Yeah I don’t understand how this is different than headscale, but I’m very much not savvy on the pipes and tubes that make the Internet go round. Can anyone explain?

It’s worth noting that not only did I not have to create this meme, I didn’t have to Google that hard to find it.

Yeah no prob. I think most people just…don’t read their owners manuals. Not just sedan owners either. You see it with big trucks too where people haul stuff that’s WAY too heavy for their brakes, or load trailers with the weight all towards the back (asking for fishtailing). Sometimes I think it’s a miracle any of us survive day to day.

If those are highway legal I might be very interested once I sell my project car. Thanks!

IKEA and home depot both have loading zones typically where after you’re done shopping you can go get your truck, bring it to the front, load up, then be on your way. Costco and Best Buy will let you do it too for big TVs or furniture, and I’m sure other places don’t care either. I’ve definitely parked in the fire lane in front of a Harbor Freight to load up a super heavy hydraulic press and no one cares.

I’ve done that too back when I lived in the city, with the bed boxes all the way up into the front of the car, interfering with my stick shift if I hit a bump or slammed on the brakes, and just generally being unsafe. My point isn’t that it’s impossible to buy things at IKEA without a giant truck, my point is if you own a giant truck, for work or because you DIY constantly or own a boat or RV…this is literally the exact situation it’s built for. You CAN handle the situation other ways, but why would you if you already own a truck?

I hate giant fuck off oversized trucks as much as the next guy, and if this was sitting in someone’s driveway as their only car, with nothing to haul, a clean bed, and you only see them take it to the grocery store… Then yeah let’s all shit on them together. But everyone is so carried away with hate they’re dunking on a guy doing one of the best use cases for this truck and actually being polite about it!

“Wow, your bed is in such good shape.” is great subtle shade throw at a truck owner.

Not that everyone doesn’t do it (I definitely have on my Subaru Outback), but cars typically have really low weight allowances on top since they’re usually not designed for hauling on the roof. Even my Outback, a car that comes with a rack and all kinds of accoutrements for it, has a 150 pound limit. So you really don’t wanna put much IKEA furniture out there to risk damaging your roof, especially if you hit a bump. Also, damaging your roof or the frame can sometimes total your car, because it is a main safety feature for accidents in which you roll over.

Every time I read this take I am a little surprised it’s so prevalent. I guess I just go to the hardware store or IKEA or get free furniture on the side of the road more than nearly everyone else on the Internet. I would LOVE a truck, since my Subaru often isn’t big enough for what I need/want to do. Now granted, I want a small truck with a full size bed that can fit a sheet of plywood, not a giant hauler for a boat or RV*, and certainly not an inexplicable 4-door truck for hauling people with a 6-ft bed like you mention, but it’s still wild to me that there aren’t more heavy DIYers or even new home owners like me on Lemmy. Maybe I’m on the wrong instance.

*Technically we could probably get away with a truck like that since my wife needs to haul giant boat trailers for work, but they provide a rental. We’d probably make more money with a reimbursement using our own, but I don’t have space to store a giant F350 or whatever because we DO have a giant RV, but not a tow behind because I don’t like them.

I mean, the meme says at an IKEA parking lot. If ever there were a completely valid time to use that truck and park it in a lot, that’s it.

Hear hear! The government should completely get out of marriage and leave it to religion, or completely go in on encouraging marriage (actually domestic partnerships) between whoever if we think it’s going to be good for communities. Before Obergefell I would’ve said marriage is old, let religions have it. Encouraging people to take part in their community, have close ties with benefits like hospital visitation, tax breaks, etc should all be domestic partnership based, and we should’ve made everyone get domestic partnered - marriage should have conferred no civic benefits. As is, we have a weird hybrid religious and civic thing called marriage but at least everyone has access now.

But yeah as far as encouraging families we should do the same incentive wise with having kids and immigration to help with our birth rate problems, and continue trying to make home ownership more affordable (and more varied - looking at you missing middle housing) and encouraging it to again, incentivize investing in local communities. Civic policy like this stuff gets jumbled and we should be more clear about what we want to incentivize and why.

I am shocked I had to scroll this far to find someone saying this stuff exists. Literally look around on Lemmy, check the comment section of the Washington Post, like half of TikTok, a huge portion of twitter, etc. All of it full of angry radical liberals, actual communists, people crying for guillotines, deriding uneducated hicks and rednecks. Mocking all christians instead of just the fundamentalists, constantly deriding white men for existing, even just dumb infantile names (e.g. Repug-licans). Literally last night at my local college, some portion of protestors started calling for lynching college administrators. Now I’m not saying pro-palestinian protests are full of those people, just like the average liberal would be pretty ok with universal healthcare but miiiight not favor seizing the means of production or banning landlords. But even though these people are a minority, they’re just like the crazy right wingers - they are loud, and paint with the same wide brush that hardcore conservatives do, just using a different color.

And I want to be clear, this isn’t some enlightened centrism bullshit where I’m saying “both sides suck.” I am actually very, very left wing (though on Lemmy sometimes it seems like that makes me a moderate because I’m not calling for guillotining the rich, but I digress), and I probably agree with 90% of the angry people’s actual policy views. But at least anger and vitriol wise, and even a tiny portion of radical policy-wise, the fringe of “both sides” do kind of suck. Not everyone who is angry fits that profile (certainly I get angry thinking about climate change, but I’m not out there telling everyone who drives a truck they’re evil). But many people like that absolutely exist, and OP not seeing them likely is a result of our fractured echo chamber world, certainly not because they aren’t there and angry.

That’s a pretty unfair characterization. He called out multiple times how it’s fine for the other guy if that’s what he wants, but that it’s not his own specific wants. And his central thesis is fine: coasting is fine as long as you’re going to be ok with where you coast to. If you want to be somewhere else then coasting is not fine - but it’s up to you where you want to go.

In my experience, at first managing is always harder than doing it yourself, because you’re usually put in charge of managing people who do what you used to do.

Have you ever been in a situation where you’ve had to do something at work, but you were hamstrung by your tools or timelines? Like, oh man this would be way easier in Python but you are only approved for MS office, so you have to struggle through some VBA. Or man, I could whip this together super fast in Ruby but for some reason this has to be in plain JavaScript. Or maybe you could make this really well, but not in the two day turnaround they need. All that is frustrating, but you usually find a way to perform given these imperfect scenarios.

Now, imagine VBA has feelings. You can’t even really complain about VBA, because it’s not malicious. It’s just bad at its job. So now instead of quickly coding a workaround in a new language (but you learn fast so not the end of the world), you have to help someone get there and do it on their own. And you can’t just do it for them because you have 4 VBAs. Oh, and by the way, JavaScript is malicious. It’s actively trying to avoid work, or maybe trying to make VBA look bad. So now you have to convince JavaScript that it’s in its best interest to work. Sometimes its a carrot, sometimes a stick, but you’re responsible for getting functionality out, and it’s more functionality than you could possibly create on your own.

That’s what managing people is like. A deep desire to do it yourself because it will be better and faster, but you don’t have time, and also you need these people to be better. So you have to learn to teach instead of do, and support emotionally and intellectually and motivate instead of just bitching to your manager when someone else isn’t getting their work done and it’s affecting your work - now you’re responsible for getting their work to be good. It’s really hard, and some people who were amazing achievers and doers can’t hack it when they have to help other people achieve and do. It’s why you have so many bad manager stories. The skillsets are nearly completely different.

The nice part though is when you get good enough at managing that you start managing people that do things you can’t do, or do things better than you ever could. Suddenly there’s some whiz kid straight out of college who knows more about data science from their degree than you did your whole career actuallydoing it, and all they really need help with is applying it. Then you start helping with vision and the “why” of things. “Yes, you could do it that way, but remember our actual end goal is X, so that’s all we really care about.” Or you help people work together to make a cohesive whole. That’s when managing gets really rewarding. It can still be harder than doing, or it might be easier if you’re a big picture thinker, but it gets different eventually.

You should because that’s how tipping works. No one likes tipping (as a customer anyway, plenty of servers and owners do), but until servers are provided with a living wage that’s how it works. You’re not changing the system by tipping less - you’re just being a dick.

And not for nothing, but there is a slight difference between soda service and a simple pour service. Actual liquor service usually comes with someone asking how you like it (e.g. on the rocks vs straight vs three drops of water) whereas a soda is just a soda. Sitting at a bar, no one is gonna get pissy if you’re not tipping 15-20% on opening beers or straight pours, but that’s just how table service works.

You have clearly never worked in the service industry. They make the same sub minimum wage as every server unless there’s a local ordinance otherwise.

It’s a question of opportunity cost. In order to be really attentive they work fewer tables, so they need to have higher margins to make up for lack of volume. If you can’t afford a 15% tip, or 20% for good service, you shouldn’t be eating at an expensive restaurant to begin with. That’s the social compact in America, that’s how it works. Until servers start being paid a living wage, you’re not the arbiter of what constitutes paying “enough”, you’re just rejecting cultural norms and hurting servers so you can save a few bucks.

I hope you’re not capping your sit down restaurant tips in America. Most more expensive places have waiters working far fewer tables so they can be more attentive, and they’re also usually the cream of the crop waiter wise. The higher total tips but still a normal percentage are definitely what they need/deserve to make the longer meals and fewer tables make sense financially (assuming the service actually was good of course).

Note I’m not advocating for any of this “20% is the new baseline” bullshit, but you definitely shouldn’t be capping your tips. Same goes for capping your bar tips unless you’re talking about only pouring wine/drafts or opening beers, and then I’d still advocate a per drink cap of like a buck per - definitely not a total cap.

Well that’s just false. Many people don’t tip for takeout (I don’t), but the customary amount in the US is 10% if you’re going to. I worked in the service industry almost 20 years ago and that amount was supposed to go to bartenders and hostesses who handled the takeout, and it was a nice supplement since takeout and busy bar times didnt normally overlap. It didn’t use to be expected (unlike post covid where tipping is out of control), but if they bring the food out to you or if you have any special orders it’s definitely common. I still bristle at the idea and did back then too, but it’s a far cry from “nobody in their right mind”.

The idea that you think people in the Bush administration sent soldiers to Afghanistan to make money is insane, and shows me you have never worked in government or met anyone who has. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Iraq, not Afghanistan (since the US was attacked and the whole world agreed on going into Afghanistan). But even for Iraq, no one is making calculations on what’s good for the military industrial complex - they’re guessing on if the cost of human life is worth the human lives saved and suffering prevented, and yes “spreading democracy”. We can certainly mock it now, and talk about the WMD justification proving false, but the idea of going to war to somehow make money is insane. War is a net negative (look up broken window theory) and everyone in government knows it. The point of war is to change the global order, not pad pocketbooks, and effecting global change still would be the point even if it worked for making money - which it doesn’t.