If they are looking to generate customer loyalty, they might want to start with product that is actually edible

There it is.

Right???

Something doesn’t add up.

You’re a nobody with no money. No rights for you.

Try being a corporation first.

Clearly he was missing the ham.

That’s an intentionally rigid view of the world.

The communication gap is that rigidity.

For example, it may say “minimum requirements” on the web form, but let’s put ourselves into the shoes of the person filling it out. Are they SUPER strict on these minimums? Or are they just filling out the form the best they can?

Usually it says sobering along the lines of “ideal candidates” and not “bare minimum” but you likely won’t see that due to overly rigid views on the world.

What if they made a mistake when filling it out, and added things to the “bare minimum “ that aren’t really that harsh a requirement?

It’s a grey area, it’s not a direct lie and you know that, you just don’t like it.

Saying it’s a lie assumes you know the intention of the person writing it, and that they intended to deceive you. And you can’t possibly know that either.

It’s Not a lie and you’re misrepresenting your knowledge of the scenario when you say that.

They’re not usually labeled “minimum requirements”

That may be what you’re interpreting, but they’re usually titled “ideal applicants will have the following” which isn’t the same thing

It feels like the same thing to people with rigid views on the world, but they are not the same.

You look for the cheapest used car that you can.

Leases are really only designed for businesses so that the business can write off value and depreciation early in their balance sheets for tax purposes. Financially they don’t work out great for your average consumer.

Consumers can’t write off those monthly and yearly expenses like a business does.

He eventually got rid of a few openly nazi folks under threat of shuttering his platform.

Took a long time and a lot of threats though……

It’s like the worst case of broken window fallacy lol.

He’s just made himself poorer.

Like the money would have done more good if he’d donated it.

But I guess that his actual goal was to get attention, since that’s the currency of the day…… and the worst part is that it was amazingly successful.

Like he couldn’t have spent a better $4000 anywhere to get this kind of publicity.

It’s because they appear to be something they’re not.

They’re usually friendly and fun and do all sorts of employee retention activities like arranging go karting and such…

They seem like they’re there almost as union stewards, to try and help retain employees and ensure you’re treated well by management. This is not the case. They’re there to protect the company from lawsuits originated by you. This means that they’ll apply rules and such in ways that are not usually beneficial to you.

They’re actually really helpful if you have issues with a coworker! However, you need to remember that despite how friendly they seem, they’re not actually in your corner, they have their own agenda.

So the simple answer is that they aren’t bad at all, but it can feel bad if you thought they were your friend.

They insulted Dolly Parton and then Tay Tay came out swinging……

This is going to be a blow out and then the republicans are going to claim it was stolen because they can’t handle losing.

I’m the one getting snippy? Hahaha okay.

I read the article, I’m just commenting about the world around the article from a small step back, and I tried to help you see that.

Have a nice day.

Well I tried to show you what’s happening, I’m sorry you’re not seeing it, but I’m done. Have a nice day.

Maybe you’re missing the connection here.

Facebook is implementing features to prevent some types of advertising, as per the article.

Facebook allows the purchase of the exact same advertising, so long as you pay their fee.

It’s just a different flavour of the same shit.

These days I have to create a spam filter for my phone notifications, let alone emails.

WhatsApp is owned by Facebook and you can pay them for corporate accounts and advertising.

How dare they advertise without giving WhatsApp (aka Facebook) a cut of the profits!

Everyone’s up in arms about a literal anonymous counter, but the other option is the current “spy on everything you do”

How is Mozilla getting flak for this outside of a few hardcore nerds that are welcome to use chrome if they so desire…

And I say that as a huge privacy advocate. In the local tin foil hat “privacy matters” nerd and I honestly don’t see the problem.

And quite frankly anyone that’s said it’s a problem has only been able to come up with “it shouldn’t help them count your views “ which is ridiculous, because it’s very anonymous.

Sooo …. Help me out here, what’s the issue?

A CEOs job is literally to serve the financial interests of the shareholders.

In fact a CEO can be fired or charged for not doing it.

How is that not legally compelling a company to make the most money possible, when to have their top employee by the balls like that?