tortoise_face

If my time isn't free to use as I will it's work. I don't care if it involves zero physical strain or if I'm on a call or in a meeting. Being in a meeting is obviously work.

Your company is trying to get you to work as many hours as possible for as little money as possible, as a working person you should strive for the opposite. As a worker you are selling your labor (of which you possess a limited amount) and any rational actor in a capitalist society should attempt to maximize the gains on what they have to sell by charging the buyer as much as they can for as little as they can. I don't expect a large corporation to strive for less profit because they're "already making more than they did before".

To be clear I don't _like_ this state of affairs but so long as these are the rules ignoring them only deprives yourself and helps your company.

Excellent party/social game. An additional variant we play with is to create an "Oops, All Spies" deck to throw in the random selection. Everyone believing that they are the only one who doesn't know the location inevitably leads to hilarity.

I. Love. This. It's genuine emotional revelations mixed with mundanity mixed with outrageous sexual deviancy.

Because value is a combination of human labor AND the means of production and the means of production aren't owned by working people. I can start making cheeseburgers but McDonald's owns the efficient equipment, the marketing, the good locations to sell them, etc. such that I can't possibly make profit outside their system. So I'm forced to essentially rent space in their kitchen in order to be compensated.

What? Maybe she deserves more money because she works full time and can't afford to eat? Where are you getting this jealousy angle from?

The idea that because someone doesn't have specialized skills means that they don't deserve a living wage is a bit silly. You're appealing to free market principles as a justification of free market principles. You're attacking this specific person for her poor financial skills but ignoring the larger issue of ALL the people Yelp hires and pays less than $10/hr and all the people in the country in similar positions. As long as we accept that someone has to do these jobs and that the unemployed and underpaid have very little leverage then this has to be seen as a systematic problem and not an individual failing.

Did you consider that maybe making a tiny wage is better than no wage at all? Even in SF? Did you consider that maybe she has personal/family reasons to live where she does?

It just seems a little ridiculous to suggest someone just "get another job" somewhere else without knowing basically anything about their situation. It also deflects from the issue that Yelp is paying these ridiculously low wages to their full time employees.

Why not care about a name? To someone who cares about animal rights the name "Meat!" and cute little pictures of steaks trivializes and normalizes something they might find abhorrent. You wouldn't name your app "Abortion!" and if you find yourself saying "well, that's far more offensive than 'Meat!'" then that's just you assuming your values apply to everyone.

Also, there's a bit of a gap between being uncomfortable with something and being "impossible to keep happy".

They can of course name their app whatever they want, but it seems to me that if you're selling something as innocuous as a git hosting platform that you'd do your best to distance yourself from something so needlessly alienating to potential customers.