[The service charge is] an added fee controlled by the restaurant that helps facilitate a higher living base wage

Great! I don’t need to tip because they already pay their employees a fair wage.

Alternative option: the service fee is the tip because there’s no way I’m paying more than what’s on that bill.

Restaurant: $11 cannelloni and $6 beer.

Lemmy: fuck the rich for paying these high prices!

I’m not sure I want this to happen. I’ll read the bill, but I’m not convinced they’ll do it right. For example, UBI is supposed to replace other need-based social programs such as disability, welfare programs, government housing, etc. The entire point is that the money from those programs, which collectively have quite a lot of waste, goes into UBI so everyone can participate in society on a more fair level.

For example, I have a neighbour who is on some kind of government assistance. He gets very little money, and his rent for an entire house is $105/mo. With UBI, he’d get a full basic income, but his housing would no longer be subsidized, removing the need for a public housing corporation known for being awful and wasting money.

Why would they have to keep up with their appraisal? There is no downside to not doing it, other than not being worth as much if they want to sell or IPO, but that would be true even without the equity firm’s investment and appraisal. No law says they have to meet the expectations set by a single investor. There is no legal duty requiring a company to maximize profits or shareholder value.

However, even if such a law requiring them to maximize profits existed, it’s very reasonable that they would legally continue making the same types of movies that earned them that value in the first place. There couldn’t possibly be a requirement for them to change business strategies, else every company would eventually all end up in the same, most profitable industry. They’d all be selling movie theatre popcorn or something.

He took records to Chinatown? Like, he went for noodles at lunch or something?

I hate ads as much as anyone and have been blocking them for almost as long as ad blockers have existed. I still acknowledge the fact that ads are the primary revenue source for a lot of things on the Internet, and I selectively enable them for content I want to pay for.

How do you think Youtube is supposed to survive without ads or subscriptions? When they puts ads on their site, the unsaid agreement is that you exchange your ad views for their service.

I can envision a world where the search bar is an AI prompt. What a time to be alive that will be!

I wonder if we can also browse other peoples’ prompts. That would be cool.

Staying inside is no defence against bears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT5LI21dY_4

It’s not about the needle, it’s about how Reddit acts during its death throes.

Reddit can’t make money unless they monetize every user in every way possible, including selling their personal data if they have it. The API garbage was an attempt to monetize users in ways even their own app doesn’t, and also an admission that advertising isn’t paying the bills, or they would have just started advertising through the API.

So now we’re seeing how Reddit behaves once they realize that charging for API access doesn’t work. They will sell everyone and everything until they shut down.

The job I’m currently interviewing candidates for has 1800 applicants. I don’t want a thread where that many people are talking, answering questions, and trying to get my attention for the job. I want a quick way to work through all the resumes so I can hire the best person.

That’s a lot of speculation and zero evidence. Regardless, selfishness and cooperation aren’t mutually exclusive.

Most of the anti-capitalism stuff on Lemmy has nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with humans being greedy. Anyone who thinks there’s a path to evenly distributing the wealth is an idiot because even people who advocate for that will end up finding ways to hoard more wealth for themselves if they get the chance. It’s the way we’ve always been and the way capitalism and socialism always turn out.

If you want to earn enough money to live on, learn a skill and get a better job!

*Learns a skill and gets a better job*

Hey, not like that!

I’m currently working with a client that doesn’t have a health endpoint or any kind of monitoring on their new API . They say monitoring isn’t needed because it will never go down.

Naturally it went down on day two. They still haven’t added any “unnecessary” monitoring, insisting that it will never go down.

There is nothing communist about that. He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership. Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy. Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers. This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

If the only way to defend communism is by claiming that no country has ever done communism correctly, then that’s a problem. You can’t point to a single successful communist country because there aren’t any.

China became far more successful since it abandoned communism for its own flavor of capitalism. Private ownership in China has led to a massive improvement in quality of life for most Chinese residents, and more opportunities for success than ever before.

Meanwhile, most complaints about capitalism have almost nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with laws and regulations or human greed (which is the worst part of any system).

I first installed OG Red Hat 5.2 in 1998, but my computer had a Winmodem rather than a full hardware modem, so I never got it connected to the internet, which severely reduced how useful it was to me. I got broadband a year later, and that changed everything!

they can lose the trademark if they don’t try to defend it

This is true, but that’s if another company is using a similar logo as their own. Like, if a pet store used the Mickey Mouse logo, of course they’re going to be sued.

If a daycare uses Mickey Mouse to decorate their classroom, Disney doesn’t have to sue because the trademark isn’t be used separate from Disney. The Daycare, and kids, are using it because it’s Disney, so there is no confusion about trademark ownership.

At the very least, Disney could simply write them a letter allowing them to use depictions of Disney characters inside the school so long as it’s not for advertising or commercial purposes and the art is done by a student or teacher.

I’m sure google will never pull the same stunt as Amazon. They’re the good guys!