JingJang

Lots of meta-level comments here so I'll add one that's more in the weeds:

In an office job, it's always good to be friendly with IT and the office manager/administrative assistant.

Thank you for the simplified explanation and for giving me the mental Image of Rudy Giuliani as a minion. (I can even hear him babbling in minionease...)

Thanks.

I was going to say, that it's not an environmental document and climate science was barely a thing when it was written. (meteorology was but not climate science as we know it).

This is a great community.

The Lemmy community is far better than the subreddit

I prefer a higher priced vehicle with better gas mileage so I save money over the long term while being slightly easier on the environment.

If it's anything like Google Home and even Google Maps recently, it'll be another push away from the Google-Sphere for me.

Google home just keeps getting worse and Google maps has had incorrect street names in my entire region for over a year and despite multiple attempts to get them to correct them, they continue to be wrong.

I went back pretty far and there is definitely a substantial drop.

The people here saying it had zero is very little effect are not correct.

Granted, overall they are fine and in time this will be historic as time matures the stock so in that respect what the majority of people here are saying will be true.

So they are ridiculous when they say, "Go woke go broke". But, the boycott definitely has had an impact to the value of the stock, one that continues today.

(I looked at the stock prior to April when the boycott and the whole "Go woke go broke" catch phrase started gaining traction.).

I'm on your side and went to that link.

Unfortunately, the person you are debating is correct. Anheuser-Busch's stock fell over 20% after the boycott began and while it's come up a little since the initial fall it's still no where near where it was prior to the boycott in April.

That said, that might be the ONLY example of this slogan being accurate (at least right now).

That's because, in their minds they see the judicial system as rigged against him.

(No judges agreed with him that the election was stolen or that he won so "obviously" they're all democrats or whatever else he calles non cult members now)

If anything, they'd point at the judges ruling in Jean Carroll's case as an example or how "broken America is".

Fair enough, good reply.

Upvoted :)

(Maybe Lemmy will bring back some good discussions in threads like these...)

I think the public gets fatigued when we hear about the profits these companies make and then we see these comparatively small fines.

If this is how we "steer the vessel of regulation" then I can accept that this is a push in a better direction.

However, I still feel that a fine in the hundreds of millions, ( not bankrupting but a "shot in the leg" versus a "slap on the wrist"), is appropriate for these very large corporations. They already weild so much political and economic power that consequences for things like this should be higher.

In other words, let's encourage them to operate responsibly in the first place.

That's not how laws work.

If you break the law, you deal with the consequences.

It's not a "game system" where additional infractions lead to multipliers of consequences.

Child labor laws exist because we saw what happened in the past when they did not exist. We, as a society, care about our children enough to protect them. That includes preventing them, by law, from working in industrial environments.

Some states seem inclined to repeat the past by repealing or loosening child labor laws... .

Now another child is dead as a result.

Agreed.

I only mentioned my range because then perhaps it would move to a different column in their budget.

25 million is nothing to Amazon.

A couple of billion might move it into an enterily new spreadsheet and maybe even precipitate a meeting to figure out who needs to be fired. Maybe.