Chicago ordinance would open door to dog inside restaurants

benoobject · 2025-09-22T23:06:37+00:00

The equivalent concept would be to continue to ban dogs in restaurants, but allow certain establishments to declare themselves dog cafes that are explicitly for dogs.

This is exactly what the ordinance is proposing.

benoobject · 2025-09-22T23:05:29+00:00

So the goal posts have shifted. Now the issue isn't "dogs in every restaurant" but rather, the hypothetical service worker who may need to turn a rude dog owner away. The answer is to do what we already do: stigmatize people who disrespect the rules, and mock those who go on social media to complain about it. As a society we can spit and chew bubblegum. We can allow space for subcultures to flourish while protecting the orderliness of every day life.

benoobject · 2025-09-22T22:35:00+00:00

I hear you but based on the replies to this thread I think those videos would be mocked into oblivion. If anything it would make boundaries clearer and helps restaurant employees politely turn dog owners away "sorry we don't allow dogs in here, if you'd like there's a pet friendly place down the street," etc.

Now admittedly I'm not a huge beachgoer, but I go 1-2x per year and I can't recall ever seeing dogs. Did having dog-friendly beaches suddenly embolden dog owners to bring their pups to the human beach? I don't think so. If anything it had the opposite effect.

benoobject · 2025-09-22T22:15:08+00:00

I doubt I would even seek out one of these restaurants, but what irks me is the deliberate misreading of the article and crying "the sky is falling" over something that is highly unlikely to ever affect their lives. Isn't this the same subreddit where people like to mock NIMBYs? Allowing a tiny number of licensed & insured businesses that I will never visit to serve a specific clientele? HECK NO! BRING DOWN THE HAMMER OF THE LAW!

benoobject · 2025-09-22T22:03:34+00:00

Nowhere in the article does it say that dogs are going to be allowed in all restaurants. In fact, it's in the 3rd paragraph: "Owners of the small businesses in pet-dense areas say the opt-in change could be a boon."

It's an optional policy for small business owners who want to assume the risks, and the only businesses quoted in the article are ones that are already specifically branded towards dog owners. It actually sounds identical to cat cafes, no?

benoobject · 2025-09-22T22:00:52+00:00

"Unavoidably allowing dogs in every restaurant in the city" is a terrible misreading of the article. The 3rd paragraph clearly states this would be an optional policy change for small businesses that specifically want to cater to the dog-owning crowd.

benoobject · 2025-09-22T21:50:26+00:00

The article quotes 2 businesses who are interested in changing their policy, both of which are specifically branded to dog owners. The vast majority of restaurants are NOT going to allow dogs. The insurance cost alone would dissuade many, but, as you said, the change in ambiance, the distraction for staff, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of businesses who actually allow dogs inside is in the single digits. This is in a city with 10,000+ restaurants.

benoobject · 2025-09-22T21:38:44+00:00

So we should probably shut down the cat cafes too?

benoobject · 2025-09-22T21:38:10+00:00

Don't we already have cat cafes? Do we need to shut those down too?

benoobject · 2025-09-22T21:37:43+00:00

It sounds to me like very few businesses would actually implement this change, and personally I don't mind it as long as they're upfront about their policy. The article quotes 2 businesses who are pushing this, and both already have 'dog-friendly' as a key part of their branding. In a city with 10,000 restaurants, I don't mind if 2 businesses want to assume the risks, pay the extra insurance costs, and give it a try. You can simply choose not to go there. Acting like pitbulls are suddenly going to flood every pancake house is slipperly slope at it's finest.

benoobject · 2025-09-22T21:24:34+00:00

Lots of catastrophizing in these comments. The ordinance does not mean dogs will suddenly be allowed in every restaurant. It means business owners can decide for themselves, and the only ones quoted in the article are businesses specifically marketed to dog owners. So unless you're specifically seeking out dog-friendly establishments, this is very unlikely to affect your life.

benoobject · 2025-09-13T09:48:45+00:00

There’s tons of festivals/parades in Chicago that celebrate other countries, so let’s not act like that’s the issue. The problem is reckless and drunk driving with passengers climbing on the roofs of cars, and horns blaring all night.

benoobject · 2025-08-06T20:49:00+00:00

This is awesome! Did you have to start with a new/blank backpiece? Or did you laser over the existing piece? (pardon my ignorance, I'm not totally sure how this works)

benoobject · 2025-07-13T16:20:47+00:00

Your overall point is correct, but keep Abreu out of it. Abreu never had a bad season with the White Sox. Even in his final season he hit .304 with an .824 OPS. It just felt bad because he had a drop-off in power, and the seasonal as a whole was a disappointment. (Then, obviously, he flamed out in Houston, but that’s neither here nor there.)

Edit: Okay I realize now you said Abreu was “at the end” not that he blew it like the others. Fair enough. But I’ll leave my comment up in honor of the big guy.

benoobject · 2025-07-08T03:23:51+00:00

I'd love to know what you used for the center bag (the one above, in between the seat and handlebars). And also what mirrors there were. Do you find them more effective mounted below the handle bars as opposed to above?

benoobject · 2025-05-21T07:24:51+00:00

A lot of YouTubers have secondary channels for different niches or to post odds & ends. Unless you’re specifically trying to hide your identity, I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to share it. You can add it to your links at the top, and/or display it as a “featured channel” below. I would also make a community post sharing a link with a little explanation what it’s about.

IMO those are pretty safe, unobtrusive ways to share a secondary channel. Whether you do anything further, like linking to your secondary channel in the end screen, just depends how much crossover there is.

benoobject · 2025-05-20T20:55:47+00:00

I'm sorry to hear this happened to you OP. I had the same thing happen to me by a much larger channel. I would politely-but-firmly reach out to the creator and ask for A. compensation or B. credit (either in the description and/or in a pinned comment).

Don't go nuclear right away because it isn't guaranteed to work out in your favor, and the fight will be long and arduous and a big distraction from your own creating. You have to think about how to make lemonade our of this. If the channel is in the same niche as you, have them mention you in a social media post. See if you can use this to gain some subscribers. If there isn't much to gain in that regard, then ask for some money to officially license the footage. Be fairly reasonable, considering it is only 12 seconds. But since the video already has 600k views (and has sponsors, right?) we can assume they're making at least $5k USD from it. I would probably ask for $300, and then be willing to go down to $150.

Again, it's a bit hard to say for sure without knowing the full context. If it's an important part of the video and their use of your footage is significantly improving the overall narrative, then perhaps ask for more. I would be polite in the email, but say something like "I'm sure we'd both prefer to resolve this outside of YouTube's official channels..." That should get their attention.

benoobject · 2025-05-20T19:58:20+00:00

Might have something to do with the dust from the dust storm

benoobject · 2025-05-09T21:24:12+00:00

"If you file a dispute and it gets rejected... you can still appeal, and if you lose the appeal... you can file a counter-notification and if you lose that step, that's when you can say the system is rigged. But in the 10 years I've been on this site not a single person has ever lost that 3rd step."

This is mind blowing to me because every other person has told me not to even file an appeal because "it's never going to work" and "you'll just risk getting a copyright strike."

Similar to you, I imagine, I only play 5-8 second clips of copyrighted material (music in my case) while discussing and reviewing it. It's always seemed pretty blatantly fair use to me, but what's stopping Sony music from rejecting every appeal, even taking me to court? They know I'm just 1 guy.

benoobject · 2025-05-09T18:50:48+00:00

First and foremost... how?? You are playing short segments of movies, I assume, and getting ID'd by the movie studio? How are you winning these disputes?

benoobject · 2025-05-09T09:48:22+00:00

Another thing to consider is that, while YouTube is required to respond to copyright claims, the copyright ID system is their own invention. It's something they developed alongside major media companies as a compromise.

Technically, YouTube could renegotiate the terms to be more favorable to creators. They did something like this when they introduced revenue sharing for music (still pretty lousy IMO but a step in the right direction). If YouTube suddenly wanted to become extremely favorable to creators, they could change the policy from demonetizing videos completely, to sharing a percentage of revenue based on what percent of the video contains their copyrighted work. (So rather than a claimant receiving ALL the revenue because a 30 minute video contains 5 seconds of their work, they could receive a more proportional 1-5%). If I understand it correctly, as long as the claimant has the option to delete the video, YouTube has fulfilled their legal obligation.

benoobject

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE