|
Condiv posted:tbh, in oklahoma city the inspections of our kitchen was scheduled and not random, and even then we could barely pass (pizza hut) So your proposed solution would be not having health inspections. I trust?
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Condiv posted:tbh, in oklahoma city the inspections of our kitchen was scheduled and not random, and even then we could barely pass (pizza hut) and i'm fully acknowledging that restaurant inspections aren't some perfect and flawless system. like i said wateroverfire i've worked in restaurants for a decade i've seen what they're like. employee stashes a drink in the ice machine, that's a five point ding. thawing fish in the hand washing sink, that's a major ding replacing this with an even looser system would not in any way improve food safety unless you sincerely believe that the hand of the market corrects everything, except with a bunch of anonymous five star ratings replacing a hundred point checklist that by law must be prominently displayed and is published by the health department yes, restaurants can acutely get disgusting because of apathetic employees and bad management. now imagine what happens if the health inspector is guaranteed to never show up boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So your proposed solution would be not having health inspections. I trust? no, i think random health inspections are good (and i think that startup is idiotic and dangerous). i'm just pointing out that health inspection of food isn't that strict for every city. for example, when i was working in food preperation in norman (about 20 mins from oklahoma city), their food safety standards were much better and they required all food workers to attend a class on food safety, take a test, and get licensed before they could get a job
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:and i'm fully acknowledging that restaurant inspections aren't some perfect and flawless system. like i said wateroverfire i've worked in restaurants for a decade i've seen what they're like. employee stashes a drink in the ice machine, that's a five point ding. thawing fish in the hand washing sink, that's a major ding no i agree with you, i think food safety is really important. there are places though where they don't take it as seriously as they should though. in any case, this start-up is a public threat and should be shut down post-haste
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no i agree with you, i think food safety is really important. there are places though where they don't take it as seriously as they should though. in any case, this start-up is a public threat and should be shut down post-haste sorry i was quoting you but really i was responding to the dishonest guy
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Pasting a date column into a text editor and then back into excel so that excel recognizes them as dates seems like something that shouldn't be happening in TYOL 2016 Edit: sorry wrong thread pangstrom fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:sorry i was quoting you but really i was responding to the dishonest guy Umm. Not being dishonest. I've also worked in restaurants, and known people who have worked in restaurants, and have had different experiences than you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
crossposting from the yospos version of this thread:Main Paineframe posted:uber managed to annoy a judge in one of their many lawsuits quote:In one instance, an investigator hired by Uber allegedly called Meyer's attorney's professional colleagues and "falsely stated that he was compiling a profile of up-and-coming labor lawyers in the United States," Rakoff wrote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Doesn't wateroverfire live in Chile or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Celebratr, that helps all your celebrations be more memorable! You just select the number of people that you want to pay to celebrate for you and where and when you want them to do it. Celebratr takes care of the rest! At the appointed place and time, various CelebratrS (independent contractors) will gather and begin discharging their firearms joyfully into the air in a happy, safe, jolly fashion. Celebratr only takes 10% of the fee, the rest is passed directly to the people doing all the work! No longer will gun-discharging revelers have to be hired on craigslist or in newspaper classifieds. Just tap a button on your phone and you're done! quote:Update: All CelebratrS are carefully screened to ensure safe firearms handling. Felons are discovered via a strict screening mechanism. quote:Update 2: It has come to the attention of the Celebratr team that some municipalities have antiquated laws on the books prohibiting discharging firearms inside their city limits. We are working with regulators to help these obsolete laws get fixed as soon as possible. Innovation must not be squelched! That said, please refrain from discharging your firearms in the following cities: quote:Update 3: Celebratr's screening process is Industry-Leadingtm, but the exact details cannot be detailed so that felons will not be able to know how to circumvent the process. quote:Update 4: In response to a drawn out legal battle with the state of New York, Celebratr revealed today that its felony-screening procedures consisted of asking "are you a confirmed felon y/n". This is well in accordance with other legal documents. The fact that a bug in the sign-up process did not reject a potential Celebratr even if they did click Yes is a simple programming bug that was fixed last week. Celebratr maintains its screening process is more than sufficient, since there are no specific legal requirements for crowdsourced mass firearms discharges. quote:Update 5: Celebratr, a 200 million dollar company providing peer-to-peer cooperative celebrations, has again been forced into an antiquated concession to hidebound government bureaucrats. Effective immediately, Celebratr will now have each individual wishing to become a Celebratr or Revelr will have to go through a strict security assessment before being allowed to sign up. quote:Update 6: The cast and crew of Celebratr mourn for the family of Elias Gutierrez, 6, who was slain by an errant bullet fired by an independent contractor, whose name is being withheld to protect his family from vicious threats of mob justice. Celebratr wishes everyone to know that firing in any direction other than straight up is expressly forbidden by the Celebratr Code of Conduct. The independent Contractor has been de-listed, which we trust satisfies the family of Elias Gutierrez. quote:Update 7: Celebratr wishes to remind all its Celebration Clients that Revelrs who show up to booked Celebrations that were cancelled less than 24 hours in advance are still entitled to full payment. The unfortunate beating incident that took place in Las Palmas, New Mexico was unwarranted, we hope the clarification that all cancellations require 24 hours of notice will help to avoid future unpleasantness. quote:Update 8: Celebratr wishes to clarify that it is only in the business of connecting party-goers with party hosts. All responsibility and liability is assumed by the independent contractor, or Revelr. quote:Update 9: Celebratr reiterates that it's Revelrs are hired by the Celebratr, using our groundbreaking technology. If the party host and Celebratr are not the same person, how is Celebratr (the company) supposed to know that? We are too busy providing award-winning revelry services to track down petty issues like "does the bride want people firing guns". quote:Update 10: In response to the government thugs shooting Celebratr independent contractor (Revelr) Bill Waterhausen outside the Keene County courthouse last week, Celebratr wants to stress that its contractor was only trying to carry out his end of the Celebratr contract. The courthouse was insufficiently marked, but in the end all liability rests with Mr. Waterhausen, since Celebratr only connects people together and takes a cut of the money. A call for Revelrs had been logged on the Celebratr app. The identity of the individual who sent the call for a peaceful and joyous firing of guns into the air is not being disclosed at this time, but it is not clear what, if any, connection they had to any marriages or parties taking place in the Keene County courthouse or surrounding environs. quote:Update 11: Celebratr wishes to announce tiered levels of service! This new addition will no doubt continue to meet latent demand for firearm dischargers nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:sorry i was quoting you but really i was responding to the dishonest guy Snap. Wateroverfire's argument appears to be that health inspections are not flawless so things would work better if we didn't have them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
I feel like the 'disruptive startup' discussions all get sidetracked into whether or not the regulations are good/useful, instead of the point that the dispatchers are knowingly dodging the regulations. If I, some average know-nothing, wanted to start a food business I'd assume there would be food permits involved. Starting a taxi business? Taxi permits. Insurance all around. These guys keep pretending to not have even a layperson's understanding of the industries they are trying to 'disrupt'. They are pretending. Its made worse with the independent contractor model, which allows them to say they put out the correct legal guidelines (retroactively, upon being just shocked at the implication they could be breaking the law) but some bad apples were just out of their control. Places like Uber and AirBnB seem suspiciously prepared to lobby against regulatory pushback, how could that be unless they knew what they were doing was against those regulations? Dont enable them to corral the discussion to the validity or usefulness of the regulations, IMO. There is something distasteful already about someone playing ignorant to boost the dubious value of a product (eg industry + app = cash out before inflated demand craters), but playing ignorant in order to profit when it involves public safety is a whole other degree. Especially while mounting well-funded legal challenges to regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Celebratr Seems... fake?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:How many other illegal things would you like to handwave away? Dude seems to basically be a libertarian and never seen a regulation he didn't want gone from what I see. Oh excuse me, disrupted. Whateverfire, what kind of regulations are sacrosanct and need to be kept safe from disruptors? NLJP fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
NLJP posted:Dude seems to basically be a libertarian and never seen a regulation he didn't want gone from what I see. Oh excuse me, disrupted. Whateverfire, what kind of regulations are sacrosanct and need to be kept safe from disruptors? The ones that protect property rights are sacrosanct, all the other ones can go get hosed
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Nice thread title
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Doesn't wateroverfire live in Chile or something? No that's someone else with the same avatar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:No that's someone else with the same avatar. Nah he's a literal Pinochet apologist from Chile lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
rscott posted:Nah he's a literal Pinochet apologist from Chile lol Oh, I thought there was a guy in this thread who typed up a "oh, this is why we'll never agree, I see ignoring laws that are inconvenient as just the way we do things" response to someone. I can't find it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Oh, I thought there was a guy in this thread who typed up a "oh, this is why we'll never agree, I see ignoring laws that are inconvenient as just the way we do things" response to someone. I can't find it anymore. I remember that post, too, but I thought that guy was from India, the country where cops walk up to your car with their hand out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
I was going to challenge for proof of wof's claims but the. I realized I don't care because even if true it doesn't mean that it is the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
NLJP posted:Dude seems to basically be a libertarian and never seen a regulation he didn't want gone from what I see. Oh excuse me, disrupted. Whateverfire, what kind of regulations are sacrosanct and need to be kept safe from disruptors? I'm not going to go to bat for removing food regulations, but there are plenty of dumb laws that should be tossed out (such as urban form laws). It isn't unreasonable to have some level of skepticism towards over/mis regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Umm. Not being dishonest. I've also worked in restaurants, and known people who have worked in restaurants, and have had different experiences than you. "my uncle totally works at also lol at "regulations don't work in chile, they should get rid of them everywhere!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:I'm not going to go to bat for removing food regulations, but there are plenty of dumb laws that should be tossed out (such as urban form laws). It isn't unreasonable to have some level of skepticism towards over/mis regulation. Reasonable skepticism involves examining the history of a law, what it was meant to prevent, why it was created, how it impacted/impacts an industry, and then demonstrating the positive impact of removing the law or why the return of what the law removed would be welcome. It isn't "gently caress laws that get in the way of profits."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
jre posted:Nice thread title this thread has had a really good streak of titles, it seems to change every week or so
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Reasonable skepticism involves examining the history of a law, what it was meant to prevent, why it was created, how it impacted/impacts an industry, and then demonstrating the positive impact of removing the law or why the return of what the law removed would be welcome. It isn't "gently caress laws that get in the way of profits." Somewhat, sure. But on this forum especially there is a strong bias towards existing/proposed law, with little regard towards actual demonstration of cost benefit analysis. If somewhere tried to make it illegal to cook at home, people here would come out of the woodwork to defend that law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
I mean strictly I wouldn't because cooking at home is an excellent example of receiving the benefit of your own labour so I'm pretty in favor of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Somewhat, sure. But on this forum especially there is a strong bias towards existing/proposed law, with little regard towards actual demonstration of cost benefit analysis. If somewhere tried to make it illegal to cook at home, people here would come out of the woodwork to defend that law. Regulations to protect the health of workers and the public at large need an affirmative defense in the face of profits for business owners got it Can you step up your lovely concern troll game?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
the "health and safety gone mad" meme
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Gonna just start taking machinist's and engineer's word that parts are good, making sure poo poo is in tolerance is too onerous and slows things down I'm sure nothing bad will happen
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Somewhat, sure. But on this forum especially there is a strong bias towards existing/proposed law, with little regard towards actual demonstration of cost benefit analysis. If somewhere tried to make it illegal to cook at home, people here would come out of the woodwork to defend that law. So your here to attack imaginary arguments? Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
In any country where rule of law is accepted (like the US, ostensibly), the onus of proof that a regulation should be changed is on the person asking to change it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Somewhat, sure. But on this forum especially there is a strong bias towards existing/proposed law, with little regard towards actual demonstration of cost benefit analysis. If somewhere tried to make it illegal to cook at home, people here would come out of the woodwork to defend that law. Look I'm just saying the majority of the time this forum is biased towards being wrong. Like in my imaginary scenario that no one would defend I imagine people would defend it here. Isn't that absurd? So clearly that means you're wrong by default. *blows on bubble pipe*
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Dude, I think Spazzle's post is pretty reasonable. Spazzle is just explaining why this thread's knee-jerk ideology is naïve. IMO, this thread is pretty weird--it is kind of like bizarro D&D. In this thread, government laws are just, by virtue of being government laws. However, every other thread in this forum mostly consists of complaining about the government's laws and policies. Also, in this thread, profit is good, and when a company is unprofitable it is bad. This is to be contrasted with the rest of D&D where profit is bad and profitable companies are literally evil. Finally, in this thread, it is commonly thought that over-investment in start-up companies has produced a lot of me-too companies which add no value. However, if you were to say the same thing about scientific research, government funding for the arts, etc, in other threads, you'd be shunned, and posters would swear up and down that that effect would be impossible and that there is all of this great scientific research and art which is being stifled by lack of investment and that more investment always means more output. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
The government laws are just because the government has repeatedly proven a pressing public need to have things like food safety laws. Contrarily, there's no pressing public need to have hate crime laws protecting police officers. This is not a hypocritical view in any way and trying to frame it as such is straight-up delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:The government laws are just because the government has repeatedly proven a pressing public need to have things like food safety laws. Contrarily, there's no pressing public need to have hate crime laws protecting police officers. This is not a hypocritical view in any way and trying to frame it as such is straight-up delusional. Spazzle's not arguing against food safety laws. He's complaining about how this thread is knee-jerk pro-regulation no matter what the regulation is, and how people in this thread have made arguments which literally consisted of "startup company breaks law, therefore startup company is bad". However, much of the rest of D&D consists of complaining about how government practices, laws, and regulations are unfair, unjust, bigoted, sexist, racist, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever, and for that reason I say that this thread is kind of a bizarro D & D. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Spazzle's not arguing against food safety laws. He's complaining about how this thread is knee-jerk pro-regulation no matter what the regulation is, and how people in this thread have made arguments which literally consisted of "startup company breaks law, therefore startup company is bad". However, much of the rest of D&D consists of complaining about how government practices, laws, and regulations are unfair, unjust, bigoted, sexist, racist, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever, and for that reason I say that this thread is kind of a bizarre D & D. The burden of proof is on him to prove this. So far, the laws argued in this thread have all been public safety laws put in place after very graphic examples of why they were needed back in the Guilded Age.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Spazzle's not arguing against food safety laws. He's complaining about how this thread is knee-jerk pro-regulation no matter what the regulation is, and how people in this thread have made arguments which literally consisted of "startup company breaks law, therefore startup company is bad". However, much of the rest of D&D consists of complaining about how government practices, laws, and regulations are unfair, unjust, bigoted, sexist, racist, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever, and for that reason I say that this thread is kind of a bizarre D & D. Can you provide a single specific instance of a particular law being lauded here but criticized elsewhere in D&D, or is this just a clumsy attempt to lump laws that protect us from food poisoning in with bloated defense contracts under the umbrella of "things government has laws about"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Dude, I think Spazzle's post is pretty reasonable. Spazzle is just explaining why this thread's knee-jerk ideology is naïve. So his critique is right because of the opposite of what he said is true  Spazzle posted:Somewhat, sure. But on this forum especially there is a strong bias towards existing/proposed law, with little regard towards actual demonstration of cost benefit analysis . If somewhere tried to make it illegal to cook at home, people here would come out of the woodwork to defend that law. I mean it's right here on this page of the thread. He described this forum as overwhelmingly pro-law. Both as status quo and supporting all proposed laws. That was literally his critique. Something you are even saying is not true. What's he right about other than the vague notion of D&D (and this thread) having a dumb dumb hivemind that you're smarter than? Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Spazzle's not arguing against food safety laws. He's complaining about how this thread is knee-jerk pro-regulation no matter what the regulation is, and how people in this thread have made arguments which literally consisted of "startup company breaks law, therefore startup company is bad". However, much of the rest of D&D consists of complaining about how government practices, laws, and regulations are unfair, unjust, bigoted, sexist, racist, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever, and for that reason I say that this thread is kind of a bizarre D & D. In addition to what others have said, there is a world of difference between saying that X government law is bad for whatever reason and start-ups (or companies in general) can just do whatever they want without regard for the law. It is entirely consistent that the "rest of D&D consists of complaining about how government practices, laws, and regulations are unfair, unjust, bigoted, sexist, racist, hyper-bigoted, giga-bigoted, whatever," and have the same "people in this thread [make] arguments which literally consist of 'startup company breaks law, therefore startup company is bad'". You seem to think the entire subtext of D&D is whether we should live in a world of laws, rather than what the consequences of those laws are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:21
|
|