Let's assume that the Axis winning the war means they keep all territory they've had at the height of their expansion in our timeline but don't expand much more, at least not immediately.

• The EU does not exist but as most of Europe is either occupied by Germany or allied with it, there might be a similar organization with a way stronger Germany at its center.
• If a NATO-like alliance forms, it excludes most of Europe, mainly consisting of the USA, Canada and UK, maybe Spain and Portugal
• The Soviet Union is way weaker than in our timeline with most of Eastern Europe being under German control. They still have control over Central Asia, probably more than in our timeline.
• The Allies still control Gibraltar and are able to intercept ships passing through the English Channel, making the west of France the only safe access to the Atlantic for the Axis.
• Wernher von Braun and other rocket scientists stay in Germany, giving the USA and Soviet Union a massive disadvantage in the development of ICBMs. The USA may have nuclear bombs but their only way to threaten Germany with them would be UK-based bombers which are way slower and easier to defend against. On the other hand, a failure of the Manhattan Project might be the whole reason why the Axis wins the war. Everyone will figure it out eventually but as we see from real life, it might take decades.
• No proper cold war as there are no two super powers exercising mutually assured destruction with ICBMs but probably ongoing tensions along the German-Soviet border. The USA probably stays out of it to avoid becoming a target for either side.
• Italian East Africa (Somalia) becomes the most important rocket launch site in the world, as it is the only Axis-controlled territory that is close to the equator and has open ocean to the east. Some smaller rockets may launch from Japan. French Guiana might be under Axis control but shipping rockets over the Atlantic is dangerous when they could get intercepted by foreign ships. Without competition, manned spaceflight develops a lot slower, maybe not at all.
• Without manned spaceflight and the threat of a nuclear war, there is less incentive to develop computers and the internet.

File:World War II in Europe, 1942 (no labels).svg - Wikimedia Commons

^{commons.wikimedia.org}

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o…
Lots of gases work as refrigerants. CO2 requires a much higher pressure so you can't just put it in your old truck. They have different operating temperatures and pressures .. CO2 also has that ugly solid phase in its diagram.

R290 propane ust works like good old R22. They pass rules againt it not for your safety or the environment but to force you to buy their products. Many of which have nasty "forever" compounds.

@PNS that would be the six million dollar man March.

The million dollar man March is something different.

Sensitive content Reveal/hide

remember this one?

“We've never tested and we never will test prices based on customer demographics,” said Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

(After testing randomly varying prices on customers)

press.aboutamazon.com/2000/9/a…

Amazon.com Issues Statement Regarding Random Price Testing

SEATTLE--September 27, 2000— Amazon.com today issued the following statement regarding random price testing:

^{US Press Center}

@CppGuy @siobhan @EndicottAuthor That's different, though. If you have a loyalty card you know the price of an item, and you know what the discount will be. Anyone with a loyalty card will get that discount.

What some supermarkets in the US seem to be talking about is tracking people with facial ID and combining that with data from data brokers in order to gauge how much to charge you. Buying tampons and you're on your period? Price goes up, b/c they know you really need them now.

@siobhan @bodhipaksa @EndicottAuthor

The big UK supermarkets have used personal pricing for years. But they don't call it that: they call it "offers chosen for you." Anyone who doesn't opt into the loyalty scheme pays full price for everything.

About the only defence a customer has is to carry a physical loyalty card rather than installing the store's creepy app. Unsurprisingly, when you apply for the card, stores push you really hard to install the app instead, and, for at least one store (Marks and Spencer), it's the app or nothing. The app, of course, needs an outrageous set of permissions and contains no fewer than ten trackers:

reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/…

@bodhipaksa

I understand the distinction, but the UK is already closer than that to personalised pricing. Some discounts are available to everyone with a loyalty card, but others, offered online, are personalised. Tesco seems to use them to tempt me to buy

• More than I need of products that I've already stocked up on, and
• Products that are a bit more expensive than I usually buy, and which I don't want to get into the habit of buying because I know the offer is temporary.

Sainsbury has a big sign, touting personalised offers, at the entrance to our nearest branch. And the checkout usually prints vouchers of the form "spend twice as much as usual within a week and get £15 off the bill".

@siobhan @pluralistic @EndicottAuthor

@jackwilliambell @simon_brooke
with the "first rule of business" typically being a variation of "never leave money on the table" means any seller will try to maximize profits, regardless of who they're selling to, or at what price point.

there are are also pricing strategies to drive consumers to "pick" a desired option. eg 3 similar things for sale: one cheap in all regards, one overpriced, and one "Goldilocks" in between option that has the best profit margin of them all.

Clearly Amazon knows who would pay more than others and clearly it is in their interest to charge accordingly. They control the market and when you can control the market, you can extract more profits from it than an efficient market would allow any trader to extract.

For the producer and the buyer, an efficient market would be the best as then, the middle man would extract the least.

@CppGuy @siobhan @bodhipaksa @EndicottAuthor

In the case of Tesco, the biggest loyalty card pushers, it's not discounted price and real price. It's real price and profiteering price. This was obvious when they rolled out this in a big way, a few years ago, where in my local Tesco Express I saw price increases of 50% and above in the "non-loyalty" prices, almost overnight. It worked, I got a card. (That shop is trivial walking distance, anything better is a bus ride.)

Except Jaffa cakes. Pricing there is nuts. Always check all sizes for which is cheaper today. But don't buy any size unless at least one has an offer. And if you can afford it, if something you want but not need does not have an offer, wait until it does.

@dnkboston @simon_brooke
> "… a lot of people don't have options, and the people who run them know that."

I suspect it's more complicated than that. If you only have a dollar you don't have an option – unless you don't actually NEED the good on hand, in which case you have the option of not buying cosmetics or a stickerbook or whatever.

And yet people with little money buy those things. I'm not condemning them, but I am saying there are no simple answers for complex problems.

@jackwilliambell The not-poor can afford a better value because they're not poor.

When Jack Monroe created the index, they were writing as they were going in and out of poverty. Other poor people knew they were being hustled but literally couldn't afford to do anything about it.

Dollar stores don't exist because people are thinking they can get a better value. They exist because a lot of people don't have options, and the people who run them know that.

@simon_brooke @pluralistic

@dnkboston @simon_brooke
Yup. See, "… there are a lot of people who do not properly differentiate between 'price' and 'value'."

If everyone was good at determining actual value dollar stores would not exist and 'reducing the size of government' would be a process of determining cost-benefit ratios.