I quite frankly question if that is true. A family member is allergic to eggs, as in "he will die if eggs have been near food he consumes". Local bakers have absolutely no issue producing cakes and bread for events when he asks and the prices difference is negligible.
Because they aren't running a production line. And eggs don't make dust.
Produce an item, clean your utensils before the next time. Minimal cross-contamination issues.
A production line processing sesame will create a certain amount of sesame dust. Ensuring that dust gets nowhere near other production equipment is expensive.
Giving the impression they have a relationship with the restaurant is exactly why it's damaging the restaurant's reputation. The distinction you make doesn't exist.
The act of sending a dasher to a business they don't have an explicit relationship to deliver their food -- totally fine. The app not making it clear that the restaurant isn't partnered with DoorDash and that they're placing a pick-up order and delivering it to you -- not fine.
Making "damaging the restaurant's reputation" a thing is absurd in all aspects. By the restaurant owner's own logic picking up my own order without an insulated bad shouldn't be allowed -- after all what if I get home and the pizza isn't as good because it's cold? That could hurt their business. Utter nonsense. Do we now have to decide whether "it's fair" that something potentially hurts their reputation? Is a bad review fair if it's about the food, but unfair if it's about the wait?
What DD did is bad because they impersonated the other business, not because people got soggy fries. You stop getting to curate the dining experience the moment they walk out your door.
They established an unreasonable standard for standing that doesn't match previous cases. There won't be future cases where standing is established, by this standard.
That allows the government to censor at will by censoring on the policy level, by making Facebook adopt government-demanded policies. Since it is always possible that Facebook could have come up with the same policy anyway by coincidence, it's never possible to trace any specific act to the government censorship.
Of course it’s possible. That’s what discovery is for. Internal emails were cited in this case as well.
And if the Government had coerced Facebook in violation of its Constitutional rights, I’m sure Facebook would sue the Government and quite possibly prevail.
Precisely. What some people want is for some judicial process to interpose itself in collusion between a private company and the government against the interests of individual clients of a private company... That if the Executive says "jump" and a private company says "how high?" in violation of no particular statute, the judiciary would stop them for First Amendment reasons.
It won't, because the companies don't own a private citizen's First Amendment right.
The article says this, but it then goes on to say:
>To increase yields, the natives initially cut down the island's trees to get nutrients back into the soil.
>When there were no more trees, they engaged in...
That sounds to me like the theory is correct, at least to the extent of the islanders using up their trees unsustainably. The fact that they then found other methods of surviving and their population didn't go down after using up the trees doesn't mean that they didn't permanently damage the environment.
They didn't need trees to survive, as proven by their survival. The claim is that their population hit a plateau due to the space available for farming, instead of dramatically collapsing as previously claimed.
If survival is the metric for success, then they didn't permanently damage their environment. As much as we love trees that's hard to imagine, but that's my interpretation of the study.
> What this article is arguing is that there was no collapse -- the population hadn't been higher when there were trees.
But that is not the definition of ecocide. Ecocide is only about the destruction of the ecosystem, and the article itself says that it happened.
What is disproven is the theory that after the environmental destruction the population collapsed. I don't know what this theory should be named, but I think "ecocide theory" is a poor choice.
Oh that's an interesting point. The article seems to be treating the collapse hypothesis and the ecocide theory as the same thing, and I guess I was too. I suppose you could separate them out as two parts.
Although if it continued to support the same human population, is it really fair to call it ecocide? The environment was transformed but certainly not "killed" as the "-cide" would require.
I mean I guess it really depends on whether you would call cutting down forests in New York State to grow fields of corn "ecocide". Yes you eliminated one environment but those fields of corn are very much alive. So I don't think many people would call that "ecocide".
> Although if it continued to support the same human population, is it really fair to call it ecocide? The environment was transformed but certainly not "killed" as the "-cide" would require.
Humans are resilient, but what about other animals ? Easter Island fauna was probably not varied at the time, but there may have been some animals depending on the presence of trees (e.g. birds nesting on trees) that disappeared together with them.
Sure, but I don't think making a habitat unsuitable for a few species is what "ecocide" refers to.
Obviously wherever you draw the line of ecocide is going to be blurry, but I don't think it applies to the situation here -- or else it would apply virtually everywhere humans live and grow crops, and would cease to have meaning.
Articles in the press often have to be read while thinking "assuming that this article is literally accurate, what might be wrong about the impression it's trying to give?"
If you read the article while thinking this, you'll notice that this article nowhere says things like "the report accused Stanford of being used to launder government censorship, but in fact the government has no involvement with..." or "the report points to ___ incident but that has nothing to do with following government requests" or "no, these incidents didn't happen" or anything else which substantively denies the accusations. It just says Stanford is accused of censorship by those evil conservatives, and this has costs, and we're deeply concerned about it. Well, yeah, if you get caught doing bad things, it should cost you and you should be concerned.
If scrolling through your phone were worthwhile enough that being able to do it made up for the loss of time, people would deliberately take trains instead of cars just so they could take a little longer but be able to scroll through their phones.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what the connection is supposed to be between having a big profit and laying off employees.
My first thought is that the writer is suggesting that companies should only lay off employees when the employees 1) are financial drains and 2) are such bad financial drains that the company would otherwise go broke. A lot of people do think that way, but it doesn't actually make any sense.
In good times the worker bees' are told 'we need to be cautious for going forward, sorry, we're tightening the belt'. In bad times they are told 'we need to tighten the belt'. This didn't use to be the case. Large bonuses on good years were the norm in the USA. Businesses are exploiting employees' believing in the previous system that no longer exists in order to squeeze out a little more productivity today. But business doesn't realize they are harming their future dynamic with employees. People are catching on that the system has changed to 'heads the company wins, tails the employees lose'. Labor relations are going to go back to early 1900s adversarial style from the 1950s/60s 'the tide is raising everyone's boat' and EVERYONE will end up the poorer from it.
Stock buybacks are an illegal manipulation of the stock market and should be made illegal again. They encourage this horrible destructive to the country/economy/workers/and ultimately companies policy.
To clarify, instead of building a strong company with a strong workforce as was the historical norm in the USA during it's prosperous times, companies 'invest' in stock buybacks, which do NOTHING to strengthen the company, their sole purpose is to manipulate the company's stock in the short term.
Forget workers rights, we all need to 'unionize' (work in union) to eliminate stock buybacks and get them reclassified as stock manipulation like there were prior to Ronald Reagan's presidency. If companies want to 'give money away' with respect to stocks, they can issue dividends, which changes to dynamics of the stock market (Prosperous pre-1980s America's 'I buy a company because it will be strong long term and pay me dividends' versus enshitified 2024 American stock market's 'I buy stocks for short term one time capital gains at the expense of all else').
Imagine yourself as an employee at amazon who sees people being laid off due to "unfavorable macroeconomic conditions" just to then see the company report massive profits while you saw no pay increase (so a reduction with inflation), benefits made slightly worse, and expectations to increase productivity to makeup for those people that were laid off.
Are you going to stand in front of that employee and say, "You are being nonsensical for connecting these things."?
And if you want to say the situation I've come up is contrived and isn't perfectly representative for all workers, you are correct. But for the percentage it is accurate for, that it does represent, do you really expect them not to connect things?
While keeping around employees with a consistent negative value is not a smart business move, over the long term those employees might have an overall positive value. Companies like Amazon love to whine and complain, along with demanding political solutions, to their labor acquisition issues that often are due to a desire to put short term finances ahead of long-term planning. It's also a sign of refusing to invest in people, demanding that the labor market magically conjure up any desired type of labor at the moment the company wants it.
