The same tailscale that announced last week that they are going to start charging?
Buelldozer
joined 2 years ago
Sure, it's pretty simple really. As wages rise the business has to charge more to cover the increase in cost. As price rises demand falls.
So while the commenters statement "There is no such thing as a labor shortage, only activities that people don’t think are worth the cost." may be true so is "There is no such thing as a work shortage, only activities that customers don't think are worth the cost."
There is no such thing as a labor shortage, only activities that people don’t think are worth the cost.
I wonder, do you realize that your statement is equally true on the demand side?
I don't agree with the Republican immigration bullshit but I've argued for over 30 years that if any of these blowhards were actually serious about immigration enforcement that they'd go after the employers. The I.R.S. has known for years which employers are hinky, they can see it with SSN re-use during employment verification.
SSN 506-03-2379 cannot possibly be working full time as a construction worker in Florida, a meat packer in Iowa, picking crops in California, ditch digging in Texas, and running Door Dash in 57 other cities....ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
Find the employers involved in this and fine the ever loving shit out of them. They can employee people and pay them real wages instead of building their business on the back of underpaid immigrants.
I went over and looked at the peertube FAQ and nope, there's no monetization plan. Their reasoning for that is consistent with their goals but it is a hurdle to creators moving to the platform.
When are they moving all to freetube or something?
Unless I'm missing something Freetube is a client. So it wouldn't be Jeff moving to freetube it would be you using freetube to watch his content on YT.
I'm guessing you meant peertube instead of freetube and your answer there is "When they can get paid." Making content takes time and costs money and YT pays creators like Jeff for doing it.
I dislike YT alot but there's financial decisions at play here that can't really be argued with.
At some point, the NRA forgot that and only funded one side.
As the article notes after '94 the number of Democrats the NRA could support steadily dwindled. These days the Democrats purity test their candidates to ensure that they fully support Gun Control and there are various Democrat PACs that will oppose Pro-Gun Democrats in the primaries; making it increasingly unlikely for there to be any future Democrats at the federal level that the NRA can support.
The 2nd Amendment is a wedge issue and both sides do their best to take maximum advantage of their position.
That left them vulnerable when there was widespread financial fraud in the organization...
They were vulnerable because they were up to shady shit. No one should have been going to bat for the NRA during their corruption scandal and the fact they had one is entirely the fault of the NRAs Board of Directors. They knew what was happening and ignored it. No amount of political donations to Democrats, or anyone else, should have insulated them from the consequences.
I'd like for all of the Pro 2A groups, not just the NRA, to get back to donating to non-Republican politicians but they kinda don't exist anymore and I don't know how to change that.
The modern NRA is near useless but what you're accusing them of hasn't been true in a long time.
The NRA that supported The Mulford Act ceased to exist on May 22nd, 1977. The membership was fed-up with their organization supporting Gun Control and in an event known as the Revolt at Cincinnati they removed and replaced the entire leadership then set the organization on an entirely new course.
Post '77 it's been very rare for the NRA to support any kind of Gun Control, to the point that they've spent the last three decades getting torn up in the media for staunchly opposing any limits on 2A rights for anyone. They've spent a ridiculous amount of time, money, and energy winding back all of the gun controls and policies that they supported prior to '77 and to my knowledge they've made no attempt to limit 2A rights for non-whites.
Now some of the NRA members and 2A associated politicians are certainly racist / sexist / 'phobic fuckheads but the organization itself hasn't cared about any of that for decades.
The biggest knock on the NRA in modern times, basically the WLP corruption era, is that they completely lost the willingness to go against the Police regardless of the circumstances. The '90s (Cold Dead Hands / Jackbooted Thugs) era NRA would likely have already been in the streets at this point.
The NRA is very nearly a failed organization at this point.
In regards to recent events there was a time back in the '90s where they were pretty willing to get involved in stuff like this. Ol' WLP himself let fly with phrases like "Jackbooted thugs" and Charlton Heston proudly declared "From my cold dead hands." The NRA of the '90s was a fiery organization that was increasingly positioning itself as an anti-government force.
Then it stopped. I've never seen confirmation as to why but my supposition is that after the "jackbooted thugs" comment that WLP got a tap on the shoulder from the men in black suits and a deal was struck.
If today's NRA had the spirit it did 30 years ago they'd likely already be in the streets.
I would have students do their first few assignments by handwriting
How? No one learns handwriting anymore.
As explained in the video you can't run 50 amps ona dryer outlet. It's 42 amps max.