I can think of a few reasons why people want (either already or after enough pulls of the slot machine) a committed relationship.
Though to be clear, just because I think the other more stable thing is valuable to folks even with the availability of the sex slot machine, I still don't love businesses trying to push slot machines or any kind really.
5 - 6 years ago I used sails and regretted it because of the assumptions made in waterline about databases. At the time there was no transaction support and joins were a mess. This was pre-1.0, so perhaps it has changed.
These days I use DRF because I like getting the built in Django admin for free. I know it is a bit dated in some ways, but I love the way Django structures things, works for my mental model.
I wonder about this constantly. Why is there such a legal power imbalance between people and companies, especially large companies? If a company wants to charge me extra they just do it, they don't have to provide proof of anything. If I want to resolve the issue I have to call them or my credit card company, neither is simple and has something like a 75% chance of being successful (IME) even if I'm completely right.
On two separate occasions a company has charged me for something and after I've made multiple calls and escalations (which of course can only happen during certain hours) they finally refunded me by saying "we'll make a one-time exception as a favor to you" even though they were literally stealing from me. In one case they only finally did it after I contacted the attorney general.
Honestly I don't even really care if it was a mistake (which are usually systemic issues) vs intentional, it is theft. In one example Comcast charged me a late fee even though I had autopay set up and they just missed running the charge. I wonder how many people just didn't notice.
I've long thought the only solution to these issues is to levy fines (or jail time if intentional theft) large enough to discourage the behavior. If it is still happening, keep raising the fines until it stops.
It goes beyond just stealing some money. They can ruin your credit rating by claiming you didn't pay your bills even when they are incorrect. I was wondering this same thing recently after being charged for something for an extra month after cancelling. Chasing them to get the money back was a lot of hassle but if the situation were reversed they can screw my life for years.
The question shouldn't be "why" because the answer is obvious: Companies have more money and more people and more time and therefore more power than you as an individual. The solution also already exists: The government should be giving individuals free lawyers to go after companies who violate their rights. We have this system in my country where there is a people's lawyer that can choose to take up cases that seem deserving. Then we also have certain government sponsored union-like associations whose job it is to sue companies who commit wage theft and they are good at it.
After all when some random person steals from you, you generally also don't have to sue them and hope a court decides in your favor. That is all the job of the government (=police). Private individuals should not have to waste their time in the legal system to defend laws that the government created.
For a lot of simple and obvious things the formula should be to call and report a "disagreement". The government employee who took the call [immediately] calls to hear the company side of the story and orders it to correct it's behavior or may chose to issue a fine. The issue is resolved in 5-20 minutes. A different fine tailored for the size of the company for not responding fast enough. If the company disagrees with the verdict they may take the government agency to court. This should mostly happen if the issue is arguably not simple and obvious enough. If the customer disagrees the court is also there to figure out the mess.
> Private individuals should not have to waste their time in the legal system to defend laws that the government created.
Government should not make a mockery of it self by creating laws that it doesn't intend to enforce or is incapable of.
> We have this system in my country where there is a people's lawyer that can choose to take up cases that seem deserving
We also have this in the US, actually we have many (state attorney generals, federal FTC and CFPB, and so on). Unfortunately (similar to our cops with crime), they're only going to bother to do anything if a company is blatantly screwing over somewhere between hundreds and thousands of people, or if the person complaining is a wealthy political donor or otherwise a friend of an elected official.
I think this boils down to the existence of megacorps. IMHO a state should just not allow corporations to grow beyond a certain marketcap level.
I see no real world benefit to allow such companies to exist, it creates "too big to fail" schemes, inefficient structures, and overall companies that are able to compete with literally small states or countries in terms of capital /legal / lobby power.
Beyond a certain marketcap, a company should not be allowed to grow anymore and just forced to split in multiple entities.
I'm surprising myself a bit, but I think I agree. I think these types of problems are inherent in companies of a certain size. When you reach a point where there is so much structure that you can only progress via metrics those metrics will inherently start to only serve themselves instead of the original goal they were attempting to be a proxy for.
When you think about it, the "winner takes all" martingale is already forbidden in most states of law.
Two companies are not allowed to merge if their total market share would past 30%, because that would allow a monopoly and thus total control over the price of goods. A winner cannot just buyout his previous opponents indefinitely.
Similarly, a company cannot (at least where I live) sell at a loss. That would allow a company with more capital to lower prices at an impossible level until competition dies out, and then increase prices back when concurrents are wiped out.
These regulations are different of course, but the overall idea is similar: a company should not be able to press its advantage exponentially. And I think the marketcap is but a forgotten rule in these regulations.
Once a company reaches a monstrous level of market cap, it is too diversified to fail, and can press its legal / lobbying leverage on some of its subbusinesses at an unfair level against competitors. If you're a search engine company, competition against Google is not just competing against an other player in the search space. You're competing against the legal and lobbying power of 10 companies.
And that's not even mentioning state supremacy concerns. I vote for my government. They may not be always want I want them to, but hey, that democracy. I don't vote for mega corps governance. I don't want them to have bargaining power over my state or country.
> I've long thought the only solution to these issues is to levy fines (or jail time if intentional theft) large enough to discourage the behavior. If it is still happening, keep raising the fines until it stops.
We need a corporate death penalty and three strike laws - where three is scaled to the customer base or total monetary damages or whatever. Upon death, any and all assets (including shares of the company, in case of restructuring) go to employee salaries until the company can be wound down.
Or just remove the limited liability. In sense of not going after assets, but at least that any fines or prison sentences apply to anyone who had at least single stock at the time. Company you own commits fraud, you go to prison. Simple and effective to force stock owners to police board and thus employees in the end.
It's not companies that do this kind of stuff, it's people working at companies. You just jail/fine those people and all the chain of command up to the CEO. That would be an incentive to establish good procedures and not to steal on customers.
It actually is companies that do this stuff, in that if the company had sufficient monitoring and oversight in place the people working at the company wouldn't be able to do it.
That would of course require them to strive to provide the best product or service they can rather than towards maximizing their profit, though.
While true and a fair rebuttal to all higher tax suggestions, increased tax on people like OP would have a much larger effect than just them giving a bit more away.
I wanted this so bad I wrote up a quick personal app that pulls from a couple of subscribed Google calendars and does almost exactly like what you are asking for. I don't know how anyone plans multi-day events without it. Huge for family meetings where we are planning out the year.
I admit to being a total sucker for Star Wars LEGO but I do love the classic sets with no “lore”. It’s some kind of space truck. People probably need trucks in space right? You figure it out kid.
Really? I found it more accurate in most cases. I wonder if there is a difference based on location. I am in California. Also maybe years ago it was not as good as Google, maybe it got better since then?
It works alright, but it is absolutely terrible for discovery, e.g. finding places to eat/things to do. If you already know where you want to go, it's usually pretty good.
Additionally, to view any reviews you have to download Yelp
probably a little of all the reasons you named, plus some others.
most likely it was just a shallow bait for apple fan's as i too use apple maps almost exclusively for some years now and found it more than capable for my navigation needs.
living completely offline is becoming increasingly challangeing thou. and going online to do anything becomes increasingly difficult w/o coming in touch with google in any way.
I run into black bears a couple of times a year mountain biking in the PNW, I usually just see their back as they run away. I think it is extremely unlikely to be attacked by one. Grizzlies are a bit different certainly.
Though to be clear, just because I think the other more stable thing is valuable to folks even with the availability of the sex slot machine, I still don't love businesses trying to push slot machines or any kind really.