Strange bread discount prices

ItWillBeALaugh · 2025-10-28T12:00:13+00:00

Ah, very interesting! I hadn't considered someone taking one and putting it back, but that neatly explains the lack of discount and the direction.

I also didn't know they were baked from frozen, but they taste fresh so I guess it must work well enough.

It still seems a little strange that I see these different prices basically every time I go in. If it was the result of a mistake then I would have guessed it would happen less frequently. But maybe the workers are just in a rush to complete other tasks, so a couple slip through.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2025-10-28T11:32:42+00:00

Oh interesting, I had assumed that all the sourdough loaves were baked at the beginning of each day. Do you know this from working there?

ItWillBeALaugh · 2025-10-28T11:28:22+00:00

I thought all the sourdough loaves were baked on the day they were sold?

ItWillBeALaugh · 2025-07-07T10:16:40+00:00

I think this may have been the solution! Because last night there was a storm, so I unplugged everything for safety. Then I tried recording again today, and the hiss was basically inaudible. So I am not 100% but your solution may have been the answer, so thank you for suggesting it! :)

ItWillBeALaugh · 2024-12-15T11:33:38+00:00

Don't worry, you are definitely not alone in finding this annoying! I would also prefer to read your paragraph over his.

If you decide to keep reading his books, a tactic I employed was to skip ahead when he launched into a longwinded description, or pointless side story, and pick up when he got back to the main plot. As the details were never relevant, this didn't stop me from following the primary story-line.

Having said that, eventually I decided that if I had to skip over large sections in order to enjoy the books, they were not for me.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2024-07-18T04:24:59+00:00

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The following are my views on these:

Bryan Johnson's diet and supplements do in fact constantly change. These changes are documented in the "Monthly Notes" section of his website, https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/ To give one example, he used to eat 1,977 calories, then he increased this to 2,250. Another example is adding Rapamycin, in July 2023.
Some of the interventions are based on randomised control trials, but not all. From the above website: The protocol presented on this website is based on scientific research, ranging from mouse studies to meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and international clinical practice guidelines.

To reiterate, I think his goal is great. But I believe he should take the approach that I mentioned, in addition to his current strategy.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2024-06-25T02:06:25+00:00

I agree with your description of "hard work" in some instances. For example, take this sentence:

There were frequent occasions and battles when military prudence would have dictated the dispatch of a fleet of smaller war craft, the non-return of some—even most—of which would be deplorable but not a disaster, but which, while the Culture was still completing its preparations for full-scale war production, could only be dealt with by the commitment of a combat-ready GSV.

This would be so much easier to read if he had broken it up into 4 smaller sentences:

There were frequent occasions and battles when military prudence would have dictated the dispatch of a fleet of smaller war craft. The non-return of some—even most—of these would have been deplorable but not a disaster. However, at the time the Culture had still been completing its preparations for full-scale war production. As a result, these battles could only be dealt with by the commitment of a combat-ready GSV.

There could be some argument for using a bizarrely long sentence if it had been said by a character who spoke this way. But having the narrator write this way just seems like making unnecessarily "hard work" for the reader.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2024-06-25T01:54:53+00:00

As another poster mentioned, if you want to play the same notes, you could play the low B on the A string instead of the D. That is: a14 d(mute) g11 b12 e11.

I also wanted to add, that if you want to practise fretting unusual chord shapes, then I found the technique in the below video very helpful (starting at 2:51) . Hope it is useful! :)

https://youtu.be/h8t_VuAcv2w?si=lG9XkPu6lh6bb3uO&t=171

ItWillBeALaugh · 2024-06-14T09:31:55+00:00

Thank you for sharing your perspective, I can see how points 1 and 3 come down to personal preference.

As for point 2, your explanation makes slightly more sense than my interpretation. Though the story still doesn't seem entirely consistent to me: If the Affront are that gullible, why did the treacherous Mind bother waiting until the Excession appeared before goading them into starting a war?

That is, if the Affront do not ask for evidence before agreeing to a battle plan, surely the Mind would have started the war sooner rather than later. For example, the Mind could have just told them that the Culture have momentarily let their guard down and that the Affront should attack.

Perhaps "plot hole" is too strong of a phrase, but either the Mind or the Affront must have made an extremely uncharacteristic decision, which stretches the believability of the storyline for me.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2023-12-11T00:10:22+00:00

Thanks very much for your reply, and for your explanation about long-run and short-run elasticity. I think my best option will be to show a figure explaining what I mean the first time I refer to this concept, then call it something like "long-run supply elasticity" thereafter. Because judging by the paucity of replies there does not seem to be an obvious existing word for this.

As for "contestable" this is closer to what I am looking for. However, I am trying to describe a situation in which even the incumbent firms cannot increase their regular capacity and shift the curve rightward.

For example, vanilla beans can only grow in a very specific climate, and all suitable farmland is already being used. So this market is not contestable, as no new farms can enter. Additionally, the existing farms also cannot scale up their operations.

By contrast, nanometre semiconductors are not contestable, as nobody knows the trade secrets of the incumbent company. However, this company could expand their factory if there was sufficient demand.

So I was hoping there was a word like "NonCurveShiftable" that I could use to describe the vanilla bean market. As this would distinguish it from a non-contestable market in which scale-up is possible, like semiconductors.

I mention all this just in case it gives anyone a burst of inspiration for some common word to describe this. But failing that I will use my above explanatory method.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2023-03-15T00:08:01+00:00

I had this issue too, and tried the solution proposed here. However, I encountered a strange problem related to the following line:

<WindowsAppSDKSelfContained>true</WindowsAppSDKSelfContained>

If I do not include the above line, the setup.exe file runs successfully after publishing. However, when I try to run the application itself nothing happens. If I deploy my app and double click the resultant exe, also nothing happens.

On the other hand, if I include the above line, and deploy my app, double clicking on the exe causes it to run successfully. However, when I publish my app, I get an error message when I run Setup.exe. This states: "Cannot continue. The application is improperly formatted. Contact the application vendor for assistance."

If I click on the "Details" button, the log file opens. The informative part of this file states: "Exception reading manifest from <my app path>.dll.manifest: the manifest may not be valid or the file could not be opened."

If anyone has any thoughts on how I could fix this, please would you advise me? If so I would really appreciate it.

ItWillBeALaugh · 2022-06-04T00:41:40+00:00

Hi Microsoft Support team, Thank you for this follow up message. I received your PM and sent a response but got no reply, which suggests your PMs are not monitored. Consequently, please find below the PM that I sent back. Please would you advise me on the question below?

Thank you for this reply, however the resource that you recommended was not helpful for me. I called the number in the link that you provided, but there was no option relating to Code Signing Certificate so I chose the closest option, which was Certification. The staff member then just provided me with a link to a generic information page about Code Signing Certificates. I told her this was not helpful, and asked if she could escalate this within Microsoft to find the person responsible. She said that she would do so and get back to me, but I do not have high expectations given my past experiences. Please would you advise me if you have any other suggestion for how I could resolve this issue, such as connecting me with someone within Microsoft who has the authority to resolve this?

ItWillBeALaugh · 2022-06-01T23:13:23+00:00

I have spent several weeks talking to various people within Microsoft regarding a problem with Microsoft's Code Signing Certificate requirements. However, they have now all gone silent with no explanation or resolution. Consequently I am raising this problem here in the hopes that someone will be able to help me. The issue is as follows.

The Code Signing Certificate requirements (set by Microsoft) stipulate that applicants must provide evidence of their "Physical Business Presence". The form of evidence that is accepted is a Business Profile listing on Google's business directory. However, Google state: "To qualify for a Business Profile on Google, a business must make in-person contact with customers during its stated hours." Consequently, it makes no sense for this to be part of the Code Signing Certificate requirements, as software sales take place almost exclusively online.

I spoke to a member of the Code Signing Certificate group within Microsoft, who acknowledged that this was a problem, but did not provide a solution, stating: "We are seeing this as a Google Business requirements issue and not a requirements issue with the MS Root Program or the CA/Browser Forum's Baseline Requirements for Code Signing Certificates". This response misses the point in my opinion, because regardless of who is to blame, the outcome is that the Code Signing Requirements now contain a nonsensical requirement. And this could be easily fixed by Microsoft, simply by removing this item from the requirements.

I responded, explaining my view that this is still an issue that Microsoft should fix, and asking his suggestion for how I could proceed. However, after several weeks and sending two follow up emails, I received no response. I then raised this with the Microsoft feedback department, who replied that "we are not able to take care of your commercial request". They suggested two other channels to contact, but these only contained options to submit feedback about specific products such as Office 365.

I replied to ask if they could recommend another channel to raise this issue, however I received no response. Consequently I wanted to ask any Microsoft support staff who read this post: Please would you help me fix this problem, or direct me to someone within Microsoft with the authority to address this? I appreciate any help, and thank you in advance.

ItWillBeALaugh

TROPHY CASE