Oregon, land of mandatory full service,
ROTFL. You don't know anything about Oregon.
Oregon, land of mandatory full service,
ROTFL. You don't know anything about Oregon.
What US are you talking about? I haven't had to pre-pay for gas in PA, MD, NY, or VA in over 15 years.
Oregon. Are you paying in cash or credit?
Yeah, but from the carrier, not Amazon (who can't control it).
Amazon knows very well it cannot make the delivery promise in many cases using the delivery method they choose, so yes, they do control it. You know they control it because they will often mark the shipment as "delivered" when you track it, even though it doesn't arrive until the next day.
They'll usually overnight products at no charge if you're annoyed enough to write them
I went through that process for a $25 item that they said would arrive Monday but didn't. I would have preferred some money back on the order, but I wound up having the hassle of returning one of the original when it finally did show up. "Keep it to make up for the inconvenience" would have been nice.
As to the original question: Amazon has two big outs they use when promising "second day" delivery. First, if the delivery is via USPS, they consider the item delivered when it arrives at the local post office, not at your house. And they often promise "second day by EIGHT PM", which means that any delivery to a commercial address where the receiving dept. goes home at 5PM is actually at least three day. And they know when an address is commercial.
Its the same reason I keep my wallet in my pocket until the cashier has rung up my total at a brick&mortar.
Then don't go to a gas station in the US. Almost all of them in this area have gone to a "pre-pay" mode, where they think you must be a criminal who will drive away without paying unless they make you pay first. Of course, when you want to fill up, you have to guess how much it will take. If you guess low, you don't get a fill. If you pay too much, you have to trust them to give you the excess back.
I stopped at one such station the other day (because the Shell in town that doesn't pull this crap was closed already) and walked inside, expecting that they would realize I wasn't going to drive off if I was inside the store. Nope. After about five minutes of waiting for gas, and telling the checkout girl I was waiting on pump 2, the attendant walks back in and tells me he isn't going to pump anything until I pay.
A pox on such people.
marketing that actually figures out the actual preferences of consumers and only targets them with relevant content.
You mean like when I search for something on Amazon and I get shown ads for the same stuff when I visit my local newspaper's website? That kind of irrelevant garbage intrusion on privacy?
A large part of your response seems like you think you're arguing with me,
Were I arguing with you, I'd tell you why you were wrong, not why you were right.
I don't see why not, as long as your definition of "people who aren't right" isn't about race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Here's where you are wrong. It is easy for any significant filter on subjective qualities to be interpreted as illegal.
That is, if your objection is something like, "This won't work once you have black employees!" then you should fuck right off.
First, that very well could be a large part of the reason your 40 person company doesn't need a CEO (a monoculture, either way), but you would certainly be a fool to say it out loud. The problem comes when your "people who are right" don't happen to include any black people for whatever reason. The assumption is you intended what you just said, and we see your own reaction to that.
But labor laws don't really prevent other forms of discrimination, based on things like incompetence, lack of qualifications, or bad behavior.
But those are not the things that you'd need to select for to make your 40 person CEO-less company continue to work at 100 persons. It's not just an issue of qualifications or "bad behaviour." It's "able to work well in a leaderless environment." Not just that, but "work well in THIS leaderless environment". That means you may wind up selecting someone from a majority who is less qualified over a minority with much better qualifications, or vice versa. Or selecting only men, or only women. THAT is a recipe for an EOE lawsuit whether you're actually discriminating against a protected class or not.
Statistics are how this stuff is measured, because looking at each case individually by regulators is too hard. It applies in hiring, and Title IX, bank loans, and all kinds of places. Anything that makes the stats unbalanced is prima facia evidence of wrongdoing, even if the reason is as simple as "no women applied." Obviously you discriminated in the job announcement to dissuade women, then. If your selection criteria for "this leaderless workplace" happen to result in a statistical anomaly for any reason, you're a target.
That's not having a (one) CEO.
No, it's having a single board that acts as CEO.
It is still a long way from "nobody is in charge." And when it comes to filing legal paperwork, you can be sure there is "someone in charge".
So I think that this could work in the US, at least in companies that are run well and have a good senior staff.
If you have the right 40 people, you can have a company run in any style you select for. It takes the right 40 people.
Now grow the company to 100, which means you have to hire another 60. With the EOE and labor laws in the US, do you think you can discriminate against the people who aren't right? Now you have a good percentage of employees who don't fit that management style, and the company fails.
a single CEO. It seems like you could still have a board of senior staff who votes on issues,
So you've replaced a single CEO with the results of a vote between a few "senior staff". That leaves the rest of the company "not in charge".
They're only pretending they don't have a CEO.
That's right, but not because they divided the tasks of the CEO amongst the board. The board, according to the BBC article, only steps in if there is a problem. The mundane tasks of the CEO are done by other people in the company.
But they've lost the one task that a CEO should have: vision. What is the focus and vision for the company? And if the board steps in when this becomes a problem, then they are the CEO en-mass. If one of the employees decides that the company should be making widget X and the board has to step in and say "making X would dilute our brand and isn't our specialty so stop", then they have been the CEO.
The article has this wonderful quote:
But what if the rest of the staff feel that one worker has made a terrible decision? Ms Sundman says that is okay. "At least you did the thing that was right in the moment
No, I think if it was a terrible decision then it was, by definition, not the "thing that was right". And they show a couple of "hand gestures" to be used in meetings that say "move forward" (green) and "block" (red). But the red gesture is also supposed to mean "I'm willing to discuss this". What if someone thinks something is such a terrible idea (and not right at all, much less "in the moment") that it is non-negotiable and merits no discussion?
Bullshit. This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
First, it wasn't this morning, it was in 2012. This is 2017. And second, the supreme court has never made a mistake? Really? Do you want to argue that?
Android only has them turned on if you get an unlocked or non-carrier specific/marketed variant.
Every smart phone I've owned, both unbranded and branded, have had FM tuners enabled.
On the one hand, TFS quotes Pai as saying enabling the FM Radios is a "public safety issue". On the other hand, he says that the government has no place in dictating carriers turn the radio on.
Both are facts. They do not contradict each other.
the government does have a mandate to make sure those carriers are acting in the public's, as well as their shareholders', interests.
The government has no more authority to demand that cell phone companies provide you an FM radio than they do to require you to buy a cellphone that has one, or to buy a 72 hour kit, or to buy lots of other things. That's one reason why ACA was unconstitutional -- there is no authority in the constitution for the US government to force people to buy a commercial product -- and why it created a horrible precedent.
It requires the use of wired earphones because the wire acts as the FM radio antenna. The FCC cannot change that.
In 3rd world it's hard to get more than 150 metres from a phone.
No. The third world includes a lot of places like Africa where there aren't many people at all in very large areas. Maybe you're thinking of second world?
System restarting, wait...