You see that everywhere. Even within countries that aren’t classed as developing nations. The UK massively shot itself in the foot with the disaster that was Brexit thanks to nationalistic propaganda and outright lies from campaigners, and US liberals have faced “anti-American” backlash for their views.

To be fair, every country believes their culture is superior in some way, partly because it’s beneficial for governments to instil a sense of nationalism in its citizens. India’s not alone in that.

This is exactly why, and as simple as it is, it’s brilliant passive marketing. It stealthily implants an association to Apple Intelligence into every product and article that mentions AI, and might even require the author to distinguish their meaning when they use the acronym. They’ve Sherlock’d AI.

If it was serious they didn’t mean it, and if they did it was a parody, and if it was we didn’t understand it, and if we did it wasn’t funny, but thank fuck mean orange man gone.

Dying

Also Potion Seller

Yeah, no question

This is likely the best explanation, although there’s plenty of highly physical/athletic sports that are popular in hot countries. Football, arguably the most athletically demanding team sport, is popular in a bunch of places where I’d rather stay in the shade with a beer.

Mate, football and cricket are mandatory in those same schools, you absolute ring binder.

And 2 million people in England are registered players. That’s 3.5% of the population. That’s just official registered players, not even fans. Your comment is absurd.

Rugby isn’t popular in England? Are you mad?

Rugby union playing countries

Make that 10.

How would this be possible? How would an individual employed by a company withhold tax from their wages, if they’re paid net? Surely it would need 100,000 self-employed or businesses themselves to withhold tax from HMRC?

Yes I’m aware of this, I’m just saying that arbitrarily speculating on the potential original price for 1 item does nothing to change the current actual situation. If the cost was £10 for 1, I wouldn’t have bothered taking a photo.

Alternatively you could take the viewpoint that Next has already worked out that the price of 1 shirt is a minimum of £8, hence the costings for multiple units. Any price they put over £8 for 1 unit is additional profit, while the expected revenue per unit is £8+n where n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.

Additionally, the 2x and 3x offerings are not, and were never, discounted. The sticker reduces the price of 1 shirt, but if you were in the market for two, there’s no saving based on when you buy them. There might have been a saving originally, we assume, against the cost of buying 1 twice, but that’s irrelevant if you want two shirts at any point. Obviously the pricing would have been to incentivise the purchase of two when you would potentially only have bought one, so that is the driver for the sale, at which point the price per shirt is £8, and remains £8 per shirt for any multiple purchase, both before and after the sticker price amendment.

Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.

Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting was solved. You’re positing scenarios whereas I’m presenting facts - the photo. Which, for the consumer, is mildly infuriating.

Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.

There is no curve.

Does it though? The moment 2x is £16 , the cost of 1 shirt is £8. Therefore there’s no scaling at 3x. It doesn’t matter how much the starting price was or how much the later prices were, if the 2x price is £16 and the 3x price is £24. The cost of 1 shirt is only ever £8 if you buy more than one, meaning that any pricing variant over 2x is pointless.

Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.

Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.

This is in danger of being an unpopular opinion, but the Xbox Series X is mine. For a comparatively low hardware price (i.e. vs PC), I’ve got access to current gen games, and (often) improved versions of a huge number of games from previous generations. Then there’s Game Pass. I know there’s bound to be divided opinion on the value of that, but for me it’s incredible. It’s very easy to find discounts, and the library is decent and updated regularly. For the cost of one triple-A game per year, I’m able to play several, plus my kids can download whatever takes their fancy.

Sure there’s the ownership vs rental argument, but I’m not one to revisit games I’ve beaten. For me, the Xbox represents the best value gaming proposition available (outside of piracy).

I remember the days of my PS1, which I loved, and I think I had a grand total of about 6 games throughout my time with it. According to the “Owned Games” section of my Xbox library, I have 250 spanning 4 generations , which doesn’t even include Game Pass. It’s borderline absurd!

The quick resume feature is excellent, the controllers are great, it’s silent, unobtrusive, and the streaming to other devices works great for when I’m at my desk. Couldn’t be happier with it.