That makes about as much sense as arming teachers to prevent school shootings.

What the fuck good is a child having a phone in an active shooter scenario? Do you think none of the teachers have phones to dial 911 on? Or the administrative office? And in the other 99.999% of time, it's a distraction to why the child is there: TO LEARN.

How about we do something about the guns?

How is it extortion if the product is completely optional?

Who goes to a bar / restaurant / hotel to listen to the recorded music? You go there for drinks / meals / a bed to sleep in.

If the price is too hard to swallow, find a different provider or turn it off.

Because you clearly need a lot more performance to efficiently collect dust on a shelf from having no worthwhile use.

Bwaaaahahahahhahaha. You might want to drag the thumb on the video progress bar to "LIVE" where the government hasn't been following it's own rules for about 6 months now.

It's really simple - people want to be paid for their work. If you can't afford it all of a sudden, then stop playing licensed works.

If these licensors start seeing revenues falling from people cancelling over price hikes, they'll either get the message and knock it off, or watch revenue sink.

I hear the SEC isn't really into enforcing those laws for a certain subset of connected individuals any more.

Found the core of your problem understanding. We're talking about the US here, which is not a country with strong labor laws.

It's cute that you think Amazon gives a single solitary shit about how their warehouse workers feel.

You are assuming that they would put in the same amount of hours regardless of the work they're doing.

I would not put it past Amazon to levy the expectation that they should do an additional number of warehouse hours in addition to their normal salaried office hours. Thus, "volunteering."

And if the office workers in question are salaried overtime-exempt employees, they're being paid for their time; and the use of the word "volunteer" is entirely accurate as they are choosing to put in more hours for the same compensation.

Has cutting your way to profitability ever worked in the long term for literally anyone?

Was Intel so mismanaged that they can cut 20% of their workforce without brain-drain or operational issues? I'm guessing the answer is "no" and the MBA types are just doing their usual short-term bullshit to vest their golden parachutes before getting shitcanned themselves.

My HOA actually has a legal restriction with the city to not use glyphosate on our property, because our stormwater drainage is connected to the city sewer system which has outflows to a river after treatment.

No problem by me, as my property doesn't even have a lawn - just a recessed french drain and a few mulched flowerbeds. My allergies are so happy I don't have to mow every week!

I'm sure it did, and was summarily ignored, just like all the other bad things previous herbicides had going.

Not enough to hurt, tinly slap and whi benefits? Users didnt

You're still here after all these years?

Notably though if we actually run out of work to do we have a post-scarcity utopia, and that happens when people are so rich that there's basically not a single person who, given even more money, would even be able to think of something to spend it on. That's not going to happen any time soon, so we're basically dealing with a distribution problem, which requires distribution (e.g. minimum wage, set it to 1/3 national hourly GDP, the reason for this takes a while to explain) and redistribution (negative income tax, do it as a universal dividend) policies along with monetary policy to properly increase the money supply to not fall behind productivity growth.