[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

AAA has historically opposed pro-bicycle legislation. Their first priority is automobiles.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

Lots of meta-level comments here so I'll add one that's more in the weeds:

In an office job, it's always good to be friendly with IT and the office manager/administrative assistant.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Thanks.

I was going to say, that it's not an environmental document and climate science was barely a thing when it was written. (meteorology was but not climate science as we know it).

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

This is a great community.

The Lemmy community is far better than the subreddit

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I prefer a higher priced vehicle with better gas mileage so I save money over the long term while being slightly easier on the environment.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Took zooming in to see the guy is sitting backwards on his handlebars...

Outside of a circus and maybe a kid at a skate park I've not seen this either.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I'm on your side and went to that link.

Unfortunately, the person you are debating is correct. Anheuser-Busch's stock fell over 20% after the boycott began and while it's come up a little since the initial fall it's still no where near where it was prior to the boycott in April.

That said, that might be the ONLY example of this slogan being accurate (at least right now).

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

That's because, in their minds they see the judicial system as rigged against him.

(No judges agreed with him that the election was stolen or that he won so "obviously" they're all democrats or whatever else he calles non cult members now)

If anything, they'd point at the judges ruling in Jean Carroll's case as an example or how "broken America is".

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Fair enough, good reply.

Upvoted :)

(Maybe Lemmy will bring back some good discussions in threads like these...)

I think the public gets fatigued when we hear about the profits these companies make and then we see these comparatively small fines.

If this is how we "steer the vessel of regulation" then I can accept that this is a push in a better direction.

However, I still feel that a fine in the hundreds of millions, ( not bankrupting but a "shot in the leg" versus a "slap on the wrist"), is appropriate for these very large corporations. They already weild so much political and economic power that consequences for things like this should be higher.

In other words, let's encourage them to operate responsibly in the first place.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Agreed.

I only mentioned my range because then perhaps it would move to a different column in their budget.

25 million is nothing to Amazon.

A couple of billion might move it into an enterily new spreadsheet and maybe even precipitate a meeting to figure out who needs to be fired. Maybe.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 80 points 2 years ago

They are framing it about child labor because a child died.

Who/What agency is investigating the death is not relevant to the fact that a child died while working in an industrial setting.

They are framing it the way they are because they do not think that children, or teens, should be legally able to work in these kinds of settings.

[-] JingJang@lemmy.world 167 points 2 years ago

This isn't a "fine" to Amazon. 25 million dollars is just the cost of business.

Make this 250 or 500 million and then... Maybe.... it's a fine.

view more: next ›

JingJang

joined 2 years ago