Presumably there are (implicit?) "sec-none" things, like [a] from the recently released 150.0.2 [b] which makes absolutely zero mention about "Security Impact" or "Severity" in the bug report, unlike [c], which is listed in the Mozilla weblog post [2].
Security things are mentioned in the Release Notes [b] pointing to a completely different document [d].
Perhaps sometimes a bug is 'just' a bug, and not a vulnerability.
> It’s a foreign concept for many of us who seek out the best product or deals for each purchase and will change brands in an instant if another company releases a better product.
Perhaps those folks found certain brands regularly have decent (enought) quality and stick with them, and/or they have a personal aesthetic that they've developed that may be 'limited' to certain brands.
Some folks also don't want to go through the effort of constantly/regularly (re-)evaluating things: they've found that Brand X gives them enough quality/value, and have stopped looking.
> Some folks also don't want to go through the effort of constantly/regularly (re-)evaluating things: they've found that Brand X gives them enough quality/value, and have stopped looking
This argument stops holding water when those same people start judging other people for not also using Brand X.
They used to be better but I stopped buying them after COVID related supply chain problems lowered the quality, at least a few years ago. Dunno if they rebounded. Supposedly they are made in the same factory as Smartwool
That seems improbable. I have bought "merino" socks from Costco and they are only something like 20% merino. I also have Smartwool socks and they are quite different.
I actually like Costco's generic black-and-orange athletic sock as a daily driver. I treat them poorly; we take off our shoes in the house but not socks. As they wear out, I throw them away; once a year I buy a new pack to refresh the losses. I use the Smartwool for activities but otherwise take good care of them. They last.
Always found Costco's largest source of profits interesting:
> Revenue from membership fees accounts for the majority of the company's profits, accounting for over 72% of the company's net operating income in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, and 65.5% in fiscal year 2024.[115][a]
The sentence you quoted from Wikipedia is nonsensical.
Comparing one revenue line to total net profit is a category error: the numerator and denominator measure different things.
In FY2024, Costco did $249.6B in net sales and collected $4.8B in membership fees. Gross margin on product sales was about $25B. That $25B is 5x the membership fee revenue. So, even if you consider membership fees as being free money, membership fees are only 16% of gross margin.
Moreover, without those product sales, the membership would be worth zero and no one would buy it.
Agreed it's a weird comparison, but I'd argue SG&A needs to come out of gross margin too for a fair comparison. You need a warehouse/staff/utilities/etc to sell merchandise, you need nothing to sell a membership (whether it's worth anything is another question of course).
In their 2025 filing, gross margin on merchandise was $30B, but SG&A cost $25B (with membership fees at $5.3B).
The claim could be true even if every customer is exactly like you. The implication is that Costco doesn't really make money selling stuff, they just need to roughly break even. And "breaking even" here includes paying rewards on purchases. The fact that you earn a lot of rewards doesn't stop your membership dues from contributing to Costco's bottom line.
If you have an executive membership they guarantee that you make back your membership dues. If you fall short you can just ask them to give you the difference (and then they will downgrade you to the regular membership).
But also remember regular members don't get cash back. The ratio is about 50/50. So about 40 million people pay for membership and don't get cash back.
> If you have an executive membership they guarantee that you make back your membership dues.
That's not quite their policy - their explicit policy is "The Reward is not guaranteed to be equal to or greater than the Executive upgrade fee paid." - but they will refund you if you ask for it.
Security things are mentioned in the Release Notes [b] pointing to a completely different document [d].
Perhaps sometimes a bug is 'just' a bug, and not a vulnerability.
[a] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2034980 ; "Can't highlight image scans in Firefox 150+"
[b] https://www.firefox.com/en-CA/firefox/150.0.2/releasenotes/
[c] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2024918
[d] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-4...
reply