" membership perks. I had not seen the car rental until now. I've seen the vacations and other home repair/upgrade things. I'm in a perpetual disagreement with Enterprise that makes them not allow me to rent a car from them or their sub-brands (which is most of them now it seems). I might check into Costco's offerings for this summer. Thanks for the reminder.
We've been buying their "fresh" salmon (not freeze-packed) for years, until parasites started crawling out of one fillet. Statistically nothing, but the wife will never buy it again ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've been doing most of my grocery shopping at Costco for more than 20 years and I still don't understand this claim. I'm only shopping for my wife and I. I have a normal sized house, normal sized pantry, normal sized car. I just don't buy things in bulk that I can't use before they spoil and I freeze all meats. Most things at Costco are barely larger than standard size. You can buy a single gallon of milk, a single quart of creamer, 18 eggs, etc. It's never once been a problem. I fill in smaller things from Aldi (like if I need a bottle of mustard). I have plenty of variety - I'm buying raw ingredients and can make a wide variety of things from them.
Shopping like you're talking about (small quantities of everything) will easily double your grocery spending, and I don't know why you would do it unless there's something about the experience you really like. If that's what you want, the chain that comes to mind is Fresh Market if you're in the eastern US, or just a local market.
Yeah bodegas and specialty grocery stores are for this and tend to be frequent in dense or HCOL areas in the US. We shop at one (also because we're food snobs and cook a lot, so we strongly prefer not getting the "Costco basics" version of our staples) for most things and likewise shop roughly weekly.
Not sure if there's anything preventing this from happening in North America but in Japan there are stores that literally just sold broken down bulk items bought at Costco.
If you're willing to drive far and are in the western US, I highly recommend WinCo foods as a place to buy all your "normal" foods in individual units for very low prices no membership required. Theyre outside the center city usually.
sounds like you just want to live in europe (or probably anywhere outside of the US?). You can typically go buy a half (or quarter) loaf of bread from a baker, and street markets let you buy all the small quantities you want by the kilo
One of the few things I miss about living in Charlotte a few years back, it's the brand spanking new Lidl stores that popped up. Like mini Costcos' with decent pricing. Bright and cheery. I must've gone there daily, not least for exploring the middle mystery isle. There were Aldis' too, but they were 2 tiers below Lidl. I've been to both chains in Germany and Aldi and Lidl seemed on par there.
To me that's the main thing about disk encryption, it's to stop a nasty rootkit from being installed trivially as much as it is about stopping the guy at the pawn shop from getting your tax info. Whether you're on macos, linux, or windows, it's really quite easy to fully compromise a machine if you have hands on it.
reply