129 karma · joined September 29, 2022
But if they are busy, then I'll do an "Excuse me" really nicely and just loud enough so they can hear - not too loudly, and they will nod and that usually is it, and I know it to mean that they will get to me as soon as they can, they acknowledged me. And if it is super busy, I'm cool if it takes a little longer than usual. It happens. If I'm in a hurry, I'd go to McDonalds. Not really, I hate it, but that's the idea.
Everyone in business is "fake." Your auto repair person, the person at Best Buy, people at the clothing store. Of course people are "fake."
However, they are people, too. I am always SUPER SUPER nice to people who are "fake" to me in restaurants or clothing stores or wherever, and they so much appreciate it that 95% of them actually are NOT fake nice to me anymore. As I wrote elsewhere, many times I got a desserts "on the house" at restaurants when I go out in groups, because I make it so enjoyable for the wait staff.
Of COURSE it is angling for tip money. I have walked out without paying a tip for crappy service. I paid zero.
I know wait staff is "fake" nice because they want tips, but if I'm genuinely nice to them then they are "real" nice. And if you are a regular at a restaurant, and tip well, everyone will know you and you will be treated as royalty. And you usually get the same server, who knows your kids names, where you work, and actually they care about you, but yeah, the customer knows the waiter or waitress does not work for free, of course. Neither does the customer.
And, we are all fake to people who give us money. We are ALL fake to our bosses. Nobody will go to their boss and be all, "Hey you fucking moron, another stupid fucking idea you have." Even if that is what one truly thinks. We all have different masks for different occasions.
In Europe, and Catalonia maybe, tipping is not expected, so it is not the culture. If I was there, I would not tip.
But again, the whole argument is ridiculous. If the meal is $30 (or euros), and a 15% tip is $4.50, then you pay $35 (I round up). If no tipping was allowed, the restaurant raises the price to $35. It's the same exact thing. Except if you get a REAL bad waitstaff, you pay $30, because that is what the tip is for. And bad service is if they are jerks, not if they spill a glass of wine on you, which sucks but is an honest mistake that can happen to any of us. I know a waitress who did that and she knew the customer well and bought him a nice shirt for the next time he came back.
But again, you pay the exact same price either way. So not sure why people have so much vitriole against it. And, so many Americans LOVE the custom of tipping. A lot of people go back to the same restaurants and love supporting a waiter or waitress that treat them well. I love paying tips, I usually don't pay less than 25%.
Second, even if it DID happen, that is the fantastically rare situation, that is extremely bizzare. You can read here and everywhere that this is not how it is done, so you don't make a judgement based on one single time, especially when no one else ever has had that experience.
I've left restaurants many times without paying a tip because of exceptionally poor service, it's never happened to me. I've never heard it happening to anyone.
Yeah, totally 100% do not believe you. Sorry, man. I just don't. Again, unless that server was actually and really truly mentally ill, and not using the term colloquially.
The thing is, you DON'T have to tip. I have walked out of restaurants before without tipping when I got super shitty service. You can pay 5% or 10% or 15% or 20% or 25%.
And the thing is that here in the USA, everyone LOVES tipping. Customers, good nice customers, love tipping. Usually it is the whiny bitchy horrible customers that don't like tipping, and if there was not tipping, they would be whiny bitchy horrible customers anyways. This much I know to be true.
If you don't have a lot of money, just go and be honest and tell the wait staff that. Be honest. I mean, don't be going and ordering $800 worth of food and say you don't have a lot of money because that would be horrible thing. But if you have a very little money, just apologize and say you'd love to but can't.
Also, these days you can go online and see exactly how much the food is, and add on the tip. Just see what you want, add 15%, and you know. This is not difficult. It won't get you in trouble if you take an extra 30 seconds to look up the menu on line, right? And ffs, if you order $30 dinner, and the tip is $4.50 and you don't have enough money to cover it, why on earth would you go out to a restaurant in the first place? Stay at home and make a nice pasta dinner that is just as good as a restaurant and pay $1 or $1.50. Or euros, I think the exchange rate is pretty close to one-to-one. If you go out to a restaurant and go broke over $4.50, your issues are a lot deeper and worse than not having $4.50 tip. Like, you should see a professional therapist about why you would blow the tiny bit of money that you do have on a $30 meal when you can spend $1 and eat at home.
However, while you don't like it, a vast majority of Americans DO like it. I like it. The staff like it. Management likes it.
I guess the solution is that if someone doesn't like tipping, they should never ever go out to restaurants here in the USA. That would take care of it instantly for you.
But again, as I said, you will pay the exact same or more if tipping is included in the price! The exact same or more.
The thing is that if you don't want to leave a tip, don't. It's so easy. Just don't. Most wait staff would rather a dinner party leave without paying the tip rather than have whining - who wouldn't?
I've never had staff get angry with me and I've been going to restaurants probably longer than you've been alive. So I don't know where you're getting this from, unless you are lying for effect, to falsely bolster your case.
I've never had entitle person ever. I've always had fantastic relationships with the wait staff. Because THEY WANT to give you a great experience so that they can get a nice juicy tip. It's not fake on their side, any more than a Disney worker or auto repair shop owner is nice to their customers.
I've had such a good time with some wait staff, that they give me free desserts. I remember once my reputation for getting free desserts got around to a group of friends I occasionally hung out with. We were at the restaurant and said that it was bullshit and to do it right at that restaurant. I did. The waiter gave me a free dessert. Which are restaurants' main money makers.
Waiters are required to pay taxes on tips, but you are right, if they are in cash, well, they can break the law, but that's the same exact thing as if someone doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Anyone can break the law.
And as I also said, a LOT of restaurants, even high-end restaurants in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco have tried no tips. But it was a disaster in almost all cases. Their wait staff would quit all the time, because a good wait staff person can make fantastically more money in tips. If a restaurant pays $25/hour (good luck on that) the wait staff would be paid $50K/year, but a good waiter can make $100K+ on tips. So the wait staff quit the no-tipping restaurants and move to a better, for them, restaurant.
But really, you are paying the exact same, or more, if it is all included in one bill with no break out. And by breaking out healthcare costs, you will actually pay less money for the meal than all included.
As far as healthcare and education being free in EU, that is irrelevant.
Skill does not matter. You need the minimum and no more. It doesn't hurt to be exceedingly competent, but not necessary if you want to climb the ladder. If you want to be a one single thing and not rise in the company, but only interested in increasing your particular skill, like programming, that's cool. But the rest of this doesn't apply to you.
Communications and being able to meet the right people in the company matter the most to climb the corporate ladder.
You didn't come out of the womb programming or doing double-entry accounting. You have to learn all those by an investment of time. In the same manner, you can learn interpersonal skills, but it is just as time-consuming as learning programming and one has to really work at it. But it can be learned. There are a ton of videos online.
There are tricks. Like when you first start a job, you do not make friends willy-nilly with the first person who talks to you. You take your time, figure out the power structure in a company - who the powerful people are. Then you set out step by step how to meet them. You can't go around your boss, so that is part of the game is to make yourself noticed in indirect ways. If your bosses bosses boss talks to you first, you are not going around the chain of command - you can't just not answer the person. Depending on how big the company is, it can take years to manuever up the chain. I'm not saying to do this in a dickish way where you backstab or even frontstab people. All you are doing is being sociable, seeing what has to be done, and are noticed by those who need to notice you.
Working where you bring dollars in the door is super important. Rainmakers are everyone's friend. So if you are a computer programmer, and can help the sales and marketing team become more effective to make more money, that's a winner.
It's amazing, when you meet the right people, they pluck you out of nowhere and zoom you right on up the ladder. It's happened to me a few times.
But you have to know how to be sociable, which means sociable to that person. If they are an introvert, you need to know and understand it and adjust yourself to that person, for example. That's what it means to be sociable. Not to be a braying jackass who wants to be the center of attention & holding court.
Of course, this is irrelevant if you work in a startup with 5 people.
But I know many sit-down restaurants have tried to institute a no-tip policy, but both employees and customers hate it. I would hate it. I like giving tips. I wouldn't go to a restaurant where tipping was not allowed.
Plus, the restaurant has to raise their prices up by 20% anyways, because they now have to pay their wait staff more. The customer pays anyways. So it's a stupid thing not to have tipping. You're not going to save any money at all as the customer. It's impossible to save money.
Furthermore, I know waitstaff that make a considerable amount of money from tips. Like, $300-$400 per shift and more. That's about $80,000 to $105,000 per year. So the food prices are going to have to go up substantially to cover what that person made with tips. The reason that many wait staff make so much is that they have "regulars" who tip them well because they develop a relationship and a repore that goes beyond just simple waiting on a random customer.
People say they want the price that's on the menu, but come on - you know there's going to be a tip, if the menu says it is $20, then it is $23, you can do this in your head or on your mobile phone. You know exactly what the price will be unless you failed 2nd grade math. Why on earth would anyone care if the price said $20 or $23 on the menu, if in either case you pay $23? It's ridiculous in the extreme. Unless someone is an extreme pedantic martinet.
For all the other places like coffee shops, I never pay, I take pleasure in not paying a tip on the digital pad, because don't try to jam me up. I so when there's a tip jar at those places, but now I make it a point never to tip on digital. And when it does happen, I start looking for an alternate location where they don't have that crap. I might not find one this month, or for six months, but I'll be low-level looking for alternatives.
Also, who said it would be a spin-the-wheel random choice.
I'm sure the board of directors can go through a search to find another CEO, whether internal or external.
But the CEO, the leader, should have some skin in the game as well. That's what real leadership is about.
>Though the goalposts shifted from "cannot build bike lanes without destroying thousands of homes and businesses" to "there is no visible impediment for pedestrians,"
Not really, just having a wide ranging discussion.
>Just like widening a road draws more traffic, creating pedestrian-friendly and cyclist-friendly spaces draw more pedestrians and cyclists, so a lack of perceived demand given current infrastructure doesn't mean much.
Not necessarily. I've seen many bike paths and pedestrian streets that have little to no bike/pedestrian traffic. I was listening to a radio show once and they were talking about a light rail project on the east coast. It cost way more than originally planned - instead of $200 million it cost $1 billion. This is because design changes all the time. They started building it and then the bike brigade, along with other special interest groups, came along and wanted a bike path. Well, the guy they talked to said that for all that extra expense, nobody uses that bike path. Maybe the bike path cost $100 million, and so it comes out to $10 million per person who rides their bike on it. The whole segment was about why civil structure undertakings cost more than planned.
I think there is a massive misunderstanding of the whole "build it and they will come" thing. That's not how it works.
I do think all of these types of capital outlays for bike paths and pedestrian streets are for the Gucci crowd. Nobody is going to spend $50 million creating a pedestrian street in Compton or wherever the gangs are in Los Angeles, or in the Tenderloin of San Francisco or the south side of Chicago in the baddest part of town.
Maybe spending that $100 million or whatever it costs would be better spent on getting more police in the bad parts of town, or something that can benefit the poorest of us all, instead of the bike riders who are riding $15,000 bikes. But I guess the $15,000 bike crowd has more clout than a bunch of riff raff gang members or working poor or homeless.
And yes, it is a zero sum game.
I don't have anything against what you're saying, I just think money could be spent better elsewhere.
But, I guess it is good that people can shop at Gucci or Prada without worrying about stopping for stoplights - they can just walk where they want. And the people who can't afford the shops and buy $2,400 pair of shoes can sit at the coffee shops and buy a cup of coffee for $9.87 and pretend that they can, instead of going to their local greasy spoon diner and buying a cup of Folger's coffee for $1.25.
I'm not trying to be a dick, it's just what I think about it all.
It's all good.
As I tried to explain things to people, they didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I said "directories." So I had to check that shit and start using "folders" so that I could communicate with people.
Huh....today I learned that I also can be a Harvard Finance Professor. Where should I send my application?
Probably 95% of people go into companies with zero idea of office politics. I sure didn't when I started.
What I have found is that people either 1) say that they hate office politics so they ignore it, 2) they pick the wrong "friends"
The first reasons is obvious why people don't get promoted.
The second reason is that people look at work as an extension of their social life, instead of as a job. I'll go into this.
One has to realize that a job is not for friendship, it is for work. If you had a billion dollars, you wouldn't even be in that job in the first place in order to make "friends." Because it's a fucking job. Everyone you meet should be "business associates." Now, I know someone is going to say, "Yeah, but I met my best friend of 20 years at my first job." Every time. Well, all I can say is that this is NOT about you. So what if you did. I didn't. Many others don't. Again, this is about getting promotions, not about making friends. Make friends outside of work. It's just as easy. I don't care about how you make friends at work. It's immaterial. I'm trying to relate how to get promoted at a job and not talk about your social life. If you want to discuss that, let's start another completely different conversation on reddit or something.
Probably the biggest mistake that many people starting a job will go into the job and the first person who comes up to them and is friendly is now a "friend." And they get into that "clique."
What one should do is not to become "friends" with the first person friendly to them. I'm not saying you shouldn't be friendly to all, it is very important that one is friendly to everyone. No gossip, no backstabbing, none of that evil shit.
So when you start a new job, look around. Figure shit out. Find out who the "power-players" are. This is not difficult if you are aware.
Once you figure that out, then you develop deeper business relationships with those people, just like you would anyone else. You want visibility with them for long-term success.
I've done this many times and have been plucked from obscurity. You start rising through the company fast, because first, everyone knows you are associated closely with powerful people and nobody wants to fuck with you, they want to be nice because they want you to say nice things about them to powerful people in the business. And if you get along with the powerful person, that person will start telling other powerful people about "keep an eye on this person" kinda shit, and they all become aware of you. It's how it works. It truly is.
Now, if you piss off a powerful person at the start, probably can expect your career will be less than ideal at that company.
As far as your immediate boss goes, you have to know exactly what they want and get it done. If they change your priorities every week, and you don't like that, too bad. You do what they say. End of story, your personal preferences are not important. The #1 goal is to get promoted out of there anyways, so it is just a temporary thing anyways. So that part of office politics "brown-nosing" is correct, but it is just one tactic in the overall goal, and a minor tactic at that.
Another super tactic is to write and public speak. If you do this, you become an "industry expert." It doesn't matter if you speak on arcane shit in your industry, or basic stuff, it is unimportant. The important part is to write and speak to the public. I know one guy that does public speaking a few times a week - to small and large groups. It doesn't matter.
One time I spoke at a small group of 25 people in an obscure technical conference. As a speaker, everyone wants to talk to you after your talk and the meeting - it's almost always that way. Well, I was talking to some people, then at lunch I struck up a conversation and talking a while to some dude I didn't know. Well, he tells me he's like to talk some more later in a few weeks and to call him. He gave me his card and he was the CIO of a Fortune 500 company and I talked to him a little about it and he is at the head of a 10,000 person tech group. I asked him why he flew out for this small meeting and he said he was close with one of the other speakers there and so was going to hang out with him afterwards or something like that, I forget exactly.
That was an anomoly and in no way did I expect it, but the point is that just by giving a public talks, you gain so much credibility. Same with publishing in some kind of online or offline publication/media in your industry. If you're in supply chain management and publish some article on supply chain management, your immediate boss and also the COO of the company will know, because 1, you let them know, and 2 - you publish and speak a lot so it is difficult to ignore and they will know you are an "up and comer." You are an industry expert. Your public persona will rub off on your boss, the COO, and the company.
Also, another byproduct of public speaking and public writing means you will always have job offers coming out your ass, no matter what field. The one guy I knew who did two speaking engagements a week got 3-5 job offers daily. He showed me the emails.
I know everyone can understand what I wrote. And it is a template to success. I've used it many times and know it is true.
.
The issue that most people have is the "small talk" part. There is a solution to that. The solution is just the exact same as anything else you've done in your life. If you are a programmer, you didn't pop out of your mother's womb writing code. You might joke that someone has, but in seriousness, nobody is born with all knowledge - it takes effort to learn.
So in order to learn how to make small talk and to get along with people, one has to work at it, same as if a CPA had to learn double-entry accounting in university. Like a physician has to go to med school.
If you don't want to do it because you hate it, then so be it. But if you want to get promoted, you best learn how to be social and communicative.
There's a shitload of resources now that I didn't dream of when I started my career.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+do+i+make+s...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+do+i+not+be...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+do+i+play+office+politics&atb=...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+strike+u...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+do+i+make+small+talk&atb=v314-...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+do+i+not+be+socially+awkward&a...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+do+i+play+o...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+strike+up+a+conversation+wi...
.
Don't just watch one or two videos and read one or two articles. Make a study out of it. Put as much time into it as you did whatever your occupation is.
There are many techniques. Some will work for you, some won't. Write down those that you think will work. Do them, test them. You don't even have to do them at work. You can practice conversation techniques with your grocery store clerk, with the admitting person at your doctor's office, with anyone. Don't randomly talk, use the techniques and test them over and over. None should be by the seat of your pants conversations. It's the same with anything - learn programming the first time - you have to learn what a variable is, what a iteration/loop is. And do them over and over so that they are second nature. You don't just randomly write miscellaneous computer lines. There's a plan. One specific line of code has to come after another line of code.
And again, you for sure don't have to be an asshole. I am always smiling and friendly to everyone, and sincerely so. I've always liked everyone where I work and think everyone has liked me. Sure, there's sometimes been a bit of friction, but because I'm nice all the time to everyone, and develop that reputation, they know it is not me just being a dick for being a dick's sake.
All of the above has to do with larger companies - a few hundred or more people. If you're in a startup with 5 people, of course all of the above doesn't apply, which I think is self-evident. You know everyone.
And, also, if you don't want to be promoted and want to just do what you do best, well this whole converation is pointless for you to read or comment on. It is for people who DO want to get promoted and rise in their company.
Personally, I would just go down Lexington Street which is one block over and no traffic. I see these bike lanes in super heavily traffic arteries and no way would I personally go down them. All it takes is one tiny slip on the part of the bike rider or the auto driver and you end up as a grill decoration.
I'm NOT anti bike. I just think as a bike rider, you have the responsibility to figure out alternate routes. I would feel this way for myself. I don't ride a bike now, but when I did, I always tried to find alternate routes that kept me off main thoroughfares. Maybe you do, I don't know, but that's not my point, really. I just think that there are a certain vocal minority that wants the same rights on public roads as automobiles have, and that is the only reason. And they do, I always give bikers wide berth and respect them. But the fact of the matter is that main arteries are by nature going to be more dangerous, even with those little tiny bike lanes. What is the problem with going the side streets, if you can? I'm not saying it is always possible, but when it is, why not?
I work on a major thoroughfare in LA but walk every day, but do it on the side streets. It's a million times better - no traffic noise, no cars. As I said, I can walk right down the middle of the street, which I have done on occasion. For sure I can do that street crossing where you saunter diagonally across the road, not worried about a crosswalk. Every driver that goes by is going 25 mph, so easy for each to see each other and reaction time is better.
Everyone always compares Europe to the USA. What works there is a non-starter in the USA because first, yes, we have a different culture, but also, the density in Copenhagen is way different than in most USA cities. It can work in some places, but not in all. Sure, in the city centers you can have the intersections, that's fine. But in California, like in Los Angeles, it is so huge that some people would have to ride 30-50 miles to their workplace. Because the USA is a lot bigger. Also I noticed in the photos you linked to that the streets are just one lane each direction. Totally a no go, it wouldn't work. It would be totally impossible on main city arteries.
However, even in Los Angeles, if you go down the side streets, there's hardly any cars there. Shit, I walk down the middle of these suburban streets with no problem. Not at 8 am or 5 pm when the commutes begin, but during the day there's hardly any traffic, even on the streets the next one over from the main city artery streets. Just about any bicycle rider should be able to get to wherever they want using the back streets - the streets off the main arteries. So it is a little out of the way and not a straight shot, but that's the whole point of riding a bicycle, is to be on the bicycle and also to get exercise, so who cares if one goes out of the way just a little bit. But it just seems like bicyclists want to use the main vehicle arteries....just because. I mean, even if you make these arteries more bike friendly, believe me, they will still be fantastically more dangerous than just taking the side streets. It's nuts. I only walk on the side streets everywhere, it's so much more satisfying than the noise of main arteries.
As far as Market Street in San Francisco goes, you can ride your bike down Minna, for example. But what I'm saying with San Francisco does not really have to do with bicycles. I'm talking about Muni, not bicycles. I used Muni for years, and it makes sense in a city like San Francisco. It is great - go downtown, you avoid d traffic and don't have to worry about parking. But this is not the same in other cities. It's ridiculous in Los Angeles, for example, which is spread out all over fuck.
Also, people always seem to compare to Copenhagen. First, it is their culture. We have a different culture, and I'm not even talking about cars vs bikes. But it is unfair comparison because Copenhagen is unique. You don't have this in London, or Berlin, or any other country. Copenhagen is an outlier, probably the only one.
And additionally, while super hardcore and super fit bicyclists might be able to ride anywhere in San Francisco, let's see a normal person take a bike ride up California Street from the Financial District to Pacific Heights. Good luck with that one.
>By just reducing the width of car lanes (which help reduce speeding) you can probably build bike lane in many US streets
It depends, but honestly, I don't see it. Like on Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, no way, just no way. Those are the main arteries from the Pacific Ocean to downtown LA. Going down to one lane? Nope. Just impossible.
However, there are tons of suburban streets, that I mentioned that are a way better and massively less stressful for a bike rider. You have to sometimes zig and zag, but so what? It's a block or two to go around a park or whatever. This is in Los Angeles. And even in San Francisco, must of the city is suburban streets. Sunset, Richmond, Excelsior, Potrero Hill, Noe Valley and the rest - all of these you can ride on off the main arteries. But sure, downtown is always different. But bike riders are going to want a bike lane ALL the way down Mission Street, just because. No reason, except "just because." I mean, I know I'll always get pushback. There will always be, "yeah, but this and that."
First of all, I don't get why it would be necessary to convert those streets on the first link you provided. On the first photograph, the sidewalks look empty. There are no impediments to walking down that street, although really, it is a dishonest comparison - one that is probably the worst black and white photo to make the first one seem as bleak as possible, and the second in color with people there dressed in summer clothes. But be that as it may, it's only aesthetic purposes only. It's not like some life-changing functionality.
Also, as I look at it on Google maps in that example that you gave of Strøget in Copenhagen Denmark, it's only one street. The rest of Copenhagen is chock-a-block full of regular city streets, same as any other major city. Color me unimpressed.
In Santa Monica, there's a pedestrian shopping street where no cars are allowed. It's on 3rd Street. All kinds of stupid shit like palm readers and people preaching Jesus, although it is "upscale." So what? Lot's tourists walk up and down, but I've never been a guy who is into tourist traps that attract suckers to places with a lot of shops and sidewalk cafes that people pay high prices for mediocre food. But that's just me. It's all overhyped. Like Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.
That whole street in Capenhagen that you linked to is hilariously funny, now that I look at it. I'm on Google street maps, and it is completely lined with shops like Louis Vuitton, Prada, Gucci and other super high-end shops. I guess it is a great place for ultra-high end people to go to to spend $10,000 on a purse. I'm sure it keep the riff-raff out. The poor don't deserve a pedestrian place, I guess.
Just so not impressed.
And then, to walk down this Stroget in Copenhagen, you still have to drive there, and then park somewhere, probably far away, and walk down city streets a long way to get there.
And for me, for my money, if one wants to visit a nice place, instead of me going to this high-priced tourist trap, that quite honestly I'll go to some place I have to walk down a sidewalk next to a busy street to a store that is honest, run by honest people, rather than a Gucci store in some high-end place like 3rd street in Santa Monica. And furthermore, if I want a nice place to walk and get away from everyone, I'll just drive for 5 more minutes and go to Topanga State Park, a massive park, with almost unlimited walking trails. Why would I give a shit about some walking street tourist trap? A place to walk around and buy shit, or should I say shit, and contribute more to the global warming by buying shit. Gucci handbags for $10,000. So yeah, having a pedestian place to walk is so great. For the well-heeled crowd.
.
As far as light rail, that has to be the most stupidist of the stupid. Yes, it works in dense population areas like San Francisco and New York, for sure, but those places are rare in the USA. When I lived in Sacramento, California, and they put in a light rail. What a complete joke. I had to drive over some light rail tracks at least twice a day, during all hours. I never saw more than 3 people per car. Ever. Even in the morning commute hours. Because Sacramento is so spread out. It's ridiculous. They spent $500 million on it. Plus the ongoing maintenance of the rail cars, rails, the administrators, the railcar drivers and their benefits and pensions, and on and on for ongoing expenses.
If you use the light rail, it costs $2.50 per ticket, so $5 for the day to commute. If you have a 10 mile commute to, and 10 mile commute back, if your vehicle gets 20 miles to the gallon, it costs $4.50 to drive, and this is at current gasoline prices. A few years ago, it cost $3 instead of $5. Plus you have the added flexibility with a car to pick up your kids from school, go to a shop, or whatever. Why would transportation, that carries 60 people in a train car, maybe with 3 cars total of 120 people, or whatever it is, and the cost averaged out between all the riders, cost more than the cost of driving the same distance? It doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe if rides cost 25 cents or 50 cents, yeah, ok, maybe.
As far as I'm concerned, these light rail projects are more resume builders for the city council and mayor. They will spend $1 billion just to say that they did it under their watch. Bragging rights. "Look at me, look at me, look what I did, I spend $1 billion on a light rail project."
But most of the USA is not like Europe, so what works in Europe is not the same as the USA. So it's comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, however, it's not happening now. There are no more freeways being built in the city of Los Angeles.
It's all just so silly to me. For example, you take a street like Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles. It's a large main artery within the city. It goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Silver Lake district where it meets up with Sunset Blvd, which also goes from the Pacific Ocean to Downtown Los Angeles.
So are you and others saying to completely disallow any cars at all on those main arteries? To turn them into one long bike path? So that all the cars have to go down the side streets and clog up all those side roads, which will definitely be infinitely worse for traffic? Or are you saying to ban cars altogether and not allow any cars to be used anywhere, for any purpose, and we go back to horse and carts?
Right now, bicyclists can use the suburban side streets. Despite being in Los Angeles, the side streets are empty almost all of the time. I walk a lot and don't use the main arteries, but use the side streets. Hell, I walk right down the middle of these suburban side streets if I want, there are so few cars. Despite being Los Angeles, these LA suburban streets are the same as those in Lincoln Nebraska or Little Rock Arkansas, traffic-wise. Not in Downtown LA, of course, but that's the exception, not the rule. The downtown area is tiny compared to the city of LA.
LA is completely filled with non-busy suburban streets. Go to Google maps and look yourself.
It's the exact same with San Francisco or Sacramento or any other city. Not everywhere, not in the highest density of downtown areas. But people really are not specifying that they are only talking about those areas. They are talking about cities in general, the entire city, which is a LOT bigger than just the extreme downtown areas of any major city.
I just fail to understand what the issue is. To me, it really isn't about bike paths or pedestrian paths or anything like that. That's just an excuse. The real reason is just to get rid of cars, to get rid of cars. If that's the case, just be honest about it.
I asked my grocery store clerks, who always wore masks during the height of the pandemic, if anyone got covid. None did, because they all wore masks. And they waited on tens of thousands of customers weekly.
Meanwhile, 35 out of 40 of Donald Trump's inner circle got Covid because they didn't wear masks.
So some people want to wear helmets and some don't.
I say, whatever you want to do is fine. But just like the masks in the pandemic, don't you come whining to me if you realize after you get f-ed up that maybe you should have after all worn the mask or the helmet. Don't want to hear any none no whining no way negative uh-uh go away shut up.
Most large cities are fully built out. You can't design infrastructure better as the infrastructure is already there. Maybe on brand new places being built, but that won't help Chicago or San Francisco or Los Angeles. You can't just use eminent domain and take out all buildings and highrises on both sides of Market Street in San Francisco to build a 10 foot wide roadway only for bicycles on each side.
It's the same with public transportation as well, especially light rail. To put in light rail in some cities, you would have to rip up tens of thousands of homes and businesses.
I never did get this whole argument.
It's like saying that you should make a better infrastructure for the human body. I for one, would like it if my anus would be right over my achilles tendon, that way if I shit my pants, it wouldn't dribble all down my leg, it would just be there on the ground already with minimum fuss.
Tornado Alley = every damn year.
Snow and cold weather from Nevada to the East Coast except for Florida...every damn year.
Hurricanes, every year or two - no thank you.
California - a flood every 200 years, an earthquake every hundred or so years. I'm standing pat on my hand. I'm in SoCal for good.
If there's a flood, I know all the high places around me, I'm no dunce, I will drive to those places. And they ain't far - no traffic jams - only 10-15 blocks away, but not too many people know about it. Lots of parking.
Massive earthquake - ok that would suck but I have a lot of food and water squirreled away. These places would not be found by roving bands of hungry men ready to kill for it, if it came to that.
So keep your snow, keep your tornadoes, keep your hurricanes.
A 33-year-old black man named Curtis Wilkerson was waiting for his girlfriend at a mall. He went into a department store and put a pair of socks in his shopping bag, and walked out. A $2.50 pair of ordinary tube socks. He was put in jail for 25 to life because he had 2 prior convictions - being a "lookout" in a robbery. But parole is denied 80% of the time, and governors override the parole boards decision to parole them at 50% of the time, he wouldn't get out in 25 years most likely. He also got fined $2,500 for the pair of $2.50 pair of socks. Should a wage theft of $2,000 fine the manager or company $2,000,000 which is the same ratio? Sounds good to me, it would put a stop to wage theft fast. In prison, he earns $20/month, and the state takes $11 every month to pay that $2,500 fine. They take over half his earnings - do that to a business. He won't be able to pay the $2,500 fine off until he is 90 years old.
Another guy got life for stealing a slice of pizza. A guy who went away forever for lifting a pair of baby shoes. One got 50 to life for helping himself to five children’s videotapes from Kmart. One guy got life for possessing 0.14 grams of meth?
Why not life in prison for wage theft? How is it any different than anything else? Saying they "didn't know" or "was a mistake" is like a shoplifter saying the exact same thing, but the shoplifter is prosecuted anyways if they say that.
It can be a clear accusation. There can be a form of video footage - I can take a screenshot of the amount that is being stolen from my bank account - I'm supposed to get $1000 but only paid $800.
>Are you going to call and say "I'm being forced to work unpaid hours"?
Sure. Makes 100% sense to me. You can look at your phone GPS, see how much time you spent in the job, then match that up against your pay stub. Exact same thing - you can show them both at the same time.
>I would not envision the police showing up to arrest your employer, take them in for questioning, etc.
That's the issue. They should. It would put an nationwide end to wage theft real fast if they brought in the CEO of Apple into jail for theft.
>Wage theft is also slightly more complex in that the victims are often complicit in the sense that they continue to work for the employer.
If you go into a hotel and stay there for a week, and only pay for 2 days, then you will be charged with theft, even though the hotel knew you were there. Randy Quaid is an example of this - arrested for a $10K hotel bill in Santa Barbara. It's "theft of services" and it is no joke. If he can be arrested, why not someone who skips out of paying you wages? Same exact situation.
>you're also continuing to work for them.
The one has nothing to do with the other. The crime is the crime. But then, by your logic, if one quits and doesn't continue to work, then the employer can be arrested?
>The employer would tell the police that showed up that you were free to leave, or were agreeing to the term by virtue of showing up.
This would be like saying that if I shoplifted at a store, then came in again and purchased something from the store later, that the store owner agreed to the terms of you taking stuff without paying before, because they just sold you some more stuff. That is not how it works.
>It would take legal action, e.g. a lawyer not a cop, to actually create a claim that was actionable and enforceable by the law enforcement organization.
Stealing is stealing. The fact that a lawyer has to get involved, does not mean a cop shouldn't arrest those accused of wage theft.
But, it did give me some good ideas. I'm going to start a bunch of companies up, get people to work for me for two weeks, then never pay them and tell them to sue me. And since it is a corportation, they can sue the company but then I can just shut down the corporation. There won't be able to pierce the corporate veil, because I'm not treating it as an alter ego. Of course, I write this just to prove how ridiculous the claim is, when clearly I am stealing from employees, and gain all the benefits for myself.
I thought this was extreme violence to make me feel so non-violent and comfortable, because after all, the United States of America is violent against every other person in the world,even their own citizens, so my supreme comfort was violence as they made me feel comfortable to forget how violent the world and the USA is. My being the most comfortable and the most safe I've ever been is the most extreme violence that the USA can do to me.
So you need to sweep out accounts from both Stripe AND your bank account connected to Stripe.
Maybe it should have been, "Without the man in this photo, digital photos of a man wouldn't exist."
Or am I not understanding?
I don't know why there isn't some kind of pre-made install that you just click the "OK" and it downloads and installs the email servers.
When I looked at it last, which was about 3 years ago, you had to install 5 or 6 or more different apps, get the interoperatbility going, setting different switches....it was endless. All I want to do is click an "OK" and it is done.
Quite frankly, I don't understand how people can write very technical apps like email servers, yet be so completely unable to create a one-click installation feature. This goes with so much more than email, by the way. It seem's like it would be so exceedinly simple to do one-click setups.
But I am curious, how exactly did you learn? Did you work with someone who already knew how to do it so you didn't have to learn on your own? Or did you learn 100% on your own?
I'd be very curious to learn from you on the above issues.