I had a 2019 MacBook Pro until last year when my work issued me an M2. It's noticeably snappier and its battery life is far better than the 2019's was.
I'm not sure there is a good means for buying over voice only, and I'd argue it's only possible to know now that users overwhelmingly prefer digitally handling the product (title, pictures, description, reviews) before making even repeat purchases. Similarly, I'm not sure Amazon could convert consumers to a tablet-based purchasing device like they envisioned Alexa; we all have smart phones and tablets already.
e.g. I order a particular soap/shampoo or coffee beans every few months. If they had tried recognizing it, they could actually have improved the experience.
People try it to see if they can trust it. The answer is "no" for sure, but it's not surprising to see it happen repeatedly especially as vendors release so-called improved models.
I think the point is that - rather than deliberately wishing misery on others - our society is set up such that success often or always implies creating misery for others.
Maybe because if you redefine things that aren't theft as theft you can make any number of things more prevalent than wage theft, or maybe because it confused paying someone late with paying someone never, or maybe because it equated people who are unable to pay due to not having enough money for their basic needs with corporations who most often have plenty of money and assets but still refuse to pay their employees, or for any number of other reasons that it was a terrible argument.
I don't understand the chord this opinion strikes. Unless you're letting your personal bias get in the way, there's not a distinct difference between the two.
If you can't find a difference between the walmart employee late on rent because he doesn't have enough money to pay it until friday comes around, and walmart who has literal billions in profits, but has been repeatedly caught stealing money from workers you'd have to be keeping your eyes shut. Zero personal bias is required to see that those situations aren't even close the same thing.
That you're relying on "if you can't find the difference you must be blind!" as an argument proves my point; it's an emotional argument, not a rational one, and there is no functional difference between the two.
The difference is power imbalance. A landlord has distinct and easily accessible power over their tenants: they own the tenants home. An employee, conversely, has very little power against their employer. Even a small business has a great deal of power over their employees, and most wage theft occurs at larger ones anyway. Employees can pursue cases of wage theft, sure. But:
- They must use the court system, and do so probably without legal representation unless they can find a lawyer willing to work pro-bono. This requires time and money
- At the same time they’re almost certainly job hunting because while retaliation is (sometimes) illegal, it’s trivially easy for businesses to cite other bullshit reasons for firing people and be entirely in the clear, because that’s even harder to prove in court than wage theft
- If they do manage both of those, they now have a documented history of fighting for their rights as workers, and bosses do not like that. It makes them inherently riskier to hire.
I don't see how you agree with the poster when it seems like for you, an EV is quite viable.
The reality is that each has different constraints. Sitting around waiting for a charge on road trips seems annoying. Never having to "get gas" for local trips seems awesome.
