How’s about investigating straight bars where dudes drug girls by sneaking GHB on their drinks or spend the night sexuality harassing and touching girls without their consent?
Haha, different meaning of the word. Referring to “chaps” the clothing item from the Western part of the U.S., not to folks who don’t have an ass. Chaps were made of leather and worn over jeans to protect to protect the inside seam area of them from excess wear from rubbing against the side of the saddle and the stirrup straps when spending a long time riding a horse. Or are sometimes worn without the jeans by men being lewd.
Oh absolutely not! A small dose is like being a little tipsy but without the wobbles. It’s tingly and feels nice. It tastes like a tyre store smells.
A medium dose makes sex touching feel REAAAALLY GOOD. There’s no memory loss involved. It just feels fucking awesome.
An overdose will put you in a sleep for 1-2 hours, and you cannot be roused. It’s quite scary. You’ll probably pee. The threshold for taking a heavy dose and feeling awesome vs falling asleep for a long while is pretty small.
Weighing out 1.75g and recoding with .5g 20 minutes later is the best way to go.
Oh shit I was describing GBL. GHB has a very slight salt taste. It’s not great but it’s not bad. GBL turns to GHB while you metabolize it. GBL tastes terrible.
They’re both fun but in a responsible manner and NO ALCOHOL.
so, per a thing on NPR radio… it was 4 gay bars and 6 other establishments (presumably that serve alcohol.)
Not gonna say it wasn’t harassment - cuz it was. There is and was a better way to handle it, even if the law needs to be enforced at all. I would suggest the purpose behind the law makes sense. I know Minneapolis handles the issue by not giving places that allow nudity liquor licenses, and from experience, drunken horndogs are some of the worst humans you’ve met.
I don’t see any justification at all for government-enforced dress codes in private adult-only spaces. I think the government should fuck off and stop exerting cultural control over people.
I work in contract security… years ago, one of our clients was adjacent to a full strip club. This club added a just-detached-enough bar (I think the rule is separate entrances?). As soon as that bar opened… the client saw a 3-fold increase in incidents. 10 fold increases over violent incidents requiring the subjects be cuffed and removed.
Drunken assholes trying to get laid by demonstrating their masculinity…. Let’s just say I’d rather deal with drug dealers.
Aside from covering a property that was adjacent to a trump rally intake/overflow point and the Super Bowl a few years back (fucking Philly fans…)… my single-night arrest record goes to a drunken Halloween orgy.
Booze does not mix well with most things… it especially does not mix well with hormones.
Some bars are private establishments. Those bars require memberships. The rest are public non-governmental establishments. These are open to the general public. Lewd behavior does not belong in any public establishment. If you want that type of environment, make it a membership only establishment.
Trump had asked to deliver part of the closing arguments himself, but Engoron rejected the request Wednesday in a contentious email exchange with Trump’s lawyers after the former president refused to commit to only speaking about the facts of the case and not engage in any attacks.
The judge didn’t really reject their request, they simply ghosted him when he told them the terms under which he would accept their request, and after 2 or 3 deadline extensions their opportunity lapsed.
Yeah, it’s so ridiculous. Extremely clear that he just wanted to go on one of his usual rants and didn’t want any restrictions. It’s what he tried to do when he was being examined by the prosecution. He tried to pull out and read from a paper he had in his pocket that would “explain everything” and how he did nothing wrong.
My little daydream is that thr judge’s terms were something simple like “I want your statement beforehand so I can review it. But, you have to write it yourself, by hand. Your own hand.” And he just couldn’t muster up the gumption to do his own work.
“YOU’RE PICKING ON ME! MY NANNY WAS NEVER MEAN TO ME! THE WORD NO IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE! DON’T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! BARON JOHN DONALD TRUMP, ESQUIRE, DOCTOR, AND PROFESSOR OF SELF INTEREST! YOU’RE A BUNCH OF MEANIE ASSHOLES! DON’T MAKE ME MAKE MY FRIENDS BEAT YOU UP!”
Still seems low. Imagine someone who said, “just sign here. If you make it through the next 44 years without leaving this cell, you’ll win $25 million.” Would anyone take that deal? A settlement is supposed to make a person “whole.”
The logic is that shit like this will cause voters to demand change and vote in people who will make sure stuff like this doesn’t happen again. But the reality is that most voters simply don’t care, and there’s a non-zero number of voters who are unhappy because they want the black man to stay in prison whether he’s innocent or not.
I wonder if anyone has done the math on how much labor he had to do in prison, and how much he would have been paid for that same labor outside of prison for 44 years at a regular job?
Assuming you get a job at 16, 44 years outside of jail and in the workforce would take you to 60*, most people’s retirement age.
In the US, it’s still not gonna be 25 million (on average, lower for POC sadly), but I don’t think any amount would fix the damage from 44 years in any prison.
Nothing can give time back and make this right. That being said, 22 million on top of 3 million from another case, I feel is a pretty reasonable settlement. He can live his remaining years in luxury at least. Not sure real justice can be found for so many years of someone’s life wrongfully taken from them.
It isn’t, but it’s enough to let him live the rest of his life rich and make any city think twice about steamrolling anyone. Too bad everyone involved in it is likely already dead.
I work from home and my boss frequently says he doesn’t mind us working from home but always follows it up by saying he really misses seeing people “sitting in the seats” and “working in the office”. It really is a weird ego trip, being able to visually see people working for you. Actually getting the work done is secondary to the power they feel of seeing their subordinates toiling away.
My boss constantly rode my ass about my coming into the office. I’m a consultant and work on site for various clients. I do a lot of driving that is not reimbursed in any way by my company so, whenever I have a break, I prefer to work from home. But no, my boss has set the expectation that any time I have no on site client work, I needed to be at the company office, a 45-90 minute commute each way (depending on traffic).
If I need to drive into an office every day, I’m going to get paid the most I can for it. She took away one of the main perks of my job, so I had no reason to stick around. So I found a new job that pays 50% more and I’ll be letting the company know in my exit interview that’s the primary driver for finding new employment. Oh, and the best part? I work from home at least one day a week. My previous employer can get fucked.
Or he could just enjoy being around people. I personally prefer going into an office and having people around. I know that is not the case for everyone though.
It’s fine to prefer that. But forcing your employees to work in the office is an ego trip and makes you a bad boss. Especially considering it’s been proven most people are more productive in a work from home environment.
But based on that anecdote, unless I am missing something (possible), it just sounds like the boss is stating they miss seeing people in the office. OP said their boss frequently says they don’t mind employees working from home. What it sounds like is two things are true: (1) the boss doesn’t care if employees work from the office or home and (2) the boss misses seeing people at work because it’s nice for them to have in-person social interactions.
Also, to be blunt, using productivity as the marker of an effective workforce is how you end up with hellholes like Tesla or Facebook. Morale matters for quality of output. Anyway, effective managers know that their teams will have both people who prefer to be in office and people who prefer to WFH, so will create schedules that work great for everyone.
Some of them are trying to speed it up. War in Israel is exactly what they want because they think that all the Jews have to return there for Jesus to come back.
This Jew ain’t goin’ to Israel. I’m an American, not an Israeli, and I have never had any interest in going to or supporting Israel. If I’m going to travel, I’ll travel to a country that isn’t constantly at war with a people they keep oppressed.
Sorry to disappoint you, evangelicals. Guess Jesus isn’t coming back.
And even if they were inventoried (which they're not) there still are always a zillion partially used bags littered everywhere, which in most cases are effectively still sterile.
I don't know this hospital, but I generally grab several when I come on shift, put them in my pocket, and end up accidentally taking home a few often enough that I'd end up being able to have squirt gun fights with them.
Essentially, nurses go through so many that you'd be hard pressed to control them. We use them for everything from checking the status of an IV line to cleaning a wound.
I'm just amazed. It's frankly easier to use a flush than fooling with a sink. You need a flush anyway to administer the medication and I'd imagine most folks diverting IV meds are smuggling them out after transferring them into an empty flush in the first place. It almost makes me wonder if who did it isn't a nurse. Like a pharm tech doing a batch of them at a sink before loading the pyxis.
Probably because they aren’t filling the containers at work, where they could be caught.
Instead, they steal an empty container, take it home, fill it with water, bring it to work, swap it with a fentanyl container, take it home, use the fentanyl, fill the container with water, bring it to work, etc.
But even still why not use a flush to fill it. They are prefilled and everywhere. I’m a nurse and have worked with nurses caught diverting. This is extra fucked up. Put this guy under the jail.
Presumably because the saline quantities were tracked and documented just like the fentanyl was. Tap water isn’t a medical supply. Still completely fucking heinous either way.
I do think tap water is worse. These are people with medical experience, a big part of whose job is making sure they use sterile stuff. They know better. There’s no excuse. This is not just accidental
No hospital would be able to run by being restrictive with flushes. You just need to use so many of them for IV management and drug administration alone, not to mention all the other stuff we use them for. Essentially every time you put something into an IV line, you need to flush it to get the medication to the patient and you need to periodically flush it to keep it patent. I will document them for Inputs/Outputs with someone who has a heart/kidney problem, but that's as far as it goes. Billing wise, it's subsumed under how they bill for "nursing" as an average, so it's not tracked for that either.
Yeah I was in the hospital a few weeks ago and had an IV drip in both arms. They were constantly flushing both lines, didn’t seem like they tracked or cared how many got used.
Or even just distilled water. Buy a jug for a couple bucks at the supermarket or distill it yourself for a few pennies worth of electricity. The woman didn’t deserve her degree if she thought tap water was safe to inject.
If you come at me you can pretty much lock me up for life with zero evidence by just never prosecuting me and forgetting I exist after arresting me because the cop didn’t like my attitude.
It’s a reference to a tv show. The point is he is a powerful, influential, and dangerous person. A not guilty verdict will make him stronger and more vengeful. A careful, foolproof investigation is the best strategy to take him down.
The optimist in me wants to say: “yeah, you go girl!”
But the pessimist in me is saying: “cool, so if they’re so bad, who ARE you voting for?”
Out of the options, the lesser of two evils is easier to fight against.
Edit: I don’t actively support Biden. But between the guys who promise to either: A) have made it their purpose to impoverish and delegitimacize everyone but themselves, and the people that, B) are trying to do so without getting caught
I’ll go for the people that don’t want to get caught. They’re at least minimizing the damage they do to the world. 🙄
Extra edit for the dipshits that can’t read properly: I was saying that between the Bidens and the big orange blob and his fanatical cohorts, I’d rather have the Bidens. Y’all think I’m talking shit about the wrong person, and that reading comprehension (or lack thereof) is why I don’t actively support EITHER side because they’re BOTH full of fanatical retards.
I love how you just read whatever you wanted to, and then wrote this scree like we give a fuck what you think, and you’re not even intelligent enough to catch the joke that’s literally one sentence long.
It’s not enough to destroy the earth. The ruling class needs hunting trophies of the species they’re driving extinct.
Our world is ruled by evil sociopaths. That’s the unifying theory that explains everything. Ruthless sociopaths with infinite money have declared war on the planet and everything that lives here.
I do see what you mean, but I do have to disagree on that point.
Someone involved in illegal bird killing or other acts of environmental destruction (oil, gas, producing garbage, …) most surely knows what the effects of their actions are, but their want for personal gain is bigger.
And the moral difference between doing something terrible out of mallice or greed is very small, if it even exists.
Slavery isn’t better when it’s done just for the money.
You're right about this specific case. Those guys were probably just greedy to the point of evil.
However, the comment I replied to made a pretty universal claim about rulers. And at least looking at our rulers in Europe I see more incompetence than malice.
However, the comment I replied to made a pretty universal claim about rulers.
Yeah, universal statements tend to lack nuance.
But especially with the right-wing parties I see quite a bit of malice for the point of personal gain.
And at least in Austria, Germany and the UK the conservatives are so deep into working for personal gain, that they completely forget what would benefit the country and the people.
(I don’t have enough deep enough insight into the governments of other countries in Europe to say anything about that, but from what I read, Hungary and Italy are not better off)
These guys are not part of “the ruling class.” I live in this region and there is a backwards group of local asshats who feel entitled to hunt and kill protected creatures for profit or hunt using illegal methods and leave carcasses to waste for the sheer fun of it. These people are typically working class and this black market hunting would provide them with income they probably would not be able to get otherwise. We have a LOT of wild lands out here, it’s a very rural area.
For those not in the know, it’s a legal philosophy saying that the laws should apply equality to everyone. The constitution writers disliked that the King was above the law. They wanted no one to be above the law.
Now we get to see if the Supreme Court still believes in the rule of law.
They were also deists who wanted separation between church and state, (at the time because of the Church of England.) Interesting how supposedly originalist conservatives often want a theocracy.
They were a diverse group of people with wildly different views on things, and most states had some form of religious establishment at our founding. Remember, the cotus was originally a restriction only on the federal government, and didn’t extend to the states until the 14th amendment after the civil war.
Plenty wanted, and had, state supoortes religion. Plenty meant freedom of religion for Christians.
Which is why this is such a contentious issue… It’s always been that way.
In the United States, sovereign immunity only immunizes the government against lawsuits. It doesn’t provide an individual with immunity against criminal prosecution.
Yes, the comment was about the rule of law and nobody being above the law. Sovereign immunity puts certain people above certain laws (i.e. can’t sue the cop that barrels down the street at 75mph in a 25 mph zone and kills a pedestrian. (Or in some states there are damages caps.)) Any regular Joe would not get such immunity. So, we already have asterisks in our rule of law system–where a certain class of people are not subject to the same laws as others–one being sovereign immunity. Corporate protections arguably being another. A corporation can be guilty of a criminal charge but not necessarily the actual people that made the crime happen, which is seemingly absurd. Or you can’t sue corporate execs individually even if it was their personal actions that led to harm to others, as long as it was done within the course and scope of their employment. For example, upper level execs know they are polluting and causing harm to environment/people. You can sue the company, but you’re likely not going to be able to pierce the corporate veil to get to the execs who actually committed the act.
An element to this is that there are a lot of different statistics that can tell a lot of different stories depending on what bits of data you pick.
For instance, most people would probably say that the average person had less purchasing power in October of this year compared to October of 2022. They would actually be wrong, as inflation-adjusted hourly wages have actually increased slightly in that time period (by ten cents, admittedly, but the fact remains that wage growth has been outpacing inflation).
This does not mean that every person has seen a growth in purchasing power, and my loose understanding is that most of the growth has been occurring at the bottom of the labor market (which is arguably a good thing from an equity standpoint).
I completely agree that it's not going to win votes. I think the takeaway is that the average consumer is not a particularly rational actor (much to the chagrin of economists), and your messaging needs to address the actual source of their frustrations, which may very well be the mere fact that the numbers got higher even though their purchasing power hasn't actually decreased.
I'd emphasize how you said that the average Americas is clearly not feeling the benefit, because I think that holds a really key part of this. Consumer sentiment does not necessarily track actual data, whether they're high level metrics like GDP or more individual ones like inflation-adjusted wages.
Good thing modern macroeconomics doesn’t depend on that. People only have to be semi-rational. I. e. they may not examine all possible options in a market, just a few, and pick the best one. The results are almost the same.
It’s wrong to say that “consumers are not rational”. That implies that their choices are potentially random. We know that they’re not, because people are complaining about not having enough money. Which is rational.
It's only rational if you accept that what they want is actually money. They don't want money, they want a safe place to live, good food to eat, health care when they feel sick, someone to teach their kids, free time to pursue the things they love, and security that these things will be available for the rest of their lives.
The only reason they want money is because that's how you get those things in our economic system. People don't want money for the sake of money, at least for the most part.
No part of economics assumes that people “want money”. If that were true, there would be a lot more printed paper money in circulation.
Utility curves use prices for goods to find the maximum value of “happiness” or “satisfaction”. Rationality, in Economics, mean that people’s actions conform to their utility curves based on current prices.
Basically, if you like apples (or whatever) you should pay more for them than other goods, comparatively. That’s rational because your actions follow your preferences. Nothing to do with “liking money”.
if you like apples (or whatever) you should pay more for them than other goods, comparatively
I just don’t think this happens that much necessarily though. Mostly because of necessities taking up such a huge percentage of peoples budgets.
I also find myself and see others kind of have a “I Like X more, but not enough to spend Y for it”. This doesn’t necessarily imply it’s a utility curve, I often find myself thinking it’s more of an anchoring psychology effect. I.e. you at age X get used to a Combo meal at the local fast food place costing $10. If it “frog boils” over say 20 years to $20, you’ll bitch about how “back in my day”… If it doubles in a year, like many things have - it just seems way more like overcharging and the utility curve is all out of whack.
I’ll tell you one thing, the service at fast food places has fallen so much where I live that if I can’t get their app to work to pre-order so I can waltz in and just grab it, I’ll go somewhere else. And the cost has gone up so much that I’ve been actively comparing to fast casual app based pick ups or hell, sit downs because the food is usually somewhat better and they’re often no longer massively more expensive or slower.
The models economics uses fail pretty much all the time so it definitely shouldn’t be considered science in the same way as physics or chemistry. If they were held to similar standards every economic ‘model’ would be tossed out after any rigorous testing (where success for the model would be accurate predictions). Instead they treat their models as ideal types and continue to base them on massive assumptions.
The popular conception of economics feels quite a bit like a religion. There's the god of The Invisible Hand™, there's a priesthood of economists, there's the creation myth of barter, there's people's vehement insistence that they're capitalists.
David Graeber's books "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" and "The Dawn of Everything" do a really good job of showing different economic and political systems, and that ours isn't some ideal end goal but one of many possible choices.
Graeber isn’t an economist and doesn’t present his books as a part of economics in any way, though. In fact he criticizes how economists have essentially made up fairy tales to explain things rather than to look at history and understand how the modern world came about in a factual manner.
He lays out the history of various economic systems in a well researched, extremely detailed, and anthropological manner. Just because it doesn’t agree with your conception of reality doesn’t make it non-factual.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I agree with what I’ve read of him, particularly Debt: the first 5000 years. I don’t think he’s an economist. I also think that’s a credit to him on the whole.
Absolutely. But I think dismissing it as non-economic is short sighted. He begins by searching anthropology and history for the mythical time when goats got too difficult to carry to market and someone invented money, only to find that it’s a myth.
Honestly, the actual history presented is far more interesting than the myth of barter.
Given that I find the economists roughly on par with weather forecasters, I really think we have to treat it that way. Like Climate change has thrown a huge wrench in existing weather models causing the forecasts to be much worse - I think if the models ever worked(and that’s a big if), things have sufficiently changed to break them pretty badly now.
So (excepting that the alternative is Trump for a minute) you’re thinking a rational actor should vote for the guy improving the economy for lower wage workers even if it didn’t benefit them individually?
I don’t hate that take.
I do think the formula we american kids were taught in school was more like
Individuals vote in their selfish interests
Selfish votes are tallied and hopefully if you average out people’s self-interested votes they elect a guy who is acting in the interests of a decent subset.
Americans don’t generally think in golden rule terms like “Whatever benefits the most workers is best for the country.”
I’d personally have to be shown evidence that a sizable portion of all these excessive (compared to manufacturing costs) profits are NOT lining the pockets of the rich before I would give out any economics gold stars.
Honestly, if people were rational actors about economics, they’d stop thinking the President can do much about how they feel about the economy. And using Gas prices as the measure is one of the most asinine things I’ve ever seen.
And this story makes a claim that purchasing power is greater in October '23 than October '22 while omitting the 6.5% rate for '22 and the 7% rate the year prior. Inflation is down this year, but that doesn’t dig us out of hole created during the two prior years.
Yes, it’s surprising when a loss leader leads to losses. For example, Olive Garden and their soup, salad, and bread sticks are probably loss leaders because of how cheap they are, but they make up that little loss with much better margins on entrees (and, I assume, drinks).
Soup might not actually be a loss leader. Their soups are pretty cheap to make in bulk- especially if they’re using left over ingredients that are not quite as fresh.
I'm sure they're fresh, darden(who used to own red lobster) likely doesn't get too granular with it's produce suppliers in the area. They'll make one contract for all their subsidiary restaurants I'm sure.
I doubt red lobster seafood is fresh (lobster are from the tank, the rest not so much). It’s frozen. (They’d have to fly it in special, for most of their locations. Which. Is not cheap.)
Their soups… I dunno 50/50 on them being warmed out of giant bags made in some distribution hub.
Their biscuits are made from a dry mix (probably identical to bisquick)
I was speaking to OG’s soups (which are made fresh- during prep that morning.) are pretty freaking cheap to make- especially since they probably use all the not-quite as fresh ingredients left over from the previous night; and stocks made from bits and pieces that would otherwise be tossed (like chicken carcass or skins/peels from carrots and onions).
That's what I was taking about. I was taking about darden getting fresh produce. They're who own olive garden. They just also used to own red lobster but got rid of it.
Soups usually get things that are not-as-fresh because they get simmered all day anyway- no one is gonna notice if the the carrots were getting flacid or if the protein is dried out from being cooked and not served.
They make the soup fresh daily- just in the morning. and they keep it hot so as to get it out quickly. The ingredients they use, though “fresh” are not the freshest in their pantry, if that makes sense. It’s the left over trimmings that get chopped up so as to hide it (this is actually a good thing. It reduces waste.)
i hate how the term ‘loss leader’ is bandied about like i’m meant to feel sorry for them so generously losing money on something when at the end of the night it’s obviously one transaction for everything with a healthy amount of profits baked in
Belgium. You are not allowed to sell any item at a loss. Fire example Ikea had to increase the prices of its restaurant and a supermarket that did a 3 for 1 promo got in trouble.
What else should it be called? I don’t think there’s some moral responsibility placed upon the patron to make up for the loss, even with that name. It’s a gamble for the business that is usually thought out and is intended to lead to an increase in profits overall due to margins baked into items that aren’t on promo.
Sure, it’s considered poor taste to come to a restaurant solely for the free bread and some water and then leave, but it’s completely fair game to take advantage of a loss leading promotion like “endless shrimp” or Costco’s $1.75 for a hot dog and soda. The loss leader gets you in the door. They have other strategies to make that loss worth their while. If you walk in and pound more shrimp than Red Lobster can cover with the margins on the rest of your ticket, that’s their fault not yours… the house lost that bet.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.