Especially because this is a touchy policy issue on which the US is deliberately vague. The US intentionally avoids answering questions on the topic of military intervention in Taiwan to keep China guessing as to what its response would be to an attack. No one would’ve been able to give a satisfying answer.

I receive: being in trouble

You receive: “okay”

I’ve literally been doing this for lunches. Bake a loaf of bread, have a rotisserie chicken on hand for the week, a block of cheese. Boom. Lunch.

And when I have some more time or am tired of that, make some porridge with oats and chicken. Maybe a little broth, some onions, seasonings.

Dont underestimate peasant mode. Lunch for the whole week for like $12

I’ve literally had that problem. More than once.

“acting in shareholders’ best interests”

That is from the loyalty section. Shareholders best interests are achieved by balancing the various duties, as I said.

That is why I said that it isn’t about short term profits necessarily. The best interest of the shareholders is not short term profit seeking that destroys the business. It is long term profits and a company that can continue to generate them.

It would be very difficult to argue that decisions damaging profitability in the long term are in shareholders best interests.

In this case, union busting, clearly executives think union busting is in the best interests of shareholders. If that isn’t because of profitability, why is it not in their intersts?

https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/fiduciary-duty-to-investors

They owe a fiduciary duty of loyalty to shareholders - they (named executives) must act in the best interests of shareholders. So that doesn’t necessarily mean doing everything possible at all times to maximize profits/share price in the short term, it does mean they need to attempt to do that in the long term while balancing that duty against other duties they owe (like to act lawfuĺly).

True! Co-ops are great

It also depends on the state the company is incorporated in, but yeah that’s true.

And it is a duty to the corporation (legal entity), notably not to the workers themselves; so while the interests of workers and the corporation may align sometimes - you don’t have to do what’s best for the workers if it isn’t best for the company.

You still need to operate lawfully, and you can’t pay so little that you can’t hire/retain anyone, and you need to pay enough that you can hire people skilled enough to do the job, but you need to pay (ideally) only that amount and no more. Anything else takes away from profits and, you could say, makes the company less likely to succeed - if the company doesn’t succeed, then no one would have jobs. Or so they’d argue.

The same as for goods, the price of labor is treated by employers as “what the market will bear”. For goods, that means higher prices, for labor it means lower prices.

The reason for this is pretty simple: necessity.

Companies Corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders.

If no union exists, that means depressing wages as much as possible while meeting staffing needs.

If a union is forming, it means spending as much as you need to stop it since, if you don’t, you’ll be unable to depress wages over the long term.

When a union exists, well then they have to negotiate to continue operations and so workers get paid more fairly.

Join or organize a union if you can.

Dobles para defensa del hogar también

Oooh “Domestic Terrorist Fucking App”? A dating app for people who ICE thinks are “domestic terrorists”? Sounds like a pretty big improvement over the current apps

I’m not saying it’s rational, it just feels like more money.

Many are. It’s been going on since the 1950s. And it’s a private event that politicians choose to participate in - so it isn’t like it’s state sponsored, technically - even though it politicians attend in their official capacity. It isn’t something that can just be easily shut down on constitutional grounds and is a complex issue. I think lawyers would have to prove that government resources are being used and that it creates an unconstitutional breach of the 1st amendment.

Here’s what the freedom from religion foundation has to say about it

Little different for me:

$1 - 5 = $5

$6 - 12 = $10

$13 - 20 = $20

$21 - 50 = $50

$51 - 70 = $100

>$70 = $1000

“West African” Peanut Stew, which is an Americanized version of various groundnut stews/maafe, is super nutritious and cheap. It is quick if you put in 1hr in advance to make like 3kg of soup, ~8 servings, for ~10 bucks. I think it’d freeze OK too.

Look up a recipe, but basically: 1 onion, garlic, 6c broth (vegetable in your case), 2lbs sweet potatoes (maybe 3lbs if vegetarian), 1 bunch greens (collards, kale, mustard greens, whichever you have/like/are ceapest), can diced tomatoes, peanut butter, 2-3tbsp vinegar, optional spices (cumin, turmeric, bay leaves, chili powder, paprika, cayenne pepper/red pepper flakes, oregano, minced ginger, msg, etc), optional garnishes: peanuts, cilantro.

Sautee 1 diced onion in a pot until translucent, add garlic and spices & sautee 30s more, add 6c broth, 2lbs cubed sweet potatoes, chopped greens, can of diced tomatoes. Bring to a boil and simmer for 20mins. Take off the heat and add 1c peanut butter and 2tbsp of vinegar (recommend adding 1tbsp at a time and tasting so as not to add too much), stir to combine. Serve.

I add 1lb chicken to mine and it makes like 3kgs of soup. Calorie dense, nutritious, very tasty. I also add a small amount of soy sauce, fish sauce, and/or worcesteshire when adding the liquid - imo this mimics some of the fermented sauces used in West African foods. Apple cider vinegar added at same time as the peanut butter really improves the dish. Salt and pepper throughout cooking, of course - but even without spices this is a tasty soup. Spices do help though.

Why does he look like methhead Mr. Bean in profile

Sbren Sbeve

That’s a really good point. Sliding scale payment maybe (with no cap on income - if you make a million bucks a year and are always speeding, you’re going to be paying a hefty fine)

I feel like the better option is to have local government foot the bill - but the driver owes the value of the device if it’s lost or damaged. In theory, insurance would have to cover at least some of this (given it’d be wired into the car) and they can still use their car. AND if they drive safely, they should owe nothing long-term.

That’s idealistic though. I’m sure the “tough on crime” crowd would want the individual to foot the bill despite it making everyone safer.

And speed is highly correlated to the lethality of car wrecks. Also, it sounds like the devices would be installed in the cars of people who… speed frequently.

So, it is directly addressing the problem without asset seizure or jail time. Sounds like an ideal solution, actually.