Around my area, Nugget Markets is probably the best high-end grocery store (better than Whole Foods and Sprouts, which we also have and are good). They are what a normal grocery store wants to be when it grows up. Just a small, regional chain, tho, and not the place we go regularly. Dopers around Sacramento and North Bay area likely know it.
I can solder. For plumbing I can pass for a plumber. I solder copper pipes very nicely. For electrical work I can also pass as a plumber.
There are five weekends this month; yesterday was my ‘late’ day of those 10 days…I left my house at 5:15am! 
I look forward to Mon morns when I can sleep in & get up for work.
Thye have lots of employees as compared to a regular supermarket & they do a big business in semi-/prepared foods, which has better markup than regular foods - prepackaged stuff that you can either eat right there, nuke & eat right there (they have tables microwaves, & utensils/napkins), or take home & pop in the oven & cook it. No seasoning needed, the things to be cooked come in an aluminum tray so you only need to remove the plastic lid & put in the oven; they’re less effort than making a typical frozen dinner in a box. For whatever reason, their (raw) seafood is very expensive when compared to other supermarkets or even fish mongers.
I’m frequently casting votes that aren’t so much for candidate B as opposed to candidate A. I don’t like candidate A but they are the lesser of two evils.
The functionality of that technique really falls apart if there are more than two candidates running. So no.
Wegman’s also carries a batch of stuff I can’t get at the relatively-local Tops; though admittedly I’m not sure that a big-city Tops might not have most of it.
Around here, if you want multi-ethnic you need to go to the high-end stores. The local standard supermarkets carry very little and most of what they do have is crap.
I expect this varies by where you are.
Except in practice very few third-party candidates get voted in, & while I may actually like candidate C, voting for them is essentially voting for a loser & throwing away my vote & may end up resulting in the eviler choice being elected by splitting the vote.
Neither would I, but it’s a good grocery store, and Kroger will never escape my ire for buying them and shutting them down in Tennessee.
We used to have a Wegmans. It had a much better produce section than any of the other supermarkets near me. More choices. Enormously cheaper berries. In many cases the common stuff was fresher, too. And they had lots of frozen vegetables that weren’t overly processed and filled with crap.
There’s another Wegmans i can reasonably drive to, but it’s produce section is no better than my supermarket, and it is dominated by an enormous prepared food area that I’m not interested in. So individual stores in a chain can vary a lot.
Locally, the only grocery I’d call “high end” would be a boutique place with a world-class beer cave and killer deli. Otherwise it’s Sprouts and TJs.
They would in voting-against schemes, because most people would vote against one of the two main party candidates.
Some people might see that as a bonus; but I suspect it would mean that a lot of extreme flakes would get in. – Of course, right now one of the main parties is getting a lot of extreme flakes in. Maybe that’s not as much of an issue as I thought. But I still think I’m more likely to strongly not want two out of three candidates than to strongly not want only one of them.
And you might easily wind up with not three, but six or sixteen candidates running, if third party candidates did start getting in. Sometimes we still do.
I think the question was poorly framed. There are many voting systems other than the one we use that let’s you vote against someone, but in a more constructive way than just casting a single negative vote. Approval voting and ranked choice voting are the two that come up must often. And i think both are significantly better than our “one man, one vote, plurality take all” system. But i don’t think that casting a single negative vote would bring any benefits over what we have. I suspect, as @thorny_locust predicts, it would just lead to more flakes being first past the post. And not many changes, really.
Agreeing with that.
In discussing voting systems, one should be aware of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which mathematically proves that a completely rational voting system is impossible. Specifically, there is no possible voting scheme that satisfies the independence of irrelevant alternatives in all cases, except for a few obviously undesirable schemes, such as a dictatorship where one person makes all decisions. (Independence of irrelevant alternatives means that if A would beat B in a two-choice race, then introducing a third candidate C cannot cause B to win.)
My husband once taught a course on Arrows Impossiblity Theorem. And while it’s certainly true, it’s also true that with ordinary mixes of preferences, some systems produce bad results routinely, and others rarely. Our system does so routinely, and ranked choice does so rarely, in kinda weird circumstances.
There are excellent reasons to attempt to move to a better voting system.
I have always felt very vincible.
I think I felt a smidgeon of invincibility when I was under five years old, but never since.
I prefer hardbound books because paperbacks are uncomfortable for me to hold for longer than fifteen minutes or so. A hardbound book also can sometimes lay flat and require less “holding.” I need both hands to keep a paperback open, and I often get a cramp in my hand(s).
I seem to be the opposite - it’s easier to hold a paperback for me. But a goodly percentage of my books are used, so already broken in. Also, I use something like this: https://a.co/d/2VjFQjH to keep my books open, but it works better on mass market paperbacks.
For me, I find it easier to put mass market paperbacks in my purse. 
I agree that I prefer to travel with smaller paperback books. But for everyday in home reading I like a hard back. I like the different smells of the pages especially in older library books.
I like them all. But yeah, for traveling- paperback.
I will choose whichever version is cheapest on Amazon, but if the trade or PB is only like a dollar or less more, I go for the smaller version- only so much shelf space.
If they had that doo-dad in dachshund form, I’d buy it in a hot minute!
As I’ve mentioned a few times here, I have “murderer’s thumbs,” so they’re shorter and weaker than most “normal” people’s thumbs. My thumbs get tired and achy holding paperbacks. Of course, the books I’ve been reading lately are THICK (China Mieville’s Perdido Street Station and J. G. Farrell’s Singapore Grip).
I don’t know if that doo-dad could fit them.
For books, I’m firmly in the “other” camp.
As a nerdish child and teen, it was all about cheapest, which almost always meant paperbacks.
As a young adult, it was normally cheapest, but when I was alone, a hardcover is really nice to read while eating, as it’ll more easily lay flat. Okay, that sounded sad.
As an adult, it remained mostly paperbacks, but I found that the cheap paperbacks of my youth (often bought at used bookstores and already a bit worn) tended to have their spines and binding break down, especially for a chronic re-reader, so I started getting hardcovers when I could on steep discounts.
As a young employed adult, I was a VERY early ebook adopter, and have since largely switched to a 90+% ebook mode. Just the portability, the storage savings (used to travel with a duffle full of books for a family trip!), and the ability to re-read something on a moments whim makes it preferable.
And as I get yet older, the ability to scale up the font is very nice! Not to mention the lit screen options make the young me angry, who had to spend hours on long family car trips bored once the sun went down and I couldn’t read anymore.