Where I work we're hosting our own gitlab instance and the previous company I worked for hosted their own Bitbucket. For most developers I know it's either a self hosted git platform instance or Github enterprise.
> A regular cinema ticket is $22.83 to the nearest movie theater and that isnt a "premium" thing like IMAX
For about that price you can get a monthly subscription to a lot of local cinemas and unlimited viewings here. In my city all three cinemas are in this system so we just go see a movie whenever we want. Doesn't include IMAX ones and chains of course.
A sandwich, bag of crisps and a drink for £5 is an actual deal. Sandwich alone in U.S. would be $10 and the “$15 Meal Deal” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Gosh, it used to be £3 not that long ago. About £5 for a wrap at Prêt if I couldn't be bothered to go fight with the tourists to cross the road down Kingsway.
There's a lot to complain about in the UK, but food price/quality is actually pretty good. Not the absolute best, but far from the worst and certainly not Scandinavian prices.
Mmh, you can get 3 el cheapo sandwiches for 1.99€, a 100g bag of chips for 0.99€ and a liter of water for 0.90€ or flavoured /coke for 1.99€ in Germany
Considering a £ is more then a €, supposedly at last - it doesn't sound like a good deal to me
honestly, they depend on the store you chose to go to. they always taste the same.
and the last time i ate one of the sandwidches in the UK they tasted the same there too - but it's been a pretty long time, admittedly (like 20 years or so)
personally i'd skip the sandwiches in all cases - the wraps, baguettes or ready to eat salads are way better and cost the same. and i'd skip the chips too. i mean thats just pure calories. rather eat a great salad for 3€ instead of the el cheapo sandwidches and chips :)
Then I misunderstood, I thought you meant you could buy 3 sandwiches for €1.99, 67¢ each.
Tesco also have four choices for £1.50 each (€1.73), several 100-200g bags of crisps/tortilla chips for less than £1, and 2 litres of cola for 49p. This would be cheaper than the "Meal Deal".
Aldi-Nord often has packages with 3 in them for 2€, I was just unable to find them through the website, but I frequently see them as I often buy the 3€ salad right next to them - but they're not separately packaged if that was the misunderstanding
Incorrect. Maybe you familiar with the high cost of living areas. There are similar $5 deals in the United States. The US is a big place and has many, many businesses offering very similar deals.
Meal deal prices are higher in certain places, like motorway service stations. If there's a captive market, they'll sneak the price up just like every other company. If there's competition they'll use lower pricing.
If you want a shitty sandwich you can find it for $5 in the US no problem. Plus some variation of the sausage roll that will clean you out just as well.
The "main" has expanded to Huel, salads, wraps, sushi, even hot food
The "snack" can be more than crisps: small bags of fresh chicken, 2 boiled eggs, small sushi pack, gyozas etc
The "drink" includes quality smoothies, acceptable vending machine coffee etc
Meal deal value maximizing is the whole game lol. There are also lots of healthier options if you choose carefully
In certain Sainsbury's you can get hot food as the main such as a small green curry or chicken goujons, and wedges or hash browns as the side
But the price creeps up £0.50 practically yearly. I think it's £5.50 already in Sainsbury's
It's better to view it as a cheaper alternative to eating at a restaurant rather than somehow saving money compared to bringing in leftovers. People who think £5.50 a day for lunch is saving money versus cooking themselves are delusional
$6.5 is about what you'd spend to get a bag of chips, hot or cold sandwich and drink from any Walmart that's been renovated recently enough to have a "Grab and go" or whatever they're calling it.
A sandwich, a bag of crisps, and a drink at the grocer near me is $8. I don't exactly live in a super low cost of living area, nor is it one of the most expensive in the US.
I work from Starlink regularly and it’s just fine for meetings and everything else I do.
Meetings are usually under 10Mbps of downstream and 2Mbps upstream.
It’s simply false you need 1Gbps of “low latency” internet to work from home effectively unless your job is something like content production and working with huge files.
Producing for OnlyFans? Benefit from 1G to send raw to your editor.
Doing most other forms of work? Doesn’t require remotely close to this amount of bandwidth.
Building on grade is much cheaper. There is in general plenty of surface area on Planet Earth.
Datacenters aren’t built next to Nordstrom. Theres just no reason to spend on engineering and construction that increases density like underground parking.
It’s true it costs money to then hopefully make it. :)
Architecture, civil engineering, and other design and permitting fees can easily be 7–10% of the overall cost of smaller projects. Even in large projects they’re often 4-5% or more, and the number of billable hours for complex impervious surface and stormwater management adds up fast, as do engineering stamped plans for structural and other factors.
Most cost here is also incurred fairly early before you have any vertical construction done — Phase 2 in a program after land acquisition. So you feel like you’re spending a ton on paperwork and you can’t see anything yet.
You CAN spend a bit of money even before land acquisition on quick feasibility studies but in U.S. terms for something like a residential, small commercial or light industrial project every parcel you go “I like that, can it work?” you are dropping $15-50k during a 45-120 feasibility period. Should it 100% not work out you are NOT getting reimbursed that by the selling party. You’re out the money. Even within 90 days you may find some uncertainties like SEPA approval won’t close before you have to say deal or no deal on the parcel acquisition. This is quite unlike massive companies doing business where the land may not change hands until essentially every approval is locked in (but should it not work out the buyer may be out millions in engineering fees paid to try and make it work).
Borrowing to buy land and then borrowing more to build something is also treated very differently by most lenders. It carries tremendous uncertainty versus you buying a preexisting lot and structures which they know how to value. That’s fundamentally something that causes unwillingness to lend, or changes the rates and down payment or security terms. In contrast with a conforming mortgage for a SFR (single family residence) at 6%, borrowing to build (a construction loan) can be 10-14% APR, often secured via personal guarantee and other assets you possess, and then you have to convert to a personal or commercial mortgage after you complete building what you wanted.
Borrowing to buy the land is even more complicated again — you very often must be able to pay cash for land, and then just borrow to do the construction. Borrowing for both especially with limited assets to secure against will always be a polite “Sorry; we can’t help.”
It’s unusual to buy the land and take a gamble on its utility, at least whenever datacenter construction is involved. Purchasing parties are risk averse to this exact scenario and work hard to craft contracts that reduce risk.
Often the choices are —
1. Buy land at $/acre that reflects very little premium, based on a short feasibility study, but without any ultimate contingency that permitting will occur. This is your example. But problematically all permitting applications are typically public record, so when you fail, the land can’t be sold on to someone else as if that didn’t happen, any sophisticated buyer will know the exact issues the city/county had with your usage. Land often transacts onward at firesale prices under these circumstances.
2. $/acre for land is bid upon at a substantial premium reflecting the future value as a datacenter, it remains under contract for potentially years pending outcome of approvals, then it transacts. Permitting being denied usually results in either no money changing hands or a small termination fee reflecting the carrying cost of the land during that period. If permitting works out the seller of land walks away very happy as the $/acre was extremely lucrative.
I would not be willing to let the seller use the land under contract to avoid the risk of something happening that devalues or disqualifies it for its future intended purpose.
No you don’t. The overall risk is baked into the strategy, but any individual plan is always a toss up, and they have insurance policies for if one or all fail
