Giving these items to employees could be considered part of their compensation package, like gift cards. Those have to be appropriately recorded and taxed.

FWIW, a lot of these places now send damaged/surplus/whatever items to a salvage company, who then pays the original retailer “fire sale” prices. These items are usually auctioned off locally for a fraction of MSRP.

Same for many returned items, BTW. There’s a local auction site that runs like eBay, but it’s overwhelmingly Amazon returns.

It’s also wrong about history. Throughout human history, the poor have had many, many more children than the wealthy. They needed the extra hands to do the manual labor of occupations like farming.

Not OP, but it’s going to be really hard to assign a hard value to that. There are plenty of obvious examples where they denied a life-saving treatment. But many of them would’ve died anyway.

Then there are cases where they deny preventative/early treatments. Some of these eventually led to more serious and fatal conditions, some did not. How do we count these?

Then there’s quality of life denials. These don’t directly lead to fatal conditions, but can affect morale and the like, thus allowing more serious conditions?

All of it would be compared to the unexplored alternatives (where treatment was authorized). This is inherently an unknown.

I’m not defending him by any means. It’s just that his body count is, at best, a rough estimate.

Shares with all of your contacts by default. Also includes a sales pitch to each of them to sign up as well

Defunct and not as witty, but Cow and Boy was very clearly inspired by Calvin & Hobbes

IANAL, but this law is (probably) not currently enforceable due to (among others) Lawrence v. Texas.

However, that was explicitly named as being on the chopping block, so at best it’s "not enforceable yet"

Coming from Columbus, I understand the desire. The rivalry runs pretty deep, with riots causing significant property damage every few years. However, this particular proposal is just more political grandstanding.

It does not have time to pass during the current session, meaning it would need to be reintroduced in the next one. But even if it did pass, I really doubt that it would withstand a court challenge. It seems like a pretty clear violation of free speech, and designed for that purpose.

I don’t believe that detail was in the article when I read it, but I’m unable to find any copies from before the update. I can tell you the article now is very different from the original.

They have a pretty open love for western money. If you have the funds ($$$$$$$$), you can do pretty much whatever you want.

But if you aren’t extremely wealthy, you get to experience the oppressive true nature of the place.

Guess which group goes to Dubai and tells people about their experiences.

But why were they watching in the first place? How did they know their ages?

I’m curious how the authorities were even aware of this occurring. The article says they were on holiday, so it’s not like there was much time. How did anyone notice their ages? Was it just fishing for a charge because of unrelated reasons?

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong”

-H. L. Mencken

Germany passed a number of laws in the wake of the Third Reich and the Holocaust. The idea being that if such speech was banned, it could prevent the next one from getting a foothold. It definitely sounds like this is what they’re referring to

Wages rising? Not if they can help it. Other people mentioned prison labor. But they’re overlooking child labor, which is already being brought back in multiple states. Throw in some pretty weakly disguised slave labor in the form of company stores, and there’s no reason to pay actual workers what they’re worth.

Leaving you with 80% of the revenue you, yourself, directly generate is unheard of in this day and age. If you have anything like a 9-5, you’re probably getting around 10-20%. The rest goes to all your bosses, and most importantly of all, the company shareholders.

At a recent (niche) music festival, they said it takes 50,000 streaming songs to pay the artist as much as a single CD sale.

It also seems to be related to Dunning-Kruger, in that people are very bad at recognizing their own gaps in knowledge.

They weren’t at the time. It shocked the nation.

That said, Stern was also clearly saying anything to get a reaction.

Strictly speaking, few if any of them retain their own rights to the music. Most are owned by the label. Look on any CD, official video, etc. You’ll see Copyright Sony Music, or Universal, etc.

It also means they probably can’t take legal action against Trump’s use of it.

The only reason I could believe it, is that it’s happened before. See: Reagan and the Iran hostages.

Still, I’m going to need a better source. This seems uncharacteristically competent.