Oops I misunderstood the direction. (I think it was if the employee deems they misbehaved. (I assumed “It” was the employee, not SpaceX. More obvious in hindsight I guess, my bad.)

I mean… isn’t that also a legal thing?

If you know insider information that’s not public (A company misbehaved being one of them) you are not supposed to trade stock to financially gain from it.

Now that’s what you’re supposed to do… Politicians have proven that’s rules just for peasants, and most stock traders heavily benefit from this type of information, and unless your Martha Stewart for some reason, you get away with it… But my point is legally, if you know they misbehaved, that’s immediately insider information?

Edit: I misunderstood the headling/rule. Sorry. Quite a shit thing that granted stock can be revoked, especially after you pay taxes. I wonder how legal it is, because if they can revoke it, is it actually yours and thus do you have to pay taxes on it?

As far as I read/understand, nope. But if it does limit the assistance to 28 miles an hour, that might be required if the bike goes above that speed. (Note: that’s only the point where the power would stop assisting, not the fastest speed the bike can do.)

Umm that’s not exactly what they’re saying.

It would update a 27-year-old law to create three new classes of electric bikes based on the type of motor and how fast they can go.

Hell the ACTUAL statute is just defining what a e-bike is. You can see it here: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024r1/Measures/Overview/HB4103

It does say class 1 can be operated by anyone, but 2 and 3 can be limited to 16 and older. Yes that’s more restrictive then the past, but really it’s “Defining the e-bikes” because they were poorly defined based on an almost hundred year old law.

That being said it does limit the top speed of an e-bike to 28 miles an hour, I assume above that it’s now a motocycle, and honestly, that might be a good thing, because at that speed they no will come out of no where (hell at 20-30 miles an hour they still will)

This is hardly as bad as the title.

I don’t know the right price point, but 1 dollar a month probably would have worked for most people. It just wasn’t enough because they probably can make more than 1 by spoon feeding you ads now.

Spotify has definitely helped me to discover new artists, but then I mostly listen to that artist on Spotify (Mostly because I’m not in their country.)

Are we getting Spotify for free, if we’re buying premium?

The problem is you can’t “buy” products any more. Companies see that as interest, and then start to throw additional advertising to see how much they can get away with. Fuck that shit.

They’ve also run almost any way to do it outside of their ecosystems. If I want to listen to happy hardcore music, I have to hope spotify has it, but it’s rare to find that on most playlists, I’d have to go spend thousands of dollars for the same experience that Spotify offers, and that’s to own every track I’m even curious about.

You nailed it. It’s artificially deflated prices, and dishonest…

Would be the last time I visited them.

I tip twenty most places. Easy to calculate and fair.

I see this and they have gotten my tip. If you work there and are upset by that, then you need to find another job because the company is stealing your tips no matter what. And I personally won’t return, because it’s never the best restaurants who pull this shit.

Similarly if a company puts automatic gratuity on my bill that’s the tip as well… And usually it’s less than I’d give freely.

If Americans are supposed to tip extra it their choice. If you want to define service charges or something like this, then you’ve made your choice. Greedy fucks trying to hide these extra charges need to stop. I’ll pay more for food on a menu if that’s what it takes but trying to sneak it is bullshit.

Wait… You built a computer. Installed an OS on it, one of the easiest OSes to install… And now are having an issue installing steam… And somehow it’s the OS’ fault?

This is either fake, trying to pirate windows, or your trying to avoid responsibility for not being able to assemble a simple computer. Wtf?

It doesn’t on mine…

But honestly Youtube needs to make it optional if people get shorts, it’s ruined too many channels, and is just a worthless waste of bandwidth. If I wanted shitty clickbait content I’d just go to tiktok in the first place, I’m on Youtube because I’m expecting some quality.

It’s one of the reasons I won’t let that bullshit touch my main channel. Other Youtubers have said they have had massive growth (usually counted in “Views” which they can’t understand isn’t the same thing for both categories) but in general shorts have made me unsubscribe from too many channels for me to even consider it.

What pisses me off the most is channels I used to like, stuff like Scam Nation who now repackages all their old content as shorts. And so I unsubscribe because I don’t want that level of spam.

Youtube Shorts sounds like an interesting idea, that has all the problems of Tiktok, and then clutters up Youtube. It would be SO easy for people to be able to opt out of Shorts, but that’s not how it works, and Youtube’s UI keeps pushing them to the point where I stop looking at my notifications.

Great work Google.