I was told this as a fast food manager: do not admit fault, only apologize for the situation the person is experiencing. The second you admit fault, they said, you admit liability for any damages, real or imaginary.
Hole-in-the-wall ethnic food shops/take out are the way. If you want 'murican fast food, you gotta break the bank… but find a little family owned taqueria that does their shit right and you can stuff your face with the best tacos you’ve ever eaten for like $3. Highly dependent on your local options ofc, so keep an eye out.
In my experience, the sketchier the restaurant looks, the better the food is.
You absolutely can get great American food from a hole in the wall. Also, I’m not sure why you had to say ‘murican as if our food has something wrong with it. Just a weird flex. I’m lucky to live in a city with a plethora of food trucks all around and you can get pretty much any kinda cuisine for cheaper than fast food joints.
I was amazed to find out the chicken place I order from looked nice (for a sketchy hole in the wall ethnic food place). $30 CAD for two or three days worth of INCREDIBLY good chicken and fries
Like seriously, it was dying mall food court sketchy when I expected, "...You killed the health inspector with a pan to the head didn't you?" sketchy
$8.10. Their advertised base wage ($21/hr) must be lower than their actual base wage. I saw a posted at location janitorial position with a $23/hr start.
Does this pretty much imply that if it looks shady and stays in business, but the food is shite, then then business is a front for money laundering or other criminal activities? Because there is this absolutely trash Mexican place near where I live and it’s always dead (no business) and the food is suspiciously bad like “the refried beans are dry and look like they’ve been sitting out for days” kind of bad. And this place has been “in business” for like 15 years.
There’s a Bosnian place right next to an amazing Mexican place we like to go to. The Bosnian place always has people coming and going, but never staying for more than 5 minutes, and never walking out with food in hand. I’m pretty sure it’s a front.
In Louisiana some of the best fried chicken and other Cajun food is in gas stations. Not even joking. It’s usually small towns, but there are some around NOLA and other cities, too.
Those breaded skewers with chicken/pickle/onion/potato you can get at roadside stations down in the MS delta area are absolutely incredible and I love them. Any time I’m passing through there I have to find some.
Cheap food is still out there, but it’s not corporate food.
Corporations put profit above all, which is anathema to how every successful chain became successful. Whatever mechanism they had to stresamline production, negotiate with vendors, push addition products (would you like fries with that?), their primary goal was always consistency and value. You know what to expect, and it’s worth the money.
You’ll find that now in local diners, in food trucks, in cafes, and in small restaurants where they value good food over profit, but you won’t find it at most chain restaurants.
Food trucks are hit or miss. The food can be OK but the ones here tend to be very overpriced for the quality.
Someone else mentioned ethnic places which have become my go to for good, cheap food. There’s a gyro place near me where you can get a gyro and fries for like $7. It takes 5 minutes and the food is fresh.
BBQ trucks tend to be way overpriced in my experience. But that may be biased because I make damn good BBQ. I have friends that ask me to make food for their birthday parties, diaper parties, bachelor parties etc. paying $12-15 for a sloppy mess of a pulled pork sandwich with no taste other than the sauce is absolutely unacceptable. That being said, I’m far enough away from any BBQ “hub” that nobody here knows what good BBQ is.
They aren’t even cheap anymore, damn near $2+ basic bitch tacos. I can go elsewhere and get a street taco (with multiple meat options) for a buck that’s actually flavorful and warmer than room-temp, and that’s in fucking Ohio
Not here! The burritos at Taco Bell here are outrageous. A single bean burrito is 4.50CAD. The 7-layer? 8 BUCKS. The Grilled Cheesy? Fuck you, over ten dollars for a single burrito. A burrito that isn’t heated right, has all the ingredients separated into disgusting pockets of single ingredient, and makes you feel terrible after eating them.
And mind you, these aren’t even combos. This is just one burrito.
One of the few things that he understands is to accuse other people of exactly what he’s being accused of. If Trump gets called a threat to democracy, he’s going to accuse Biden of being “the real threat to democracy”.
It’s from Steve Bannon’s playbook called “cover the field in shit”, and it stops low-informed voters from easily determining what’s going on, as it plays into a prevailing narrative that all politicians lie. It’s brilliant, it’s wicked, and it’s quickly pushing us towards fascism.
Yeah, like what are the stats on 13 year olds actually shooting cops vs. just having toy guns? Like at some point you gotta realize it’s probably not actually a threat and proceed more cautiously.
i think it is disingenuous to represent that AC is a standard or required by law for a rental anywhere, at least in the US. I do find it shitty that the AC included with the unit is damaged, and land(slum)lord won’t fix it, but again, unless it’s in the lease there really is no requirement that the LL provide it in US. I think it is good to start a discussion on if AC for a rental should be the law, (edit: i also would strongly support this) but i doubt we will see that become the case, especially in southern states which probably would need it most.
I doubt adding AC would make it unaffordable, other than the renter having to pay the electric bill. The federal government, some cities, and most electric providers offer incentives to purchase and install modern HVAC units. window units are also an affordable option included in or allowed in many rentals.
The federal government, some cities, and most electric providers offer incentives to purchase and install modern HVAC units
Which is because there’s a market to sell them, make it mandatory and there is no reason to have sales or grants, it’s a guaranteed sell. Which is also politics….
It’s an extra 3-5k on the sticker price, that’s unaffordable for a large swath of people, especially when the house is only 60k anyways.
Because it was represented as a feature when someone decided to rent the place. Otherwise it’s a “bait and switch” and should be fraudulent
For example, nothing requires an outlet or switch to work, as long as it’s safe, but we expect that to work. I doubt anything requires all burners on a stove to work, but it’s certainly expected. Nothing requires windows to open but it’s expected.
Because it was represented as a feature when someone decided to rent the place.
Pardon? It wasn’t on the lease, so it wasn’t.
For example, nothing requires an outlet or switch to work, as long as it’s safe, but we expect that to work. I doubt anything requires all burners on a stove to work, but it’s certainly expected. Nothing requires windows to open but it’s expected.
Actually, codes and legislations do! Your entire comment is misguided yeesh. AC IS different since no codes, legislations, or the lease requires it. A stove is require by code, legislations, and lease, so if it doesn’t work, that’s an issue.
So you understand the very important distinction now….? Probably not, but do you?
Because it was represented as a feature when someone decided to rent the place. Pardon? It wasn’t on the lease, so it wasn’t
It’s been a long time since I rented but maybe purchasing a house has an analogy.
I was told I had to leave behind wired in speakers when I sold my townhouse. The buyers had seen them in their tour so could legally expect them, and my contract hadn’t called them out as an exception. Legally they had the advantage
The house I bought was missing a ceiling fan that I had seen during the tour and it hadn’t been called out as an exception. Legally I had the advantage and the sellers had to replace it at their cost
Maybe in some situations a stove is required but as long as it’s safe and can be used, there is nothing requiring every feature to work, nor is it in the contract. There is no explicit requirement that all four burners work. However, if it is there we all expectant to work
electrical code has requirements for safety and for minimum level of service, but after that, nothing requires everything to work nor is that detailed in the contract. There is no requirement for electrical service beyond the minimum. However, we do expect them all to work and have the legal advantage
In the same way, AC is not required feature. However if it is there when I decide to rent and I have decided to rent with that information then I do expect it to work and I do call it fraud if it doesn’t
It is part of the lease. She was shown a certain apartment, with certain appliances. She signed a lease for that apartment. It’s understood the lease covers the facilities in the apartment.
If the building becomes unlivable it’s an issue. high temps with high humidity can literally lead to heat stroke since no amount of fans will help since you literally can’t cool off even with sweating.
What that fix is, I’m not sure, but some buildings in areas of the south become ovens during heat waves and without AC people will get sick or die.
i absolutely agree, my point is less that there are or are not health concerns, just that it is currently not a requirement, at least anywhere I have lived. i believe it should be, but I know that the south passing legislation that helps vulnerable people at the expense of those who own property is probably never going to happen. i just felt like it was odd that the article was stating that there is no law in the state, without emphasizing that most states do not either.
Some areas have basic consumer protection. Such as a habitation must be fit to live in.
Renting out an apartment with 2 feet of water in it all times, or black mold, or no water or front door is often covered by specific legislation and then, if not, then by the consumer protection statutes.
Which may be the approach some lawyers will have to take if this gets bad enough.
“I can live in my apartment except for 5 weeks where I have to go someplace else” is what we may start seeing in future civil actions.
Even if people argue it’s fit to live in, it should be covered by consumer protections as you paid for it, so you should get it, unless the contract specifically calls it out as not working
I tried to find the list but brain failed me and i kept getting bar association stuff. Did you know that while Missouri doesn't require AC it does require that units be kept to a 'habitable' temperature, and there's enormous case law defining that word that makes it defacto required but technically not.
Central Air absolutely needs to be a requirement on all new construction. And window units need to be mandatory unless requested otherwise in every bed room.
It’s way too hot these days in the car majority of the US for this to be safe.
It’s just fucked up that an appliance that’s connected to the actual rental unit doesn’t need to be operational by law. I mean, if the 'fridge dies in a TN rental unit is the landlord required to fix it or does that need to be specified in the lease also?
It’s just basic consumer protection, IMO. The AC comes with the apartment, the landlord should be required to maintain it.
We also don’t technically require that you have a steady supply of oxygen in your apartment, but I’m guessing you’d find it unreasonable if you woke up in a vacuum.
Do we even have a law that says landlords can’t heat your apartment to 100 degrees Fahrenheit? Or a law that specifically proscribes noise machines? Do we really have to specify every fucking thing or can people just be reasonable?
When I was 21 and moving into a shitty rental with my now wife, the place didn’t have AC and we moved in during a terrible heat wave. We bought one window unit so we could at least sleep at night. Later bought one more to make the whole space livable. Those units aren’t expensive, pick up an extra shift or two and you can buy one. When we moved into a place with central air we sold one and gave one away.
If all it takes is a shift or two, then landlords can surely recoup the costs with an extraordinarily small increase of rent (pennies or single digit dollars).
Agreed. If it’s law they’ll get it done (mostly, there are always bad landlords in court). But there are still a lot of places where it isn’t law, and I’m not just talking about the US. But if it’s too hot to be at home, spend a little extra time at work and fix the problem.
I’d argue that if it’s a feature of the unit that was present when someone signed, then yes it should be required to work.
Of course contracts can’t cover every little thing, so it’s ridiculous to rely on them for that level of granularity. Do we need to mandate contracts have an Entry for every feature of every appliance, every piece of infrastructure, every piece of structure? No. These things were presented as being there and functioning. But we should be able to rely on things working as presented. We should have a legal right that that be true
Honestly we probably already do. Most judges, if you said “Look the thing was there when he showed me the unit. That makes it part of the offered deal”, would back you.
Good luck getting America to hate a blonde blue eyed white woman with fake titties. On top of supplying kids with books, donating her money to various charities, and taking the Dixie out of Dixie stampede (because fuck the confederacy) you’d have a harder time convincing ppl to hate oxygen
[When being asked if she would be riding one of the new rides at her park ~10 yrs ago] “Oh goodness no, if I got on there parts of me would start flyin’ off!”
I read some article awhile ago about how she is fiercely protective of her private life and of her husband’s private life, too, but they both still manage to go out in public and have a normal life. IIRC, the article even mentioned that can just walk down the street of her hometown in normal clothes and doesn’t get recognized.
You don’t need voluminous boobs if you can squish ‘em in the right ways and get them to stay held there. (Witnessed with my own eyes from a friend - similar bra, different cup/band sizes, very different profile.) I would not be the least bit surprised to learn she uses the same tricks, plus the wigs and makeup to keep her personal/private life separate.
As much as I appreciate that added bit of flash and glamour of chrome, the health problems from dealing with that shit are nassssssty. I also feel like the younger generations of purchasers are looking less for chrome than my generation.
The US feds recently approved automatically adjusting headlamps that point down at the road, so hopefully the current nonsense will get better. Europe has had these for a while.
I’m in Europe and I still get blinded by modern SUVs with LED headlights constantly, having auto levelling headlights is nice and all but when the headlights themselves are at eye level for drivers in anything lower than a landrover it doesn’t change much
That’s usually from misaligned headlights. Most often people swapping their headlight bulb and not adjusting them. You can’t simply pop an HID bulb into the existing reflector housing without adjusting the headlight to compensate.
To quibble, you can’t pop a HID into a reflector housing at all, usually. Halogen and drop in replacement LED have a different focal point than HID bulbs do.
This means if switching to HIDs you also need to replace the entire housing so it will focus the light correctly. No amount of adjustment will be correct if the beam isn’t focused properly.
Also last time I checked most drop in LED bulbs aren’t really intended for on-road use.
The headlights in my wife’s old car were a real pain in the ass to replace, you either had to take practically the whole front bumper apart or grope around blind from the wheel well. I debated on getting her LED bulbs to hopefully never have to do that again, but I noticed that they were marked as something like “for off-road or motor sports use only”
And is it a problem? How many accidents are caused by glares? And maybe wear sunglasses if it’s sunny out…… take a little personal accountability when driving something dangerous if a fraction of a second glare might affect your ability to control a vehicle. Or move your head? Is it immobile? I usually shift my whole body if I’m parked and it’s consistent for a few seconds.
BTW, this is a real violation of free speech… Negative consequences from the government for speaking… Even in the context of your own work responsibility
Aside from the correctness of the ruling or this situation. I’m guessing if Citizens United ruled ‘money equals speech’, then making/distributing a powerpoint probably also will be categorized as ‘speech’.
So Americans only have free speech when the government says it’s ok?
I’m mean, I know freedom of speech is a narrower concept than most people realize but if the government can retaliate against you because you would share factual evidence as part of your job, then you guys really don’t have freedom of speech
I mean, I guess you guys beat North Korea in this topic and … That’s about it
It’s more like when you work for the government, you’re allowed to say what in a personal context. Once you start throwing around a title linked to the government, you’re no longer speaking as yourself, youre speaking as the government. The government can tell you what the government is allowed to say.
It’s the difference between an employee of the coast guard joining Greenpeace vs. That employee publicly saying the United States Coast Guard is joining Greenpeace. The coast guard can’t fire an employee for their own political beliefs, but they can totally fire a guy for saying shit the coast guard doesn’t want while representing the coast guard. Public speaking and seminars and shit like this have explicit rules about who can say what and when as a government employee in an official capacity.
Among the bill’s cosponsors is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who recently told Politico, “I think it’s common sense that you can’t have the president sitting in the Oval Office worried about whether some lawyer or some local DA somewhere is going to go after him.”
How is this common sense? Politicians are in urgent need of more fear of the law and voters.
They’re so out of touch with the rest of the world, they think they should be immune from prosecution.
And yet they don’t seem to realize that most people think prison is the best place for all of them. Nobody gives a fuck about their well-being or their “worries.”
The President is worried about the world getting nuked, spies, destabilization, economy, and more. A lawyer is the LEAST of their worries and, honestly, shouldn’t be worried unless they breach the duties of their position.
In the end, they are a representative of US. They are still a person, albeit with a ton of power, but a person who represents a country. They are human and should be subject to all of the same laws. So should all forms of government (Legislative and Judicial). Just because we provide you with our voice doesn’t mean you get to not be held accountable when you misrepresent or flat out do illegal shit.
In other words, “Let’s strip out one of the checks and balances built in to the country in order to ensure we get the very dictator king the founders sought to prevent.”
It’s just common sense that there are two classes of people in the world. Those the law protects but does not bind, and those the law binds but does not protect.
Never forget what all this human/animal/ecological death is and will be for, nothing of any value, solely stoking the ego scores of a few avarice governed sociopaths.
I hope humanity finds the strength to construct a monument on the scorched, hostile world we’re making that we will struggle to survive on as our species flickers out that reads "Don’t take it personally, it was just business."
I can’t see how it would be unethical to systemically remove the biggest roadblocks in the way of NEEDED progress, in terms of personnel, in attempt to salvage what we can. We know their agenda, the playbook, the offenders, their business ties, their politics. It’s all bullshit and it has worked on too many people, the damages are done, and now it’s time to remove these fucking parasites and actually do the shit these overweight rednecks think they’re doing by hating POC and driving trucks to the grocery store.
We are talking about the fate of humanity and I absolutely do not give a flying fuck about any of the few faceless, soulless pieces of shit sitting on billions, their legacy tied to our demise.
The fact that nobody’s stepping up to the plate in significant ways just breeds more contempt and enmity for them. If we’re all going down, we know who the fattest are 😊
Listen, I’ve seen this in every thread. The judges are just being extra careful so they can make sure the case doesn’t get thrown out because it’s a highly sensitive subject.
Four years just wasn’t enough time. You have to be patient about these things. Give us another Friedman Unit or two to settle things out.
They’re trying to conflate a right-wing judge’s bias with those biG bAd LibErAlS who defend Garland’s meticulous albeit slow investigation and hand-off to Jack Smith I guess.
Not sure if sarcasm or not, but after following quite a few (yes, YouTube) lawyers on this subject, I think it’s fair to say that a lot of it actually is that; Trump is a slippery bastard and getting him convicted is hard. last thing you want is to convict him, have fox news pull the “they made a mistake” cars, and actually be right. Once trump goes to jail, you better be sure he stays there.
Why always with the French. They waited for us to go first anyhoo. Let’s take back the I word from them and those Redcoats, I mean hats… I’m rocking stars and stripes and remembering 76! This our goddamn America, and they can hate our freedoms all they want, but this is the US motherfuckin A!
their protest used to start revolutions and now their protests are safely ignored until they run out of steam; the people in charge have gotten really good forcing everyone else to choose between a future and right now
Yeah - my wealthy ex’s family bought him expensive lawyers, so he got to ignore multiple court orders during the divorce, while mine took $3k to do fuck all. “Justice” is contingent on being able to afford good lawyers.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.