partial_accumen

The restaurant has had to add a 23% service charge in lieu of gratuity to bridge the wage gap between front and back-of-house staff.

Is this a 23% charge on top of tipping the front-of-house staff? Isn’t a “service charge” disingenuous? Why not raise prices by 23% instead?

But their entire job is signing up to be the fall guy as the face of the company. That’s why golden parachutes are a thing and an incredibly unpopular CEO resigns in “disgrace” then is immediately hired by another corporation often in a drastically different field. Because, again, their only job is to be the face of the company for when something unpopular happens.

This is inaccurate. I have knowledge in this area if you’re interested in accuracy and can explain why it looks like what you’re describing, but if you’re just interested in your rant, I don’t want to get in your way. If you’re interested let me know.

Ukraine HAD a deal with Russia ensuring its peace and its borders. It was called the Budapest Memorandum. Russia was the one violating the deal Russia had agreed to.

the solutions themselves are pretty simple to understand.

…and…

Tax the wealthy invest in public services and infrastructure

Sure that sounds great, but realistically what would it take to do that? Thank you for providing a great example of why “simple” is anything but. To do this there would need to be a massive coordination of candidates that all speak at the same time during an election cycle with talking points about improving the lower and middle class while also appeasing powerful entrenched interested. The statements would have to be powerful enough attract the “simple solution” Americans but not specific enough to reveal the actual mechanism of taxing the wealthy. At the same time the other side could promise the world without any strings attaching them to accountability to deliver on those things. To move to the next step the Democrats would need to get elected in a powerful enough majority to actually vote enough and not be blocked. That right there is likely the first impossibility.

Second, the newly elected Democrats would have to mostly change their policy on taxation to do that massive tax increase on the wealthy. This starts a clock of about 1.5 years until the midterms because powerful entrenched interests will use their power and money to obliterate Democratic representation in the House. Further, with the filibuster now gone, the protection for the newly implemented wealth tax legislation can be overturned by newly elected officials from the other side, and now because the Democratic benevolent duplicity is revealed, the powerful entrenched interests will throw their weight behind weak Democratic candidates or for other side for the next 20 years.

The democrats have an elitism problem, their party doesn’t appeal to the average American even though their policies do. The candidates they run tend to appeal more to college educated persons but far less to those who don’t hold post-secondary degrees.

People love simple answers to problems. Unfortunately, the problems we’re facing are incredibly complex and don’t have simple realistic answers. Simply looking solutions have complicated consequences that aren’t immediately obvious. The average American (that doesn’t hold post-secondary education) typically doesn’t understand this. So when a problem is explained and a solution that addresses it is presented, it usually leaves them confused.

Their policies also often times don’t do enough to actually help the average person

…not enough help, I agree.

and lack universality which is desperately needed as the economy continues to get worse and every day life continues to get harder.

You lost on me on this one. Universality? As in a living minimum wage that would benefit not only those struggling on the poverty line, but also help billionaires?

They refuse to acknowledge this and continue to lose as a result.

This is where I more strongly disagree. This goes back to my first point.

We’re facing very complex problems that don’t have simple answers. However, the other side is providing simple to understand solutions. The problem is those simple solutions are horrendous, and aren’t actually solutions. Example:

• Americans are struggling with low wages. The other side says its because of foreigners and moves to arrest and deport them. Simple right? Except you and I both know the low wages has nothing to do with immigrants, and instead on corporate America and captured politicians keeping wages low while productivity continues to rise.

If the other side simply gives simple “common sense” solutions that a typical American understands (even if its wrong), then that will be appealing to them instead of a realistic complex solution which promises far fewer benefits. What are Democrats to do here that can counter the infinite depth of lies of the other side?

If you can’t have everything, you’d prefer nothing? Isn’t that the same logic that got us a second trump term?

That would be good for Lemmy.

RHEL 7 and RHEL 5 need to be flipped in your meme.

Any large enterprise still running RHEL 5 in Prod (or even, yes, older RHEL versions) has fully accepted the risks and will grumble about supporting it, but go forward with whatever workarounds are necessary to keep the application running on it running. The RHEL 7 folks, however, are modern enough that the answer for any problem is “Upgrade to RHEL 9, because we know you can with some effort, because we don’t want to waste time on supporting something you should be able to upgrade away from”.

This is the game of chicken in a modern enterprise for app teams. If their application is critical enough to business continuity and they remain on RHEL 7 long enough, they too will join the select few applications in the org that either get a cash injection for an application rewrite to modern RHEL 9 or be enshrined next to the RHEL 5 apps still running with grumbling, but continued support.

In a perfect world these EOL unsupported OSes should be retired and replaced with modern supported version, but we’re talking about reality now which is what the modern enterprise is, and which is far far from the perfect world.