Ay Ay...

Now I interview graduates who canâ(TM)t explain what a HAVING clause does in SQL

I avoid using HAVING when possible, it's screwy to troubleshoot, especially when dealing with nulls. Instead I break the query into multiple sub-queries (CTEs) via WITH statements.

That's DOGE's side of the story. Many employees found out they had to use their personal card for work travel and then file paperwork for reimbursement. That extra paperwork is created and processed on tax-payer's dime.

Cut-first-and-think-later...or quit.

If the crypto pop coincides with the AI pop, 1930's 2.0.

...cheap Russian oil. Profit!

"It looks like you are attempting grift, would you like help with that?"

At least customers asked for Xboxes.

It will be interesting to see how bad the AI bubble burst kicks MS.

But often it ends up the wrong tool for the job, used like a database or application. When the person who made the spaghetti-sheets leaves, everyone is left scratching their heads.

MS-Access would be a better fit, but it's often frowned upon because amateurs have also damaged its reputation. It's possible to write maintenance-friendly apps with MS-Access, it's just not tuned that way out of the box, and "maintain-ifying" an app is not taught.

(Web equivalents of MS-Access so far suck. The web ruins every CRUD/biz/data idea, I've come to conclude, probably because of the LSD-laced DOM.)

So Bricklin would not have gotten a patent, that's all that means.

Similar happened for lawsuits over dBASE's IP. With a little digging, a couple of similar languages and systems were found for older bigger computers. There was very little in dBASE that was original. The cloners just used synonyms for commands and key-words.

DOS did similar word-play per CP/M. In the early days of software, almost everyone was a dirty rat-thief, perhaps because patenting software was a legally murky area.

...going to fly to CRISPR Island and have their genes edited for a bigger dick, longer jiz, bigger tits, etc.

Yes, but in this case the US Government is the bank... China owns $700b of their debt, and can effectively either ask them to pay it back (cash out) when the bonds mature or dump some - or all - of them on the bond market at any point they choose.

Dumping them reduces their value, including any of China's remaining holdings, but would almost certainly cause the US' credit rating to be downgraded - and therefore the interest required to service its debt - all $38 trillion and counting of it! - to go up. It doesn't take many fractions of a percentage point increase to cause the US economy real problems in that scenario. If they decide to cash out mature bonds, then the US either has to pay up - which basically means balancing cutting budgets and raising taxes to raise the cash, or printing more money and devaluing the Dollar to pay for it instead; meaning prices of US imports and the cost of servicing the remaining debt both go up again. Neither are going to be popular with the US electorate.

The final option would be the nuclear one; default. That would crash the US economy completely, and bring most of the rest of the world's down with it, but especially those that have a significant slice of the global financial markets and a heavy reliance on imports (US, UK, EU...), but less so for those that, for various reasons, don't import much and are less dependant on the financial markets (BRICS). A default would also mean that the US' credit rating and value of the USD would go way down, so interest rates go through the roof and the cost of imports would skyrocket. On the plus side (if you can call it that), with the USD being worth less compared to other currencies, and perhaps significantly so, it could become *really* easy for the US to export anything it can still produce once the dust settles.

So, I take it you didn't read and understand my comment? At no point did I say China's imports are considerably smaller than their imports - I actually stated the opposite (see the last sentence of the first paragraph) - just that it's not quite the almost absolute "all or nothing" OP implied.

To re-iterate: Plenty of countries make stuff China wants, and they do indeed import in significant quantities from many different countries, contrary to what OP implied, it's just that despite all those imports their exports *still* massively outstrip their imports (as your linked data clearly indicates). Also, OP implied they were just sitting on the resulting surplus as cash (virtual or not), which was the real point of my post - that they are not doing that at all. They are, in fact, weaponising it and turning it into the economic equivalent of an aircraft carrier by buying government bonds (e.g. the national debt) of countries that they may have a problem with in the future. Many of the rest they are shackling using Belt & Road loans. If it comes to it, being able to crash an adversaries economy by dumping those bonds, then hitting it with a barrage of cyber attacks, there's a pretty good chance they'll be on their knees and have a panicing population to deal with before anyone even needs to fire off any kind of conventional weaponry.

Right... I worked for The Beer Store, the brewer-owned private company which distributes beer across the Province of Ontario. Our Premier (roughly equivalent to a State Governor) made a campaign promise of "A buck a beer!".

So, a new empty can cost roughly $0.20 at the time. The law in Ontario is that shelf prices include tax and deposit. So, the can is $0.30 - twenty cents for the can itself, plus another dime for the deposit to make sure the used can comes back for recycling.

Now, on top of that, you have to make a food-grade beverage, pay your excise tax to the federal government, and then there have to be profits for the manufacturer and the distributor/retailer (that would be Brewers Distributing Limited dba. The Beer Store).

Customers would come to me and - with that "I know more than you even though I haven't held a job in 16 years" expertise - tell me that we were going to be carrying "buck a beer" because they voted for Doug Ford (who also cut their welfare increases).

"When do you get it? It's gotta be soon!"

"The first shipment arrives February 31st, so mark your calendar!"

I must have used that line 500 times. Only one person realized that there's no February 31st. To his credit, he had to come back to the store to tell me. LOL

Exactly ONE brewer made the Buck A Beer - Cool Brewing of Etobicoke, in Doug Ford's riding. We were lucky if we got a single case (24 beers) a month. Promise fulfilled... Right.

Anyway... The Beer Store's shelf tags were printed at the distribution center and sent to stores with truckloads of beer and empties in and out. Of course, you always had too many tags you didn't need, and were always short of the shelf tags that you did need. If a tag was outdated and wrong, you have to - ethically if not legally - honour the price. And, of course, if a tag was damaged or lost, there was no tag for that product. All of this hearkened back to The Beer Store's roots as Brewer's Retail where everything was behind a counter and we had a selection wall. In a newer self-service store like mine, this did not work.

Electronic shelf tags were implemented. It was amazing. Snap the tag into place on the shelf. Scan the tag. Scan the product. Press a button. The scan gun would beep and a moment later, the tag would update with the item description and price.

Price changes? Automatically updated on all tags.

Now, something about selling addictive substances: Sometimes someone decides that the item's price is what they have, not what the shelf tag says. And they will argue with you until the cows come home. You get jaded to it.

"That will be $2.25 for the can of Pabst Blue Ribbon 5.9."

"The tag says $1.95 so you have to give it to me for that. You forgot to update the sticker."

"No sir, I assure you that it doesn't. They're not stickers, they're electronic and tied to the POS."

"It says $1.95."

"Sir, if the shelf tag says $1.95 for Pabst Blue Ribbon 5.9, I will give you a full case of it. On the house."

For a moment, they're elated. And then they realize that I'm coming out from behind the counter to call their bluff. In front of the lineup of impatient customers during the daily 10:01AM opening rush. Catcalls. Whistles. Jeers.

Walk over with the dude... shelf tag says $2.25 for PBR 5.9. Now, at this point, I'm annoyed, and I'm not going to short my till $0.30 for him. Or suggest to him an alternative beer that is $1.95 a can. If he'd just passed me all his change and come up a little short, I would have covered it. Personally, out of my pocket, if I didn't have a few nickels and dimes perpetually floating around my cash. I've spent way too much time on both sides of the counter at The Beer Store, so I have plenty of empathy - just don't be an asshole.

Anyway... Dollar stores are dealing with customers who are on the very bottom economic rung, whether from addiction or for some other bad life event. Now, sometimes these people are a nickel away from being able to afford a can of beer - or a jar of baby food. I have seen split tender three ways for a $2 item - $0.50 from returning 5 empty cans, $0.97 by scraping a prepaid Mastercard from last Christmas to the last cent, and then $0.55 from under the sofa cushions or wherever. Unexpected price changes can drastically upset plans these people have made to get a few supplies with their very last dollar.

"I can get a box of Kraft Dinner at Dollarama for $0.50, and two cans of cat food at A Buck Or Two with the other $0.50..." I've seen it, and I've personally lived it.

The shelf tags, especially at a dollar/discount/alcohol/cannabis store of any sort, must be accurate. As an experienced retail manager, electronic shelf tags are simply essential.

You can sell the boss on implementing them with the operational savings, the labour of having to change stickers with every price change. Electronic shelf tags will pay for themselves in very short order.

They're dragging buzzwords through the water, so see whether they get any nibbles.

Your MBA/PHB eats this shit right up.

...I remember when companies wanted to accelerate depreciation, so they could take the write-off sooner.

I also remember the days when the tax laws made me a depreciable asset in my role doing tech research. I never quite worked up enough nerve to call the accountants and ask what happened after they had depreciated away my full value :^)