admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

Or any of the nearly-unavoidable-because-it's-a-monopoly evil big corpos like Amazon. Chase handles their credit card and definitely significant other financial parts for them.

That guy was convicted of voting while on probation for a felony with a plausible explanation for why he thought the felony probation had ended. The guy might be a huge piece of shit, but his story does not prove anything and does not bear repeating.

Crystal Madison's sentence was reversed -- although not without a fight.

The twin stories show the profound difference in how the law treats a white middle class conservative man vs a younger black woman, but the conclusion we draw from both situations must be the same: felons should not be disenfranchised and so no one should be punished for voting while on felony probation. Voting ought to be a right and not a privilege.

There are so many migrant rights organizations who will be happy to get them lawyers and pursue these cases. It has the potential to ensure this never happens again (through the back door of making it far too high a liability for the transportation companies).

Hell, this could even end up affecting the routine bus trips. At minimum, create very clear disclosure and consent requirements for the migrants, which would be a huge win.

And THIS time there will be serious consequences when he ignores it and does what everyone knows he will do.

Unlike all those other times.

Fetal development is not really that consistent, to guess it down to a week or two based on physical appearance. Anything from 37 to 42 weeks is considered a "normal" pregnancy length. That means someone oversimplifying things could say any milestone might be +/- a couple of weeks. Edge cases might move the length of an otherwise-healthy pregnancy down or up an entire month.

Even implantation isn't that consistent. I've heard that sperm can linger for something like 5 days before implantation occurs. The whole middle-school health class version where the sperm swim up and race to the egg is kind of total nonsense.

The conception date is based on the date of last period. That's the actual medical practice, generally, so in practice these are the same official date. I'm not sure if this excludes times the couple asserts an exact date of conception, though clearly it does in the case of this law.

Yes, you likely could lie/feign ignorance about that date. Hopefully everyone with a uterus will be wise enough to do so. But if you claim your last period was yesterday, it does make your claim suspect. Again, hopefully any doctor will pretend nothing is amiss in these cases.

With such a short window, I don't really understand why have a window at all. It betrays the capricious and intentional cruelty of the antichoice movement.

Of course I don't understand the mindset of these people to begin with. Any exceptions being permissible -- even one which is designed to save a life from a pregnancy complication -- undermines the premise that the fetus has an inviolable right to life. If you permit any exceptions at all, it means you do believe that right to life is contingent on external factors... and if that's the case, what are we even talking about? If decisions can be made about the fetus's life that it has no say or stake in, then it clearly has no intrinsic right to that life.

These people (mostly) don't believe in inviolable right to life. They clearly do not believe in the right to autonomy over one's own body. Apparently there's no right to privacy or self-determination in your medical care, either. What the fuck do they believe in? Just some arbitrary interpretation of an ancient, committee-written book that condones slavery, rape, and murder.

Medical providers backdate pregnancies to the date of suspected conception -- which is less precise than many realize.

This is a standard practice in how it's done. Theoretically, a medical provider could fudge the date a bit. That's high risk for them, though.

I'll never argue with someone who wants that true, rural/countryside/homestead life. The appeal is there for me too, even if my own calculus says the cons wildly outweigh the pros.

I'm pretty skeptical you're going to find it 5 miles from a healthy town, though.

Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.

You should read the horror stories from so many of those NYC co-ops. Some would make even the most jackbooted HOA presidents blush.

I don't really think this is unique to cities of some specific size. I definitely agree that it's going to be harder to find a perfect fit in a smaller town. But it's also harder to meet people at all in an anonymous metropolis where you have to work 75 hours a week just to make rent.

If you take away anything from what I have written, it's that I think this dichotomy is bad. We need a compromise. The lowrise old-world city is what worked for our species for at least 5 millenia -- it's only in the past couple of decades we decided to rethink it and force a schism between the fake rural aesthetic of the suburbs and the productive, efficient downtown -- and in so doing we destroyed both city life (by making it ungodly expensive thanks to the immense financial drain the suburbs and lack of continuing infill development represent) and the peaceful countryside life (by putting to death small towns in favor of the interstate highway big box store commercial strip). The only lifestyle that has weathered and still works pretty well in this day and age is the homesteader life, and to say that way of living is not for everyone is definitely an understatement.

In the US, restaurants absolutely do hire more people than they require. Employees are paid on tips. Add as many $2.13/hr servers as you can. Hire hire hire. Never stop hiring. You'll be sloughing off people constantly because they aren't making enough money, so you have to keep hiring ever more aggressively to feed the beast. But you'll have 5 people to run every plate of food, bus every table, all that stuff.

Of course, one really competent server is as good as 5 of the ones being churned, but it's too hard to get and hold onto one competent server, so better 5 incompetent ones.

This is why the only way to judge how well-managed your favorite bar/restaurant is to look at their (non-family) staff turnover. If the same cadre works there for multiple years, you know it's top-notch. If there's a new cast every few months, you know its management is a shit parade.

Also known as a SASSS

No, it is not "less clear cut" than you thought and there is not an argument on both sides.

On one side you have the guy who actually owns the Paneras in question, saying they would not even be attempting to use this exemption because it does not apply to them.

On the other side, you have the Newsom administration and the California labor agency BOTH saying that Panera could not benefit from this exemption because it does not apply to them.

That's the only "side".

This is to whom the "bakery exception" applies:

Restaurants that operate a bakery that "produces" and sells "bread" as a as of September 15, 2023, and continue to do so are exempt from the new law.

“Bread” is defined as a single unit item that weighs at least ½ pound after cooling and must be sold as a stand-alone item.

The following types of fast food restaurants do not come under the exemption:

• Restaurants that sell bread only as part of a sandwich or hamburger, but not as a stand-alone menu item;
• Restaurants that sell stand-alone items weighing less than one-half pound after cooling, such as most muffins, croissants, scones, rolls, or buns, but do not sell bread weighing at least one-half pound after cooling; and
• Restaurants that do not “produce” bread on the premises of the restaurant location where customers purchase the bread. Producing bread includes making the dough (typically, flour, water, and yeast) and baking it. Baking pre-made dough, i.e., dough that was mixed or prepared at another location, does not constitute “producing” bread at the establishment where the bread is sold.

This exemption applies only to restaurant establishments that produced and sold bread as stand-alone menu items as of September 15, 2023, and have continued to do so.

This exemption does not require that the restaurant be primarily engaged in the sale of bread as a stand-alone item. The exemption may apply even when the sale of bread as a stand-alone menu item constitutes a small portion of the restaurant’s total food sales.

That third bullet point disqualifies Panera from the exemption, and moreover it seems to be specifically targeted to disqualify a chain faux-bakery like Panera from the exemption. It has been there from the beginning.

The only "side" that is spreading the argument that this was a corrupt political favor is the right wing disinformation campaign using it to attack Newsom specifically and pro-labor policies in general, and those in the media who failed to do basic dilligence to discredit the complete nonsense that this story was.

Even on places that seem as progressive-leaning as lemmy.world, we dance to their tunes.

If you put a TV in a Faraday cage that blocked the relevant radio spectrum, would there be no static on it? I expected the answer to be a quick Google, but it wasn't.

So what you seem to be saying is that schools should have some kind of staff of full time social workers. People who can give counseling and guidance to students who may be struggling. I wonder what we should call those faculty?

We can be real, the goal is to convert children to be part of the army of christ here. This is all about grooming and indoctrination of minors and undermining separation of church and state. No one promoting it gives a shit about the social value of these chaplains.

It didn't get scratched out. It was never true in the first place. I don't know why the bakery exemption was in there -- apparently no one who isn't on a confidentiality agreement does -- but Panera apparently never would've qualified as one under it. The disinfo game from the right on this was on point.

If Panera doesn't qualify as a bakery under this law -- which it is widely reported that they don't -- Taco Bell certainly doesn't. This whole meme is likely a right wing misinformation campaign.

It's widely reported that Panera does not qualify as a bakery under this law.

This entire question is completely distorted by the poor-qualtiy postwar urbanism that is rampant everywhere.

The reality is, there shouldn't be much difference. Lowrise cities -- 2-4 story buildings/townhomes, small apartments, walkable neighborhoods/mass transit, corner groceries, all that stuff that people think can ONLY exist in big cities should be the norm for nearly all towns.

I don't think many people would describe a place like, say, Bordeaux as a "big city". 250kish people in 50 square kilometers is hardly Paris. It's a small city, or maybe a big town. And it has everything you can want from a city and more. Shows, museums, beautiful multimodal neighborhoods, a robust tram system, restaurants and cafes and bars. All this kind of stuff.

The problem is we've all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC. Or else we've been trained to think of a "city" like the bullshit they have in Texas, where it combines all the worst features of those island suburbs/car dependence with all the worst parts of city (crazy prices, noise, exposure to nearby-feeling crime, etc).

While a lot of the US big cities are trying to sort out the knots they've tied themselves in, your best bet to find beautiful, livable urban-ism is in those much smaller 500k cities that don't even show up on the typical lists of cities. Especially if they are historic, since the more historic a place is the less likely it got bulldozed in the 60s to make room for more highways (destroying local neighborhoods in the process) Some kind of a big university also tends to be a plus, though it's a mixed bag. Check for places that do not have an interstate carving through the middle of the city.

We can only get the amenities of modern urbanism in the biggest metropolises these days because of how badly the "suburban experiment" has distorted and destroyed our community life. And there can only be so many metropolises, so they've naturally turned absurdly expensive. People can't afford to live in them because of how much people want to live in them. So they settle for suburbia, since financial poverty feels way worse than poverty of community.

Outside of the US, you can get a 10k or less electric mini-van, mini-truck, or mini-car which would serve 90% of most peoples' needs. Most US trips are under 3 miles after all and giant fast luxurious vehicles for those bike-range trips is just totally silly.

Meanwhile the cheapest new car in the US is what, a Mitsubishi hatchback for $18k? It's ridiculous. The US Automakers are in a tacit conspiracy to squeeze us as hard as they can by refusing to sell anything affordable -- by inflating sizes and bloating features to justify way higher MSRPs. Meanwhile the French have access to cheap ICEs like the Skoda Citygo and even ultralight city EVs like the Citroen Ami for half that price while still being easily 90% as capable for most people.

Or for roughly the same price as that bottom-of-the-market US ICE car you can get a totally workable EV like the Dacia Spring.

The US subsidizes huge vehicles in a million pointless ways. I absolutely refuse to believe that vehicle inflation is just caused by some cultural woo. It's mostly just that we create giant roads, giant parking spots, giant highways, and have automakers that intentionally go as big as the market can bear because bigger means more money. And sprinkle on some bullshit tax loopholes and state agencies/NHSTA being ultra-conservative and you have a disaster. Smaller cars thrive in the old world because the old world doesn't make it as convenient as possible to have a goddamn road yacht. They'd go big too, but it would just be a nightmare dealing with those huge cars because their governments don't prioritize making way for them in every way possible.

And that's not even getting into the frankly fine $2-3k EVs you can get in China. This is all just Europe.