Often there are contracts. Sometimes for a very long time, often multi-year. There are sometimes escape clauses (like a morality clause for a spokesperson), but these aren’t easy to invoke.

I suspect many of them are up for annual review/renewal, when they can be terminated without penalty. It might also just be an attempt to get better terms.

Shrinkflation is smaller quantities and/or higher prices. This is actually tracked in a variety of places.

Changing to a cheaper recipe/supplier is very hard to put metrics on, and isn’t tracked anywhere that I know of

Uber’s insurance is pretty bad. Many get the additional coverage from their regular insurer anyway because of this. That coverage also (usually) applies to this situation as well.

How close are these surrounding towns? What’s the population, particularly for the demographics you would appeal to?

Often, it’s not worthwhile to bring your favorite culture to your home. Just go to the culture where it already exists. Often, these quiet, boring places are populated by people that WANT to live in a place that’s quiet and boring. It doesn’t make much sense for anyone to move there if they don’t.

If the locals - as a whole, not just some prominent extremists - dislike Starbucks being there, then the location will fail.

You’re absolutely right. Such procedures should be treated the same, as much as is appropriate. (vasectomies are a much more minor procedure, so things like recovery support would be different)

If their beliefs get in the way, they need to find another profession. This is pretty well established across the entire industry.

You must provide the same level of care for a pregnant teen, a smoker dying of lung cancer, or a neo Nazi. It doesn’t matter how their lifestyle offends you.

You seem to have misinterpreted my posts. Informed decisions are ok, but someone else making that decision is not. It’s not sexist, because it works exactly the same if the roles are reversed.

How so? If I were considering a vasectomy, I would expect to be told that it may be an issue for my future wife. I would take issue if I were told that such a decision should be left to her, and not mine to make.

The headline kinda buries the lede. From the article, “(the) gynecologist told her the choice should be up to her future husband”.

A discussion about potential regrets is a lot more benign than denying her autonomy.

“handle” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The signs are already there that all of these edge cases will just be programmed as “safely pull over and stop until conditions change or a human takes control”. Which isn’t a small task in itself, but it’s a lot easier than figuring out to continue (e.g.) on ice.

Even at stores that have this feature, I rarely see people use it. It’s clearly not an experience that people flock to.

OTOH, on the rare occasion I’ve visited a Walmart in the past 10 years, I have a 100% rate of checkout taking an absurdly long time. Everyone there just seems to accept it like they have no choice.

As long as it’s advertised openly, I don’t see a big problem with it. It would probably be sold as a discount for shopping at slower times, though. It’s a tried-and-true method of smoothing congestion.

Assuming a store with 9a-9p hours (every day), a 9-5 worker can shop 44 hours in a week, vs 40 they cannot. But that doesn’t particularly line up with the busy hours. Around here, after 7 on weekdays and 5 on weekends tend to get pretty slow.

To extend this, consider your own safety throughout. Unless the police arrest them and they remain in custody, you have a potential serious threat. Avoid situations where you/others could be vulnerable, such as alone or at night. You may want to setup visible surveillance cameras, alter your routines, etc.

The police will be there after anything happens, but that may be too late for you.

Will this help users on Bing with their number 1 desired search destination, Google?

Or their 7th most common destination, Bing?

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/1/22703263/google-lawyer-argues-bing-used-find-google-top-search-defaults

Not necessarily. They could split the video in advance, assuming the ads will always be at the same point. Even if not, they could still use the direct, unaltered source with a range. The big challenge would be keeping it all synced, which I think is safe to say that they will get right.

But even if it did need to be transcoded, YouTube automatically transcodes every single video uploaded, multiple times. They are clearly not afraid of it.

I said nothing of the sort, and have no idea where you got that idea. All I said was that marketing claims are separate from the contract.

However, this thread is clearly not interested in any actual exchange of ideas or information, so I will no longer be taking part. Go ahead and downvote.

1. False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.

2. Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.

3. Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.

I would be surprised if this goes anywhere meaningful. Those were marketing promises, not contract terms. I noticed the promotion ended just over 2 years before the price hike, indicating that everyone had completed their contract. Once the contract is over, either side can walk away, or renegotiate terms.

It negates the point of a contract. What kind of contract even has a term of length without a set price?