>- If the business grows and starts needing management skills beyond what a cook or a waiter would have, you will have trouble hiring a qualified manager for same wages you pay to waiters
Waiters generally make more than managers in restaurants in the United States at least.
>If you need a loan to expand, lender is likely to want some control over how a restaurant is run rather than leaving it up to workers
Co-ops get loans all the time. You just need a governance structure of some sort and collateral for a loan.
>I know several people that have ignored fire evacuation orders and saved their homes instead.
Lots of wildfire stories include people who ignored evacuation orders and died. This is just silly confirmation bias. The large majority of people who survive wildfires do so because they listened to government officials and implying that people should ignore evacuation orders is frankly stupidly dangerous.
>Shelter and place orders are another funny one. I have a lot of fond memories ignoring shelter in place orders hiking and camping in the wilderness during covid. It probably reduced my risk versus Sheltering at home. Blanket orders were one size fits all, made to address the person that is going to parties and bars.
How would going out lower your risk in this case? You obviously increased your risk, if only so slightly.
Edit* I literally just got notice of a level 3 evac that doesn't cover me but is near me. I'm sure all those "non-conformists" will stay and make life miserable for firefighters.
To quote PHPisthebest "I think you have confused ignoring the government orders with "doing the opposite".
Are you claiming that government orders are optimal 100% of the time in 100% of situations? If not, then sometimes it is wrong, and it might be wrong for you.
>How would going out lower your risk in this case? You obviously increased your risk, if only so slightly.
Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.
>Are you claiming that government orders are optimal 100% of the time in 100% of situations? If not, then sometimes it is wrong, and it might be wrong for you.
Of course not. Your example was just not a situation where not following orders was individually optimal. You and your friends are suffering from confirmation bias. They did something incredibly stupid and dangerous and put their lives at risk and more importantly, increased risk for the firefighters working the job. It happened to work out but that doesn't mean it was wise. They could have just as easily died or killed a firefighter who was trying to rescue them.
Why don't you reach out to a wildland firefighters outfit and see their perspective on what bullshit they have to deal with when dumbasses don't evacuate.
For the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, following emergency instructions is the optimal outcome. Even in this case, the folks who went around the barrier didn't know that going around was safer than going back. They gambled and it worked out.
>Being alone miles from anyone else has zero covid risk. Covid risk doesn't kick in when you leave the door of your house. In my case, I also had roommates who worked, like me and interacted with other people.
Ah yes, I'm sure you magically went from your bedroom to wilderness miles away from anyone else without stopping or interacting with anyone!
Look, I'm not saying going out in the wilderness was wrong, its just silly to think it lowered your risk at all.
I think that you are approaching this is making the mistake of treating each instance as identical when they are not. Different situations have different risks and you can't claim that a choice was wrong or stupid without understanding the specific situation. This is the difference between the usefulness of a heuristic in general, and the usefulness of a heuristic in a specific situation.
You can't claim that they put their lives at risk and made a stupid mistake without that information.
The same holds true for the covid example. You don't know the specifics and are making a generalization. It is in fact possible to go camping without interacting with people.
Why you believe outsourcing your thinking is the best course of action? Why has government done to earn such blind loyalty from you? As someone who has pretty in depth knowledge of history I can not fathom the level of trust you have placed in government. it is almost theological ...
That's quite a revisionist history. The early web was heavily moderated, just on a smaller scale.
>Hate to say it, but once the tech elite ( or more like the money elite controlling tech ) started talking about minority, lgbt and women's 'rights', they all started censoring, deplatforming, oppressing.
There's nothing stopping you from creating yet another "free speech" website. They typically fail because what the "tech elite" realize, along with most people, is that "free speech" websites devolve into people spamming racial slurs. Most people don't want to be around that.
>Of course to fight 'hate speech' - whatever that means
There is huge amounts of discourse on hate speech and what it means. There is plenty to read on the subject if you truly don't understand what it means.
>It's like someone or some group flipped a switch and everyone from business to politics started singing a different tune.
There was no switch. As the internet grew and became more diverse, the people who are typically the targets of hateful speech on the internet grew in their ability to influence companies. Back in the early 2000s, women avoided using a microphone because if they did, they would receive abuse or unwanted sexual comments. As the amount of women in video games increased, corporations become focused on the needs of their audience and how to make them feel welcome and buy more games. It's the same story for pretty much every other aspect of tech.
What you're imagining as some conspiracy to "oppress" (lol) you because you can't spam racial slurs or spread race-based conspiracy theories is actually marketing executives realizing that catering to the extremely small "freeze peach" audience that wants to post odious content isn't an actual winning strategy for growing your business.
Tangential, but, nowadays there are many digital spaces where saying "its not ok to hate cis white men" will get you a chorus of people saying "yes it is", followed by the boot.
Very tangential. Those sorts of spaces do exist, and likewise pockets of racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogeny all exist too. Hating cis white men for existing isn't something that should be acceptable, and death threats are never okay. And there are stressors that they do face - the suffering of others does not invalidate your own. But at the same time, there are also plenty of spaces mocking and belittling trans people, gay people, black people, and women in general. Those places also spam death threats, only these death threats are a little more credible, a little more real, because there is a history of real, physical violence against all those demographics. At the same time, there are many people who just genuinely don't understand, who were sheltered by the previous generation's willful ignorance, who phrase their questions in a way that looks, at first glance, like another unprompted malicious attack. The violence is why those communities react so strongly to those questions, and why they are so hostile to what is, by all accounts, a reasonable statement. In more closed off digital spaces, where conversation is focused around issues common to those demographics, like the violence or discrimination they've experienced, it might come across as uncaring - if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men, it just comes across as intentionally uncaring, as if that person saw all of the murder, rape, violence, hatred, and discrimination these people experience in daily life, then decided, "Nope, your attitude towards white cis men is the real problem here". Open spaces often use the same heuristic to determine if someone is acting in good faith, but due to being open this tends to catch a lot of people who aren't familiar with the heuristic at play, and only see a perfectly legitimate statement that seems to put everyone in a frenzy.
Now this isn't to say that these communities don't take it too far on their own. There are some which engage in doxxing, death threats, and all sorts of terrible behavior, but those communities are not the whole majority, just as the racist, transphobic, misogynistic and homophobic groups aren't the whole of cis white men. In both cases, those groups simply are the loudest.
> if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men
Right, and I've seen that kind of antagonistic use of otherwise fair statements before, too, i.e. with "all lives matter". That's not the kind of situation I'm describing, though. Rather, some people unapologetically bash white cis men with no other context for fun, and then pile on if someone speaks up. It's intentionally toxic trolling. As you point out, every group, oppressed or not, will have some gross behavior in its ranks.
>if a trans woman is talking about how a cute guy she was talking to at a bar stalked her and tried to beat her after she mentioned that she is trans, and someone chooses that moment to say that it's not okay to hate cis white men, it just comes across as intentionally uncaring
With all due respect, there is a growing trend of loneliness among this generation of young men[0] and these topics are constantly dismissed and blamed on the men. I understand your intent, but empahty over the dating scene is probaly one of the worst examples to give to a male audience. It's expecting empathy from a subject they never give empathy from so what would you expect?
>Now this isn't to say that these communities don't take it too far on their own. There are some which engage in doxxing, death threats, and all sorts of terrible behavior, but those communities are not the whole majority, just as the racist, transphobic, misogynistic and homophobic groups aren't the whole of cis white men. In both cases, those groups simply are the loudest.
but you also just said that minority threats are more legitmate, so even you seem to have some semblance of believing the loud groups that oppress them.
You're just noseblind because you also probably are a terrible driver. Maybe I'm wrong and you are the 1% of drivers who don't play on their phone, speed, and you come to an actual stop at stop signs, but I'm guessing you aren't.
You see motorists speeding, which kills tens of thousands of Americans every year and it doesn't register as bad. You see a cyslists roll a stop sign, which kills very few Americans a year, and it goes in the cyclist-hate bucket part of your brain. It's just plain ol bias.
They aren't being antagonistic, they are protecting themselves. Allowing a motorists to pass you without leaving their lane is a really good way to end up dead and is also illegal on the motorists part. They are moving over to force the motorist to pass them in a legal and safe manner.
I felt like you just ignored the point of the person replying to you. Cyclists are in more danger from passing cars when they aren't in the middle of the lane, as they tend to get run off the road. When they are in the middle of the lane, the other car needs to perform the same passing technique they would normally do (exiting the lane and getting into the oncoming traffic lane).
The chances of you getting into a wreck for pulling over getting hit in a Tow Truck is in no way equivalent to a cyclist doing the same thing. You have visibility and weight.
As a non-cyclist, ya it can be a pain in the ass, but the cyclist has the legal right to the whole lane.
Which was ignoring my point above: "I've see people move into the middle of the lane for an approaching car so it won't pass, and when there would've been room to pass safely."
At least in California the law is:
"Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway
at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall
ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb".
I get the safely part, but I'm talking wide separated lanes here, well over 14ft with weekend warrior-types trying to swerve in front of cars after having them behind them for a mile or two (no honking or tailgating). It's ridiculous and needlessly aggressive.
I'm sure there are tons of cyclist who misue these rules and are truly unsafe. Also, the Cali law isnt as cut and dry as you stated.
"A new bicycle lane change law was approved in 2022 and took effect on January 1, 2023, across all of California. Motorists approaching or overtaking a cyclist on the road must now switch lanes if another lane is available."
"In certain circumstances, cyclists may “take the lane” and use an entire lane, just as a car would. Riders may claim a full lane if they are passing, readying for a left turn, steering clear of an obstacle, or if they feel the lane is too narrow to share with a car"
Once a law leaves latitude for how someone was "feeling", it effectively legalizes the practice in almost every scenario.
>If I'm driving well under limit due to towing, looking for address, etc - I pull over and let people pass. It's not so hard for a bike to do same.
Thats cool! It's also not hard for motorists to wait literal seconds to safely pass a cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't need to pull over all the time to accommodate motorists need to speed down the road. You aren't entitled to go 10 mph over the speed limit. It's a limit, not a minimum.
>I've also seen bikers upset when a kid is going slowly in a bike lane? So I think many of the spandex-clad dudes have some control issues.
Wow! You did? Crazy! It's almost like a group of people with a shared hobby aren't a monolith and will display different opinions and behaviors!
>Washington DC has some of the worst bicycle culture I’ve ever seen. Blowing red lights, asserting right of way over pedestrians and cars whenever it suites them, doing 50kmh on mount Vernon trail with pedestrians and small children everywhere. And a piss poor attitude to top it off when someone dares slow them down.
I’ve been clipped by more cyclists coming from behind (2 this year) than I have by cars (0 ever). Yeah, the weight classes are different and being hit by a car is far more dangerous, but also far more likely to be reported.
Don’t even get me started on these completely unregulated motorized bikes zipping down the sidewalks at 30 mph. Those things need to be shitcanned till regulation is in place.
Waiters generally make more than managers in restaurants in the United States at least.
>If you need a loan to expand, lender is likely to want some control over how a restaurant is run rather than leaving it up to workers
Co-ops get loans all the time. You just need a governance structure of some sort and collateral for a loan.