Uh… That’s the nature of capitalism, bud. A store would set their prices lower to entice customers to buy from them instead of someone else.

When I was 20 years old, I took everything I had and moved to New York City. I was unemployed and squatting at a friend’s place. On my birthday, my grandmother mailed me a check for $100, and I realized I’d need a bank account to cash it. So I went to Washington Mutual, opened an account, and deposited my check.

Then the clerk asked if I wanted a credit card. I told him I was unemployed. He said that was fine, and they’d just give me a “starter” card with a low limit.

So that’s how WaMu effectively gave me $1,000 for opening a checking account and all I had to do was not answer my phone for about a decade.

workers will finally ask for livable wages from their employers

Most states allow booth renting, which means that the barber or stylist is paying the salon/shop owner for the privilege of working there. They can be expected to help keep the place clean, only sell products the shop owner authorizes, be available for walk-ins a certain number of hours per week, and keep pricing in line with that shop’s policies, but otherwise they’re “their own boss.” Whatever that means at that point.

So many barbers and stylists are not making wages. They’ve effectively got a landlord who sets their prices for them. The only power they have is to change shops and hope for a less abusive landlord, but that also risks alienating reliable and repeating customers.

It’s an absolutely fucked and predatory system. It requires a legislative fix, but just like the other big tip-dependent sector of food service, the people in these jobs are overwhelmingly overworked women struggling to make ends meet. Many people find it difficult to engage in political advocacy when they’re struggling to survive.

Basically, I hate this “ask for livable wages” rhetoric because at-risk people have the hardest time self-advocating. Don’t blame poor people for being poor. See that there’s a problem and advocate on for them.

“Hmm… yes, inevitable…” I mutter to myself as I zip-tie roman candles to my bicycle and eye my homemade building-to-building ramp. “Literally nothing I can do” I say as I lift my thumb in the air, signaling my compatriot to release the wrecking ball.

if this doesn’t become profitable in a mainstream way

This is exactly what I meant by Bernie being caught up in tech CEO bluster. He can’t imagine that this shit doesn’t change the world in monumental and lucrative ways. He’s talked about how the tech people he’s spoken to don’t like his proposal because they don’t want to share the profits, but I haven’t seen any CEO make public comments one way or the other. With everyone involved knowing it’s a bubble, I’m sure they secretly love to insure their investments with public money. They just can’t say it out loud or the bubble might pop early.

And, yes, people of every age are tech illiterate. But overwhelmingly the elderly are the people crafting legislation about tech. Old age is heavily associated with cognitive decline, which makes it harder to understand, examine, and interrogate unfamiliar ideas, such as “AI” or “Whatever the Fuck Private Equity is Doing Right Now.” Bernie’s a smart guy, and it seems like he’s still sharper than a lot of his contemporaries, but you can’t fight nature. I’d rather see him cosponsor legislation with a younger senator and mentor the next generation of congress, instead of hanging on to the bitter end and giving us half-baked policy like this.

I listened to a pretty comprehensive interview Bernie had regarding his proposal a few weeks ago. My big takeaway was that he fundamentally misunderstands the technology as it currently exists, and while he’s skeptical of the motives of these tech CEOs, he’s completely bought in on their nonsense claims of fully automating the workforce.

AKA an octogenarian suggesting legislation on a technology he doesn’t understand. This is a thing that has bitten Americans in the ass countless times in the last four decades.

But Bernie’s been advocating for this, guys! You know, Bernie! He’s surely not another octogenarian career politician with a limited understanding of the tech sector!

You really held out for a while, huh?

Honestly? Yes. Most people aren’t visiting a library with malicious intent. There’s no profit in stealing and selling things that are already given for free. So who is fucking this system up? Hoarders and antisocials? I think the system can outpace and forgive them.

I understand your point, but even in a crowded city, this isn’t the solution. If your city’s courts are booked out, whether through online booking or people sitting outside and calling dibs, the solution is always “build more capacity.” The problem exists because more people want to use the area than the area allows. Forcing online registration shifts the problem: there’s more capacity because there’s less tolerance for bullshit, not because there’s less interest in using the space.

I disagree with the premise of ensuring it’s only accessible to people who are “supposed to be using it.” This is a public park. The public is supposed to be using it. By forcing registration, they’re limiting access to just people who have smart phones and are savvy enough to navigate the registration hoops. Children and old people aren’t allowed to play tennis, I guess?

If the big tangible benefit is resolving scheduling disputes, this is an over-engineered solution. There could be a sign-up board or book right by the entrance. Hell, they could station a park worker there during peak hours, just like they do for the swimming pool there.

And data collection absolutely is an issue on its own. Especially when it’s tied to a random QR code on a sign. A malicious actor could make their own copycat portal and start stealing IDs with the amount of information these guys are asking for. And that’s to say nothing of what the actual company may be doing with it.

Our high-school courts aren’t open to the public. Every few months some unwitting adults go over to try to play outside of school hours, and the cops come and kick them out.

There’s a smaller park in a suburb nearby, but there’s only three courts and they always seem occupied. My in-laws live near a park with a few more courts that is actually open to the public, but it’s a 15-minute drive to get there. Part of the initial appeal was that the park with all the new courts was barely a mile from our apartment. All the extra hoops to use it are frustrating.

The police officer didn’t witness the crime. They’re making that Judgement based on evidence provided by a third party.

If my house were broken into, and I managed to capture video of the incident, I can’t just hand that to the police and call it a day. The accused has a constitutionally protected right to face me in court, not just the video or the officer I gave the video to, so that their defense can interrogate it fully. What if there is additional context that undermines the narrative presented by this single piece of evidence? If I know the accused and had a reason to see them convicted (such as getting a kickback from any fine they pay), now my clear evidence becomes a little more suspect. Now there’s a very clear motive for me to skew, misinterpret, or completely fabricate the video.

That’s what OP is referring to. If a company is going to install cameras and claim their cameras caught me doing something I shouldn’t have, I have a right to ask that company for more details regarding their claim. Ideally in a public court, with a representative of the company under oath.

Politicians are fine with this because the cameras will just point at their chauffeurs.

This is why Friendship is my favorite portrayal of toxic masculinity in cinema. It’s making the same points as a Fight Club, but the people who would normally identify with the protagonist craving a “macho” world are made to feel deeply uncomfortable instead.

I don’t have a stance on blind people, but I do think deaf people shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

Part of that belief is the obvious practicality: not being able to hear sirens or honks mean they’re likely slower to react in an emergency situation.

But I lived near a deaf college for a few years, where I learned the real terror: deaf people will talk to their passengers while driving. In a language that is entirely visual and mostly dexterous. So drivers are taking both hands off the wheel to gesture, then taking both eyes off the road to get a response. The number of near-misses I’ve had with deaf drivers is harrowing.

incredible, gutwrenching performances and they were driven by their mistreatment and pain.

I’m reminded of the supposed exchange between Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier on the set of Marathon Man. Supposedly Hoffman stayed up for three days straight to get into the physical and emotional space of his character, and Olivier criticized the choice by saying, “My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”

Actors are trained to deliver performances. Their job is to believably convey emotions. If the director can only get the performance he wants by abusing his cast, he’s a horrible communicator and has no business in the director’s chair.

Alternatively, if we believe actors need real experience and emotional depth to draw on for a performance, we should get rid of stunt doubles and special effects. How can I believe Hayden Christensen’s pain at the end of Revenge of the Sith if he actually still has all his limbs?

No one should use PayPal if they can help it.

Spoken like a true math teacher.

I can. They’re propping up the whole stock market at this point. Pretty much the definition of “too big to fail.” So when they inevitably fail, Congress is going to give them our tax dollars.