Isn’t it: (a) they make it in smaller quantities so they don’t get economies of scale (b) it’s more expensive to make (c) the psychology of pricing is weird and more expensive can be oddly appealing and (d) they’re seeing what they can get away with
“The rac Foundation, a research group, reports that the average new car is driven 8,460 miles a year, down from 9,648 in 2015. An entire road-based culture has all but disappeared”
It feels like a bit of a stretch to say a culture has “disappeared” just because people are driving a bit less.
I’ve never understood Legal 500 / Chambers & Partners. It has virtually no use for potential solicitor-clients who want a barrister, it’s a mystery who decides who gets in and the quotes are essentially free-association superlative bingo.
Another article in the mould of: "If you apply the concepts of 'Left' and 'Right' to this, things don't make sense" without asking whether the concepts of Left / Right work anymore.
Even Neil Postman recognised the value of trashy TV. The point is that trying to have the televisual equivalent of the London Review of Books is just a waste of everyone’s time.
Surely it’s basic filmmaking that if you do a twist the audience has to go “ah, all the pieces of the puzzle make sense now” rather than “hang on, we were playing a puzzle?”
To a UK lawyer it is wild that any court (let alone a Supreme Court) can come to such a decision— (a) without having heard argument, and (b) without giving reasons.
Looking at the clock at 8:07am, when by 8:30am I still need to shave, shower, brush teeth, dress and pack bag - and also get two children dressed, brush their teeth, brush their hair, pack their bags and fill their water bottles etc
