![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
I doubt any place will hire you for only one day a week. That will not be helpful for them.
I doubt any place will hire you for only one day a week. That will not be helpful for them.
So if I walked into a restaurant that specialized in a certain cuisine (choosing the right one out of hundreds is a skill, right?) and wrote down a list of ingredients, and the restaurant made me a meal with those ingredients according to however the restaurant functions (nobody can see into the kitchen, after all), does this make me a chef?
There’s still the issue of birds, which do not like these things in their airspace and, depending on the size, will absolutely either attack drones or be maimed by them. Also, helicopters and small planes often fly quite low. We haven’t had a great record with autonomous cars, but sure, let’s try autonomous flying drones. What could go wrong?
The part that isn’t mentioned in this article is the onus of marketing. Now that anyone can self publish with almost no overhead, more than a million books are published every year. How many of those even get noticed? Sometimes it feels like people see the same 10-20 books on the bestseller list (which is gameable btw) and think that’s all there is to read.
These days, traditional publishers don’t do any marketing on behalf of authors unless they feel it’s a sure thing, similar to how they give out advances. If you are already famous or have large social media following, you’re far more likely to get an advance or a marketing effort. Everyone who self publishes, and even most who are traditionally published, have to do their own marketing. Most writers are not marketers, and this is where they fail, no matter how good their book might be.
Personally, I think the big publishers will collapse soon and the whole industry might move to a subscription model ala Spotify. That would probably be worse for writers, but no one seems to be able to come up with a solution that makes book writing a more viable career.
I feel like this will be a boon to all the restaurants who aren’t paying their staff well. Their prices will stay the same. Meanwhile, restaurants trying to pay a living wage will have much higher prices but won’t be able to tell you why. Customers will “vote with their wallets,” putting the higher paying restaurants out of business.
Overall it’s a good idea to get rid of extraneous fees, but I feel like they didn’t quite think it all the way through.
I’ve never seen a restaurant lower their prices. Restaurants don’t really work that way. They can’t negotiate for lower prices of the food they buy, especially if they’re buying less (you get a better deal buying in bulk). The only way to cut costs is to cut staff, which then leaves service lacking if they do get busy, or buy cheap low quality food and freeze it. People definitely stop going when service or food quality gets worse. This is the restaurant death spiral.
If you really are dizzy after a long flight, you probably shouldn’t be driving, especially in an unfamiliar car in an unfamiliar area. Maybe you were just being hyperbolic about the dizziness, but people can make the same kinds of mistakes driving while sleep deprived as while driving intoxicated.
I see your confusion. They could have worded this better, but it’s two grants being split between eight nonprofit financial institutions. My understanding is these entities will lend that money to communities to do ongoing infrastructure projects. The goal is “turning $20 billion of public funds into $150 billion of public and private investment to maximize the impact of public funds.” I don’t know how that part works exactly, but to me that doesn’t sound like a handout. Of course I would hope they would be held responsible for any mismanagement.
As for why they need to create a financial nework to do this: These kinds of projects can take many years and sometimes need ongoing financing. Apparently, when Obama tried to fund something like this, there was a lending bottleneck where I guess banks didn’t want to finance community infrastructure projects or something, so a lot of the funding just sat there until the grants expired. This is supposed to prevent that from happening.
Seems like the airline could have just… not over served him and none of this would have happened.
Edit: yeah it sounds like over serving alcohol may be a recurring problem for this airline:
“It said it bans between five and 10 customers each month for disruptive behavior, including intoxication.”
It’s insufferable that the answer is always “build your own.” Lemmy assumes that every single person on the planet is an engineer with enough free time to design, build, and troubleshoot every device they own.
But what about a car? Cars are as smart as smartphones now, and you certainly wouldn’t notice the small amount of power needed to collect and transfer data compared to driving the car. Some car manufacturer TOS agreements seemingly admit that they collect and use your in-car conversations (including any passengers, which they claim is your duty to inform them they are being recorded). Almost all the manufacturers are equally bad for privacy and data collection.
Mozilla details what data each car collects here.
I started a free trial of Adobe stock. I forgot to cancel after the first month. They charged me $30 for the next month, ok, that’s on me. But when I tried to cancel during that second month, they said I had signed a contract to pay them for a year (I didn’t, all I did was sign up for the free trial) and I now owe them $165 to cancel the subscription. So in essence they were going to charge me $195 for one month of Adobe stock. That’s insane.
Unless you have so much pain that you’re unable to do even the most basic PT exercises, like me. PT did absolutely nothing, and it was $200 out of pocket for each stupid appt.
If they know how many years they’ll hold the rights, that information should be given to the consumer, i.e., “you will have access to this media product for at least N years.” Then the consumer can make an informed decision (is $24.99 worth it to own a movie for 6 years? Etc). Otherwise it’s just a gamble. Everything else you can rent (cars, tools, equipment, venues, clothing, dumpsters) comes with very clear temporal terms. Imagine if rental car companies could remotely brick your rental car halfway through your vacation.
No one is recycling still-working cars after only 5 years. Unless you’re talking about insurance deciding to salvage a vehicle after a wreck, which is a different story. Even those don’t always get destroyed, some are parted out and some are probably shipped overseas to get a second life.
… Nah. As a woman, this is not a question I would ever think to ask anyone, regardless of how unsafe I felt. How does agreeing to murder someone AFTER something happens to you help you feel more safe? It doesn’t, at all. Besides, she could have called him from the Uber when she didn’t see him outside. It’s not like they just kick you out of the car immediately.
OP described this behavior as “the usual,” which means this is a thing she does regularly. I would say this isn’t normal for most people to do regularly. If the location is actually not safe, then the conversation should be centered around “when are we going to move somewhere safer?” rather than “how would you murder someone if they hurt me” and especially getting into the specifics of “what would you do with the cat while doing the murder…?” I think this might be some kind of recurring “daycare” or maladaptive fantasy that keeps playing out in her imagination. There are certainly steps she could take to keep herself safe. But because she doesn’t, she feels powerless and then blames OP for her perceived lack of safety. OP cannot be responsible for her safety 24/7. That is an unfair expectation to have of anyone.