The biggest misunderstanding most people have about non-profits is that they don't exist to make money. They absolutely do. Just because you're a 501(c) it doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of ways to get paid exorbitant amounts. The most common form of this is hiring "consultants" ( who do little but cash the check ).

The problem with hospitals/prisons isn't that they're "for profit", it's that there's a ton of money to be "filtered" ( laundered, tomato tomato ) through them. At the end of the day you need people with integrity and fiscal sense running them to be efficient.

We've lost that first qualification a long while ago; finding someone of integrity ( enough to resist the corruption ) is a lost art, if anyone even wanted to find them. I'm not convinced they even exist anymore.

Once you learn the idiosyncrasies of the self checkout lanes, they're invariably faster than staffed lanes, for a few reasons:

1) The queuing is often more intelligent. For normal lanes, you pick a lane and you're stuck there, whereas self checkouts are usually 1 queue per 4 ( or more! ) registers. It's the difference between serial vs parallel. Which is compounded by...

2) Those that prefer the staff registers are invariably slower and unable to handle such new technology as credit cards. When forced to use self checkouts they end up clogging up a register for far longer than they should.

3) Finally; I'm far faster checking myself out than any clerk has ever been.

Meanwhile, all you really need to be aware of while using the self checkout is to START with the bag, and place your items directly in the bag on the scale while scanning. Do not remove any items until you're at the payment screen. That's it.

I far prefer self checkouts, to the extent that it influences which stores I shop at.

Similar, but it's a civil suit.

Since Reddit is a non-party (they aren't the one being sued) there are many limitations. For example, you can usually use a subpoena to get an original document from a third party if you know the document already exists and have already seen it but need an original. There are many different rules and laws about what can be requested and what cannot. Generally you can't go on a "fishing expedition" with a non-party. In contrast for someone who is a party, if you can convince the judge that something smells fishy enough you're allowed to go fishing for documents in civil suits.

Ultimately all the different rules give broad discretion to the judge. The companies file a motion to compel turning over the documents, and the judge hears arguments with a 'more likely than not' standard, and the 'balance of harms' done in either direction. The judge also considers concepts like the likelihood of success, if there is the possibility of irreparable harm (like revealing trade secrets), if something is harmful to the status quo (like discovery would harm or help something else beyond the trial), and other factors. Judges also need to consider if there are other, better sources for the information. They look at the rights of individuals versus the rights of society as a whole, the harms and benefits to each, the costs and difficulties and burdens, and much more.

Judges balance all of it and try their best. So if they get a motion to compel discovery by a non-party, the civil violation is relatively minor but the document would cause people to lose jobs or close businesses, or if the consequences of the subpoena could cost millions of dollars for a violation that has a maximum penalty of thousands of dollars, the judge can deny the request.

Most likely it will be like the past cases. There is very little the studios can gain, the value is low but the potential damage is high, the person's ability to engage in anonymous speech can be seriously harmed. The past judgements showed the judge understood the extremely limited value; it puts a huge target on the individual and does great harm, but the only benefits to the studio is that it might give an address that might match a known infringer, but doesn't give any actual evidence of infringement, nor identity of a person who might have infringed. Huge harm for nearly no social benefit, the harms outweigh the benefit.

We discovered 856 new genders this last year, as well as dozens of new tools of oppression being used by the colonizers.

Remember when the industry was trying to force that down our throats?

In retrospect, I'd rather have the option of 3D tech and dumb screens than the "smart" crap everywhere today.

When I visited Georgia I was amazed at how nice their Walmarts were. The cheap hotels were far superior to anything I've stayed at in CA as well.

In fact the entire experience was eye opening to me; a Central Valley native, all the dirt, trash and homelessness I just kind of assumed was "normal" ( even though I knew it wasn't ).

Seeing a clean city first hand was eye opening. Even the dirt cheap seedy motels on the side of the freeway were waaay better.

Chatbot or live human, there is no way I'd participate in such a process if my employer paid for it. That concern aside, as they touched on, they have no idea if this even works, yet they're already pushing out to folks; who's to say your goals are the same as those that are writing the chatbot?

Finally; is the chatbot subject to the same regulations that real therapists are? The details on the website are a bit thin in this regard, which immediately makes me highly suspicious.

It's...a bit more complex than that, wouldn't you say?

First of all, some comics were like that certainly. So the target audience derived from those comics would be nostalgia for adults.

Other comics were decidedly less so; Demon in a Bottle?

My point is; there's no reason why the super hero genre should be considered dead or played out; merely that hollywood's inability to tell a decent story is limiting it's evolution.

Uh...ok.

Perhaps up your meds a bit, then go watch Farscape. They really nailed a great "good" vs "evil" dynamic there, both with Crais and then 100% with Scorpious.

Just phenomenal work.

I don't know that people are tired of it, but they are tired of the lazy writing and being proselytize at.

What Marvel should be doing is really leaning into their villains, instead of killing them off every movie. Make them compelling, interesting. Make them the heroes of their own stories ( killmonger and thanos jump to mind ). Give the protagonists something meaningful to strive against.

They should also be more excited about a hero's limitations rather than what they can do. What can't their powers do is at least as interesting as what they can do. Play that angle up, show them failing, so when they succeed it actually means something...instead of the usual "plot armor" of the more recent flicks.

Personally, I'd love to see an inversion of the good vs evil formula; start it out with the hero taking what they think is the moral stance, only for them to grow and see how wrong they were over the course of the movie, until you see that the villain was right the entire time ( think: ala Farscape ).

You know, instead of relying on pretty faces, CGI and political messages, have they thought about...perhaps...you know...telling a good story well?

Crazy, I know, but they should give it a shot and see what happens.

One of the perks about living in CA is that we only have earthquakes.

I know, I know, "only". But if you're far enough away from tall buildings and common episcenters, they're hardly more than an inconvenience. I'll take that over literal hell fire ( or Fingers of God like they get elsewhere ).

...is trump in the room with us right now?

So you don't know either?

If you read the article, 35m of that 140m settlement includes paying the US treasury 35m. Why?