It's called stickerless, commingled inventory[1], and it's where they commingle inventory from multiple sources based on the manufacturer barcode instead of a unique seller-item-specific barcode label, and will use any product with the same barcode in their distribution network to fulfill the purchase regardless of which source/seller provided that individual piece of inventory originally.
From reading [1] it looks like they've tightened up the requirements for it, and put some mitigations in place around counterfeits.
But it's also an opt-in process, so would be nice if they made it visible when you are or aren't purchasing from a seller utilizing it so you can decide yourself on a given purchase whether to go with the cheapest option or potentially opt for a more expensive listing but knowing that a product isn't commingled and was provided by the seller you're purchasing from.
All else being equal, it could very well be logistically cheaper.
But to publishers, increasing the volume of printed copies of a given title is absolutely not equal to a library purchasing a single copy and physically handling it in circulation until it naturally degrades to the point of being trashed. Physically printing brand new copies for patrons to keep every time a book was 'checked-out' would pose such a materially large impact on sales volume that publishers flat out wouldn't allow it.
Even a perpetual license to loan a single copy of an ebook can cost a library upwards of $100[1], due to potential revenue impact to publishers/authors from having it in circulation in perpetuity without physical deterioration naturally limiting it's lifetime/volume of loans. And the number of simultaneous loans for a given title is generally restricted to the number of individual licenses you've paid for. If that's the case even for ebooks, you can imagine what they'd require to print a title on demand and give it away to a patron forever.
> except learning it hurts the library more than expected is a downer.
Which is likely an incentive for libraries to not expose those costs on a per-request basis. As thebitstick mentioned here[1], libraries want to encourage usage. Overall usage volume has already been budgeted for, so the variances between one request and another for a typical patron won't materially impact the overall capacity of a library from serving their patrons. Inversely, if exposing the individual request costs disincentive enough conscientious patrons from making those requests, it makes it more difficult for the library to justify the service at all and could result in the loss of budget to continue covering it. Which ends up being a net loss of access for those patrons which do not have the means to access it elsewhere and were reliant on the library for it.
> There hasn't been much of an effort to convert these to USB-C, so they all need dongles.
Not that they really improve the situation itself, but you can also get USB-A to USB-C adapters[1] (and vis versa[2]). Having a few of both on hand has come in handy as I find myself having the wrong port available for the cord/device I need to plug into it. Which seems to be happening more and more often (both for charging needs and peripherals like you mentioned). Can be useful in situations when a dongle is overkill for your needs, or where a dongle isn't really an option to use for the USB-A/USB-C conversion (such as a charger).
I bought 10 of these[1] about 4 years ago for the kids, and several more times since. The USB-A side is reversible, and the other side combines lightning and micro-usb into a single connector that'll work in either one. And I can't recall if it's this cord or another I have, but the micro-usb side may be reversible as well.
When the kids were getting to the age where they had their own devices, the learning phase was painful (for me more so than them). They kept getting confused between the lightning cable used for their iPad and the micro-usb cables used for everything else (like their battery pack and the random kid gadgets they had that used micro-usb for power supply). Their learning phase was painful (for me) as they'd try whatever cord they came across first in whatever device they needed it for, and continue that cycle until they got a match. And with no sense of how easy it is to break charging ports, they'd be pretty aggressive about it. Same with trying the USB-A side of the cord in the charger/battery, aggressively trying one direction before finally flipping it to try the other (and flipping it again because third try's the charm).
The kids love them because they Just Work for everything with no fuss (at least until recently when USB-C started popping up in some stuff like their Bluetooth headphones). The durability is a bit mixed, as some of the cords started having issues after just a few months while others are still going strong after years of daily use. But between how handy they are and the price, it's worth just treating them as expected consumables and getting enough at once to stockpile.
If the originally purported intent had carried through to the specifications, it adds up in a sense. If !important overrides indicated an explicitly set formatting/sizing for compliance/legal reasons, implementers touching it without any historical context would know at a glance what it signified and that it shouldn't be touched lightly without explicit approval. And when the implementer updates the stylesheets to use 24px text on a page based on direction from the CEO/designer and the element with an !important override stays at 26px, the implementer can point to the !important override as the cause and confirm if the person requesting the change has confirmed legal/compliance approval to change that one as well. Even if the parties involved in the change (the designer, CEO, or implementer) aren't familiar with the compliance reason for the override's origins, the fact that it's there is a known flag that changes can lead to potential violations and costs/fines and need to be properly vetted for approval.
It would also make it easier to go in and update the stylesheets to comply with changes in compliance/legal requirements, as you can easily search through the styles for !important flags and find all the spots that need reviewed for potential change needs.
That said, its use in practice is completely different than this purported rationale for the flag's existence, and !important is sprinkled so cavalierly in existing codebases to crudely but effectively get a desired effect that the above situation is impossible at this point and the original rationale is moot.
As another poster mentioned, YouTube Premium in India costs roughly $2 USD/month. And Premium Family (shareable with 5 accounts) is about $2.50 USD/month.
So subscribing via an Indian VPN can get you Premium for roughly $20 a year. Or get a Family plan for less than $30/year, and re-selling the extra slots on Reddit for about $20 a pop will net you ~$50 USD in profit.
Section 8 isn't restricted to just subsidized housing developments[1]. It can also be used as a subsidy to any private market rental as well, where the landlord is paid the subsidy from the Section 8 program and the tenant is responsible for any rental costs above that (if any).
That said, it's a hassle for landlords. They have a separate contract and commitments with the local housing authority that disburses the subsidy, in addition to the lease with the tenant. And are subject to annual home inspections by that housing authority. And most importantly in a booming market, there are legal caps to how much a tenant's annual income can be dedicated to housing and utilities. Between the income limits to qualify for section 8 and the cap on income that can go to housing, the amount that an individual can actually spend on top of the subsidy is fairly limited and may not bridge the gap to going-rates for private rentals in an area. Between that and the stigma attached to the quality of tenants using section 8, it's common for private landlords in a good market with a standard or better unit to pass on a section 8 applicant and hold out for another tenant with fewer strings attached to the transaction.
If it goes through as an actual Facetime call, then you aren't charged for it.
That said, it can easily fail to go through as a Facetime call and instead connect as a cellular call (either over the cell network or over wifi via Wifi Calling[1] if you have that enabled). If you then add Facetime video to the call, I'm not really sure if the cellular audio call stays active while the FT video goes through data, or if the whole thing transitions to a data call over FT.
That said, the ATT Forums are loaded with posts of this happening to people. Easiest way to prevent it is to just go into your account settings and disable outbound international calls. I'm not sure if they have the equivalent of [2] option in their wireless account portal (the link is for their landline service), but if not you can have customer service do it manually. That way you explicitly prevent your phone from establishing a true international call via AT&T's network (whether via cell service or Wifi Calling).
From reading [1] it looks like they've tightened up the requirements for it, and put some mitigations in place around counterfeits.
But it's also an opt-in process, so would be nice if they made it visible when you are or aren't purchasing from a seller utilizing it so you can decide yourself on a given purchase whether to go with the cheapest option or potentially opt for a more expensive listing but knowing that a product isn't commingled and was provided by the seller you're purchasing from.
[1] https://www.sourcing-monster.com/amazon-commingled-inventory...