It’s better to place the burden on the company as a whole per revenue than per CEO pay differential. Amazon for example made somewhere in the 500 billion dollars in revenue for 2022 but for all ~1.5m employees only spent ~42 billion on salaries for an average of ~28k a year.
They have so much ample revenue to use for increased salaries that goes unanswered.
Yeah this isn’t Spotify’s fault really. It’s a cringe over prostitution of the industry with increased server cost, record studios asking more in premiums, and growing pains from increased salaries. It’s unfortunate we can’t ever just let something exist for the sake of general good without the greedy asking for their take when it becomes popular.
Guy is either delusional or a troll. Either way, too many terminally online morons on the Internet to tell
20% after the initial $50 million. The same company that has used that revenue to revolutionize Linux as a gaming platform. Same company that helped fix graphics api integrations. Same company that actually cares about their consumers and the gaming ecosystem?
First season of Vinland and Steins;Gate
This Creative Assembly is a dogshit remnant of the past. Until they stop treating their developers like gig workers and stop rising prices under the lie that they’re losing money (record profits once again), I don’t want shit they make. WH3 has been abysmal so far
I think it’s more that most of these issues would never actually reach the CEO if brought up through standard channels. Some bs middle management explanation of why it’s not possible, even though they never passed it up. CEOs are still people, and if they just randomly receive an actual personal email that wasn’t debated over by a board meeting or considered inconsequential by people they hired to micromanage, they’re likely to just say fuck it why not.
Otters are apex predators simply because they have the ability of tactical genius working in strike group squads. If you’ve ever seen the videos of them taking down and drowning crocodiles, then you know. They are not omg adorbs so cute!! They can and will destroy you. Walking navy seal copypastas.
CLEARLY nothing because everyone knows that misrepresenting your opponent to force your own dogma into the conversation without any level of actual intelligence just to get the heckin moral superiorityino is the proper way to discuss these days.
It’s in the top 3 issues I have with the current wave of leftist populism for sure.
Owning a gun is the logical step from the natural right to defend your life. If you are under threat of death by another individual, why in the fuck would you ever willingly put yourself at a disadvantage. Does your moral grounds of guns = bad really overvalue the rest of your natural life?
Someone invades your home, you grab a knife, congratulations knives are far more dangerous than a gun for every participant of the struggle and you have now made it statistically more likely to accidentally kill yourself. You use your hands, disadvantaged against someone with a weapon, death.
The point is literally that you have a personal freedom from birth to keep yourself alive and in a world that has afforded us better and better tools to ensure that, use them.
That’s contradictory. Prevention is preparedness. As in pre-emptive. As in it’s not an action to be ready for something before it happens, as the action only comes when needed. I keep a first aid kit not for fear, but use. Do I fear coming along to someone with a deep wound that needs suturing because I own it? Obviously not. You must have never heard the phrase, better to have it and not need it than be without.
You’re probably thinking of Switzerland and they can’t own personal ammunition.
As for the rest of your point, the second amendment is the hot button because those who want to take away the fundamental right to own arms are basically saying that rights are affordable. That’s not how they work. As someone in this thread said, the bill of rights do not grant you these rights, they already existed and the bill is acknowledging them. IE, under no circumstances does the government have any capability or authority to deny or revoke it under any guise. The very concept of the people for the people would be erased otherwise.
If the culture of America legitimately swung overwhelmingly in favor of handing in their arms (never going to happen) cosmopolitanism tells us that is fine and good. If the government decides for you that everyone is in agreement, that is a spit in the face of liberty and a complete fabrication of their ability to revoke rights (which as stated they don’t have).
I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Pritzker then also passed a bill that lawsuits regarding this anti-gun bill (among others) could only be tried in the courts of Chicago and Springfield, the only two courts willing to allow this dogshit. Right, it was really a fair trial.
I’m from Illinois, every county outside those has stated their dislike and contempt for this law enough that sheriffs have made mention they will not zealously enforce this. It is overwhelmingly a hated bill and there are piles upon piles of lawsuits in the lower courts that are now invalidated thanks to Pritzker’s bullshit. They will be up for federal review and hearings on why the upper courts have made this faulty judgement despite the contempt, citing those lawsuits.
I’m sure it was also a coincidence that right after it was passed, the Pritzker family made notice they would be building a giant megaplex gun range and firearm museum directly on the border in Wisconsin where the banned items would be available for rent.
It’s not fear, lmao, it’s prevention. Do you wear a seatbelt because you fear dying in a car crash every day you enter it? Or is it preventing the possibility of that hypothetical serious injury?
No licensed CCW owner here is walking around armed like a schizo looking over their shoulder and afraid of every person they meet ready to fire. They simply understand there are humans in this world that would take advantage of you if they could, and if that situation occurs, why handicap yourself.
Government data itself from the DOJ shows you’re less likely to be a victim of injury in crime by having a gun compared to simply not doing anything, hell having a personal knife could be more likely to get you killed. The point made is it’s not the government’s right to decide for us if we want to arm ourselves. The individual is enough to make that decision.
The lefty populists are too numerous on this site but thanks for fighting the good fight lib brother.
It’s my opinion that thematic messages presented now are overt, with little nuance, and hold the same level of failure to look inward biases you claim. There is no discussion to be had when you hold a meeting with strawmen.
Great writers and media of the past were lauded for holding something that is presented as a moral evil up to caliber in logic and presentation. Taking a threat seriously so to speak. Look at an instance like Metal Gear, where despite the intent and presentation saying warmongering is bad, the writers still had the wherewithal to gauge a reasonable position you’d face fighting that ideology. You aren’t meant to agree with Zero or the Patriots or BB. But you can see and understand their logic to lead these actions.
What is this but taking a child’s doll and using it to spew word vomit level rhetoric that focuses on buzzwords and failed symbolism than actually addressing anything core to the point. If you want to make some preaching movie do it. But when you market your film as a lighthearted romp of self discovery involving an inanimate object, don’t be shocked when people push back.
Movies are not a good basis on someone’s perception of anything. Their interactions with reality are.
You’ll get nothing from communists in this discussion friend. People refuse to allow our media to be escapism anymore and demand even already addressed issues drilled into ‘entertainment’. We traded pop culture references for this, and somehow I want the references back
I can see your point, but I am also tired of pointing to CEO salaries and thinking that reducing them will make any meaningful increase on company wide salaries.
There’s always making cost scalable to reported profit. It’s annoying to see a company like Amazon make so much but pay employees so little because it’s"competitive pay" to the business they’re ruining through monopoly.