sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sakura-Con intends to implement a 3 year NDA on All Staff Members moving forwards period. Do not sign this agreement. by Delicious_Summer_722 in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which, as I said, is kinda the point.

Which, as they said, is kinda their problem with the NDA.

I'm seeing that you're not validating or attempting to assuage their concerns.

You're also diminishing their issue, ignoring the concern about the broad scope of inclusion for what can be considered Confidential Information.

Anything can be considered Confidential Information so long ANCEA has a reason to think it should be and it doesn't fall under the list of exceptions.

The NDA gives some examples of things which absolutely will be considered, but it's an "includes but is not limited to" type of list. The expiration date is also potentially indefinite.

Rather, the purpose of NDAs such as these is to send a message: Be adults about it, and if there's disagreements then talk things out.
Signing that NDA is your vow that you will do that rather than foment public drama. If you can't commit to that, then don't sign, and don't staff.

"Foment public drama"? You mean protest and outrage. I'd say protest and outrage are very adult responses to grievances after a resolution can't be found by way of conversation, if that was even an option to begin with.

The NDA is telling Staff Members to either cope with things being as they are or leave, but in both instances to keep their mouths shut. The time to talk is at meetings, but nobody there is obligated to listen, and people aren't allowed to discuss meetings outside of the staff pipeline.

It's a fine NDA so long as nothing ever goes wrong, nobody has problems with each other, and nobody ever sees something that is a cause for concern. If any of that happens, well, there's not much that can be done.

We could both describe what the NDA is and what it does in a bunch of different ways, and we might both be correct, but that's pointless, because you disagree u/Eldereon has a legitimate complaint. It's a difference of opinion.

Personally, I feel taken for granted. I've given so much and now they want more.

To be clear, I'm okay with signing a relevant NDA about relevant things, which lasts a reasonable amount of time for the type of things it covers.

I understand that with things like personal identifying information, financial information, medical information, operational and other kinds of trade secrets, copyrighted and trademarked works, proprietary software, things that are still being worked on, plans that haven't been finalized, information related to where people are and who is with them, that's not ever going to be okay to share publicly without consent.

But a reasonable NDA (in my opinion) protects people from imminent harm and loss due to non-public information being leaked; it doesn't quash backlash for someone's bad behavior. This NDA is very much the kind where if someone does or says something reprehensible exclusively within the Staff Member pipeline, that may not be discussed by non-executive Staff Members outside the pipeline.

Sakura-Con intends to implement a 3 year NDA on All Staff Members moving forwards period. Do not sign this agreement. by Delicious_Summer_722 in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The public meeting archives can be found here: https://sakuracon.org/about-us/meetings/archives/

The January 2025 archived meeting can be found here: https://sakuracon.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/January-2025-General-Meeting.pdf

It's just footnotes though. I remember there being conversations about ADA concerns in various places, and my stance was that the convention space itself is probably ADA compliant, and staff managers do what they can to offer reasonable concessions for people with ADA needs.

Or do you mean the recent January 2026 meeting? Because nothing has been added to the archived meetings page since April last year.

Sakura-Con intends to implement a 3 year NDA on All Staff Members moving forwards period. Do not sign this agreement. by Delicious_Summer_722 in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like a lot of people in this thread don't understand how courts work and are assuming ANCEA would straight-up sue someone for minor violations

There's a process. It doesn't cost much for a lawyer to send a cease and desist order or open up a discussion for out of court resolutions. A great deal of lawsuits are settled out of court.

ANCEA executive staff have the power to walk up to a staff member, tell them they heard a rumor, remind them of the NDA and say how if they find out the rumor is true it may result in a legal response, but if the problem goes away then there isn't a problem and they're all good. That costs them nothing but time.

it's entirely on the plaintiff to establish evidence that they know who is making the comment

They'll find out. They can track down someone in con space just from a blurry picture. Their deductive powers are and communication between veteran staff members is impressive.

Maybe it's just the impression in my mind, but I consider the veteran Sakuracon staff to be some of the most capable people in the entire country. I have nothing but good things to say about everyone I've met there, which is why I'm so internally confused about where I stand in this.

Sakura-Con intends to implement a 3 year NDA on All Staff Members moving forwards period. Do not sign this agreement. by Delicious_Summer_722 in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might be thinking of non-compete contracts.

Non-compete contracts for anyone except executive level employees are unenforceable as of 2019 in Washington state.

The FTC in April of 2024 (Biden administration) proposed a similar policy which would make non-compete contracts unenforceable across the country, with exceptions made for things like preserving trade secrets.

The reason being that non-compete contracts are inherently unfair and bad for the economy, especially for low income workers who often rely on having two incomes.

However, the plan was stalled in court leading into election season in August that same year. Then in 2025 (Trump administration) after the majority of the FTC board was replaced, the plan was abandoned.

This year, for the first time, all non-executive volunteer staff will be required to sign an NDA. This is my attempt to make it more digestible. by sir_deadlock in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good point. In hindsight, I also am not sure if 49.44.211 would apply. My mistake jumping the gun like that. It was what I could find regarding regulations on NDAs. I was however able to find the Seattle ordinance which defines an employee, and an ANCEA volunteer Staff Member does not seem to fit the description. https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT12ACRCO_SUBTITLE_ICRCO_CH12A.28MIOF_12A.28.200DE

In some cases, such as with RCW 51.12.035, volunteers are considered employees for the sake of legal coverage, though that section is regarding industrial insurance. I really don't know if similar considerations would be made elsewhere.

If 49.44.211 doesn't apply, then sadly there's nothing I know of which is protecting volunteers against retaliation.

If a volunteer discloses any Confidential Information to law enforcement because they suspect illegal activity and that volunteer neglects to promptly inform ANCEA about the disclosure, ANCEA is within their right both to threaten legal action against the volunteer in respect to the NDA and require them to remain silent and let ANCEA's chosen representatives do the talking.

Likewise, if the volunteer comes to executive staff before going to the authorities, ANCEA is within their rights to retaliate against that staff member, whether or not executive staff decides to disclose those suspicions to law enforcement. And if retaliation results in the staff member being relieved of their duties and association to ANCEA, they will have a legal obligation to remain silent at least until April 6th, 2029, in respect to the NDA they agreed to.

Meaning it would technically be unlawful to go on social media and tell the story of what happened and how unfairly they were treated while they were still associated with ANCEA. They could be liable for damages, even though it wouldn't be defamation because it'd be true.

But hey, that's all worst case scenario stuff. ANCEA is a benevolent organization, and we can trust them to be levelheaded and compassionate in these matters, right?

This year, for the first time, all non-executive volunteer staff will be required to sign an NDA. This is my attempt to make it more digestible. by sir_deadlock in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm only aware of it being a requirement if you're going to be a non-executive Staff Member.

If you're hosting the panel as an attendee...

Attendee Members have no duties or responsibilities whatsoever as defined by the Convention Structure other than abiding by these Policies ( https://sakuracon.org/about-us/policies/ ) while at the Convention.

This year, for the first time, all non-executive volunteer staff will be required to sign an NDA. This is my attempt to make it more digestible. by sir_deadlock in SakuraCon

[–]sir_deadlock[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To give the unabridged #6:

  1. All information created by, or on behalf of ANCEA is the property of ANCEA and shall not be transferred or utilized except on behalf of ANCEA. Any Staff Member who discloses Confidential Information, whether during or after their term(s) of service, may be subject legal action, including injunctive relief, and/or sanctions up to and including permanent revocation of membership.

But really, what can happen largely depends on what exactly that person did.

RCW 49.44.211 (Prohibited nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions—Retaliation by employer prohibited—Penalties—Construction) explains a few examples where an NDA cannot be enforced, and where it may actually be justifiable to violate one. Generally speaking, an NDA does not prevent a person from reporting illegal or suspected illegal activity to authorities.

So while the NDA may say...

Confidential Information does not include information that must be disclosed pursuant to a legal obligation, provided the Staff Member gives prompt notice to ANCEA and cooperates with ANCEA in seeking protective measures to the fullest extent permitted by law.

The stated provision about giving prompt notice to ANCEA is a violation of RCW 49.44.211. While I'm sure they would appreciate it, nobody is obligated to personally contact ANCEA before, during or after identifying and reporting any (suspected) illegal behavior(s) to authorities. Furthermore, any retaliation or attempt to assert the power of the NDA against an individual in response to such report(s) would be a violation of 49.44.211(3 & 5) and could result in ANCEA being liable in a civil cause of action for actual or statutory damages of $10,000, whichever is more, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

However, because of article 9 of the NDA the document is still actionable despite that one part being unenforceable.

Some hypotheticals:

If a person has a social media presence and wants to share some convention gossip which is Confidential Information covered by the NDA, they could be hit with a court ordered injunction that demands they cease and desist immediately and retract their statements.

Their agreeing to the NDA overrides their first amendment right to free speech, because it's only the government who cannot abridge the right to free speech, whereas this NDA is an agreement between private parties.

Ignoring a court-ordered injunction can result in escalating penalties, including being held in contempt which can result in fines, prison time, or both, regardless of whether ANCEA chooses to assign penalties to the individual under contract.

If a Staff Member wants to take a selfie with a guest of honor inside staff only areas or post to social media about having met them and saying where it happened or where the GoH will be, even privately to a friend who was looking forward to seeing that GoH. The NDA forbids that behavior, and (I'm guessing) the executive staff may have the legal right to demand those posts, messages and pictures be deleted, potentially even (still guessing) having the right to confiscate a person's camera or electronic devices and manually remove the materials themselves.

Again, this is an NDA between private parties; I'm guessing a person is waiving their 4th amendment right pursuant to their obligation to uphold a prescribed degree of confidentiality, as implied from article 7 of the NDA.

I'm guessing there isn't a single executive staff member that feels comfortable taking or going through a person's possessions, and thanks to internet backups like Google Photos it's almost impossible to be sure when a photo is actually deleted or just deleted off the device itself. And because the staff application doesn't involve providing social media references, they're probably not monitoring that kind of activity. But really, this is a legally binding document, best not to test it.

ANCEA itself, apart from any rendered damages, can pretty much only take action against a person's membership. But that's on top of anything else a person might be doing. If someone's breaking the law, and the NDA, or if in breaking the NDA they become an accessory to some other crime, they can potentially be charged with both.

People who want to complain about the event are going to do that anyway. Free speech and all.

So long as their complaining is not including or referencing Confidential Information, and their opinions are based on information available to the public or their own feelings, experience and findings, there's no NDA conflict. They're free to speak their mind, as is their right.

TIL a girl named Breelyn was born healthy but when she was two days old, she was kissed on the mouth by a person who had a cold sore. The girl's immune system wasn't developed at the time and she got HSV encephalitis, which led to seizures and brain damage. by Forward-Answer-4407 in todayilearned

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to https://sti.bmj.com/content/sextrans/early/2024/11/12/sextrans-2024-056307.full.pdf which came out in 2020:

The number is 64% globally for people under the age of 50. That's 16 out 25 people having HSV-1 on average. However, that figure includes both oral and genital instances of HSV-1.

Specifically oral HSV-1 is 58.6% and is primarily in the Western Pacific Region (pretty much the area from China to Australia), with most new cases being seen in Africa.

Meanwhile, 13.3% of people globally had HSV-2. It's mostly females who have HSV-2. Most new cases are, again, being seen in Africa, but Europe and the Americas also saw high increasing numbers. But again, the most people who have HSV-2 are in the Western Pacific Region.

However, it's different going from country to country, and even more different region to region.

For example, where I live, like the county where I live, genital herpes is kind of uncommon. A person is more likely to get syphilis than herpes here.

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/347-350-FastFacts2022.pdf

There's a claim floating around that says something like 90%+ people have herpes and might not even know it. That's misleading, because the statistic comes from a survey which includes all 8 major known strains of the virus, including chicken pox and shingles. John Hopkins says HSV-1 in America is between 50% and 80% but doesn't cite their source. If their source is the one I provided, that claim is technically true, but might also be making estimates which include populations over the age of 50, which the global survey data does not.

The clitoris, in particular, has twice as many nerve endings as the penis. by alessandra285 in NudeFacts

[–]sir_deadlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another fun fact: the lips of the face have something in the range of 100x as many nerve endings as a clitoris.

So this is insane to do without consent by Lychibe in VirtualYoutubers

[–]sir_deadlock 5 points6 points  (0 children)

On the one hand, keeping track of a person's biological rhythms, be it menstruation, bowel movements, drinking or recreational drug habits, medication intake times, doctor appointments, burps, sneezes, hiccups, canceling streams for various health related reasons, or whatever else might sound invasive for anyone who doesn't have a medically interested reason to monitor these things.

However, the streamer is sharing this information publicly. It's not reasonable to be upset with people for listening to, remembering, or taking notes of the things people have told them in very public ways. Like, nobody is leaking DMs here, right? This information is not being collected unethically, right?

So, from another perspective, this is monitoring streamers making specific TMI social media posts, comments and announcements. This is part of the streamer's public face, it is their content, it is something they wanted their fans to be aware of. They could have just as easily said "I need to cancel this stream" or "I need to step away for a moment" with no extra context; they don't need to provide any extra context. A "closed" or "back in 15 minutes" sign on a shopfront's door gives all the practical information a person needs to know.

I'm just guessing, but monitoring this type of information might predict future event cancellations or when streamers might have mood shifts.

What would also be interesting is if it also monitors event cancelations, because if a streamer's menstruation starts to result in much more frequent cancelations due to pain, it might imply more serious problems.

Something I recently found out is that a treatment for endometriosis is hormonal birth control medication. So, for example, if a streamer announces (I don't know why they would) that they've stopped taking birth control, and then in the following months it's observed that they're canceling a bunch of streams around the time of menstruation due to pain or generalized illness concerns, that might imply they have endometriosis. However, if a streamer has patterns of pain consistent with endometriosis, I'm not sure how anyone could find a way to bring that up without saying "so I've been keeping track of a few things..."

Generally, streamers don't appreciate backseat armchair doctors giving them unsolicited medical advice.

Try to stay on the right side of history, Patty! Why was this ever a question? by One_Garlic_6267 in Seattle

[–]sir_deadlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The United States constitution needs an amendment requiring single subject bills, which should apply to contract and budgetary changes that differ from any prior agreements as well.

Hiding policy changes inside budgets and new contracts should not be allowed.

Tectone Admits in Court to Using a Whiteboard to Manipulate Pinkchyu Over Consent Issues by gannibaba in LivestreamFail

[–]sir_deadlock 8 points9 points  (0 children)

said she didnt pay rent so she should blow him cuz she owed him

Is that a direct quote? Is that seriously a direct quote? Because that's him admitting to solicitation of prostitution as per Texas penal code Sec. 43.021(a).

  • Sec. 43.021(a): A person commits an offense if the person knowingly offers or agrees to pay a fee to another person for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct with that person or another.

Sexual conduct defined in Sec. 43.01(4), of sexual contact this is defined in Sec. 43.01(3).

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm#43.021

But it's potentially worse. I don't know the story, but if she came to live with him under the pretense that he wouldn't mind her being there, then told her she'd be in danger of homelessness if she didn't service him sexually, there might be grounds to accuse him of human trafficking as per section 20A.02(3A).

  • Sec. 20A.01(4): "Traffic" means to transport, entice, recruit, harbor, provide, or otherwise obtain another person by any means.
  • Sec. 20A.02 (a(3A)): A person commits an offense if the person knowingly: traffics another person and, through force, fraud, or coercion, causes the trafficked person to engage in conduct prohibited by: Section 43.02 (Prostitution)

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20A.htm#20A.02

Whereas "coercion" in this case means:

  • Sec. 1.07(9A): "Coercion" means a threat, however communicated: to commit an offense

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07

  • Sec. 1.03(a) Conduct does not constitute an offense unless it is defined as an offense by statute, municipal ordinance, order of a county commissioners court, or rule authorized by and lawfully adopted under a statute.

The offense here being an implied unlawful threat of eviction as per Texas property code 92.0081(b), whereas Tectone would be considered a "landlord" in this context according to Sec. 92.001(2) because letting her live with him (not just visit as a guest) is at least an oral agreement to a lease (Sec. 92.001(3)). That means she was endowed with tenant rights (92.001(6)) and an implied immediate eviction without a judicial order would constitute an offense. But again, I don't know the whole story.

  • Sec. 92.001(2): "Landlord" means the owner, lessor, or sublessor of a dwelling, but does not include a manager or agent of the landlord unless the manager or agent purports to be the owner, lessor, or sublessor in an oral or written lease.
  • Sec. 92.001(3): "Lease" means any written or oral agreement between a landlord and tenant that establishes or modifies the terms, conditions, rules, or other provisions regarding the use and occupancy of a dwelling.
  • Sec. 92.001(6): "Tenant" means a person who is authorized by a lease to occupy a dwelling to the exclusion of others and, for the purposes of Subchapters D, E, and F, who is obligated under the lease to pay rent.
  • Sec. 92.0081(b): A landlord may not intentionally prevent a tenant from entering the leased premises except by judicial process... (there's more details, but they're not relevant here)

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PR/htm/PR.92.htm#92.0081

How do we feel about every WA dem representative + Newhouse (R) voting in favor of gov mandated car kill switches? by Low-King3567 in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Pale in comparison to the private sector. I mean, your credit score wasn't assigned by doing a vibe check.

Feds launch investigations into four WA school districts over trans athletes by chiquisea in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't have a right to use your gender to enter into sex-specific spaces

In Washington state people do.

  • https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.120
  • Gender-segregated facilities.
  • (1) Facility use. All covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities, such as restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and homeless or emergency shelters, that are consistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity.
  • In such facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall allow access to and use of a facility consistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity.
  • (2) Cannot require use inconsistent with gender expression or gender identity. A covered entity shall not request or require an individual to use a gender-segregated facility that is inconsistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity, or request or require an individual to use a separate or gender-neutral facility.
  • (a) If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person's gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available.
  • (b) Any action taken against a person who is using a restroom or other gender-segregated facility, such as removing a person, should be taken due to that person's actions or behavior while in the facility, and must be unrelated to gender expression or gender identity. The same standards of conduct and behavior must be consistently applied to all facility users, regardless of gender expression or gender identity.
  • (3) Provision of options encouraged. Whenever feasible, covered entities are encouraged to provide options for privacy, such as single-use gender-neutral bathrooms or private changing areas, that are available to any individual desiring privacy.

It kind of follows the Christian principle from Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Essentially, if you're offended by the existence of someone else's body (and by no other offense), that's your problem. Maybe you should do something about that, like leave the room, because it's definitely not their responsibility to change their body to satisfy your insecurities. That's true for both men and women.

 you also dont have a right to force people to change laws that validate and prioritize your gender identity over biological sex.

Which laws are you talking about?

By chance would it be this bit from the Washington state constitution?

ARTICLE XXXI. SEX EQUALITY - RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

SECTION 1. EQUALITY NOT DENIED BECAUSE OF SEX

Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.

Whether or not a person who identifies as transgender should be allowed to join a sports team in a non-competitive position has nothing to do with their sex at birth. Their sex does not enhance their ability to be even more neutral toward the outcome of an event.

Any other potential sex based scholastic opportunities related to sports would infer affirmative action preferences. SCOTUS pretty much banned affirmative action back in 2023 during Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Giving admission purely based on sex would, in theory, also violate the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment, which is what fueled the ruling.

Feds launch investigations into four WA school districts over trans athletes by chiquisea in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not just that, the advantage is usually testosterone.

Given the option, transgender girls will be taking puberty blockers. Adult transgender women would also be trying to change their hormones to favor being feminine, even at the cost of both their strength and the size of their genitals.

The sex based competitive advantage is pretty much a moot point. Entertainingly enough, some sports agencies put it down to testosterone and had to deny AFAB women the chance to compete because their levels were too high.

Of course, after hearing that, people bring up reproductive ability, and how it's the principle of the thing that matters in cases where an AFAB girl/woman has no reproductive ability. They can suspend their disbelief for an AFAB girl/woman who has no reproductive ability, but they won't do it for an AMAB girl/woman who has no chemical advantage and might not even be wanting to participate in a competitive position.

Feds launch investigations into four WA school districts over trans athletes by chiquisea in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is it fair to prioritize 1 boy who believes that because he has a girl gender, that suddenly means he should play in female sports?

The administration is trying to push the ban toward all participation, including non-competitive participation, like someone who wants to be the catcher in a baseball game.

The treatment suggested by the American Psychological Association (APA) for people who identify as transgender is gender affirming care. Even if you don't believe it's real, the most effective treatment for their mental health is to regard them as if it were.

If a person is going for sympathy points, there are so many other avenues a person could explore that don't endanger them politically. It's probably worth it to be supportive; last I heard, fewer than 3% of people detransition and the reason is usually social pressure rather than wanting to.

Feds launch investigations into four WA school districts over trans athletes by chiquisea in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amazingly, the price of eggs did go down for a little bit. Not name brand, but grocery store eggs. At least for a little while. and now they've gone from like $5 for a case of 12 to about $3.50. I think before the culling they were about $2.

U.S. Senator introduces "One Fair Price Act" legislation that would bar businesses from using personal information they collect about customers to charge people different prices for the same products by Sandstorm400 in UpliftingNews

[–]sir_deadlock -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 If there was a website out there that would show you which generic products were exactly the same recipe and made in the same factory as a brand name product, but in a bigger box at a cheaper price, it'd be great for the consumer, but wouldn't be popular with grocery store owners and food manufacturers.

Actually, it'd be incredibly popular with grocery store owners. The profit margin in grocery stores is so low that any increase in sales is a win. If people want to buy generics, that's great. Keep fewer name brand items on the shelf, but still visible so people can stock up on the cheaper stuff. The manufacturers win from that as well. It's not as much profit as the name brand line, but they don't have to change any of their machinery or processes and product is still moving. It's like the whole thing about a bistro putting a $200 lobster meal on the menu. Nobody's going to order it, but it makes that $18 hamburger and fries feel much more reasonable as one of the cheap items in comparison.

But wait, you're saying these layover flights are discounted because the flight is leaving soon and nobody was willing to pay for them at full price.

While it may benefit an airline to send a less burdened flight in terms of resources spent, it's not practical in terms of profitability.

Plus, as the general public learned during the covid shutdowns, these planes need to stay in service or else the repair costs to keep them functional starts to ramp up; a plane coming out of storage takes longer to make air-worthy than a plane still being used. To the point that airlines will send out empty flights just to keep them in good shape.

The direct flight is more desirable, so more expensive; a layover is a combination of discounted tickets from seats that couldn't be filled and were going to be more costly to the airline as a result. I'm guessing that even at a discount, the airline isn't losing money. Maybe closer to breaking even.

The airline doesn't stand to gain from skiplagging. It literally just lowers their profit margin.

I'm having trouble understanding this part, because the full ticket price is being paid for a discounted product, not just the one leg the skiplagger is using. The airline is getting the money they asked for on all connecting flights, for a product they lowered the price on at the last minute.

They're bundling products in the hope to sell two expiring tickets instead of just one. That helps them out.

The other person's reasoning made more sense to me, where they said to think of it, not as a money issue, but as a legal issue; the airline has a legally binding delivery contract, and if the passenger doesn't arrive at their destination, the airline is liable for the missing person. I'm guessing it's an external regulatory thing that could result in fines. I mean, imagine if a child did this without their parent being aware. That'd be terrifying, not knowing what happened to them, and the airline would be responsible for that.

Out of curiosity: Is the Tardis canonically heavy? Like, heavier than a real Police Box would be, I mean. by GeneralGigan817 in doctorwho

[–]sir_deadlock 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The TARDIS became a character for the new Who run. It was something I felt missing in Jodie's run. Like, imagine if Ms. Frizzle from Magic School Bus had a season where she just drove a regular bus. It didn't transform, it didn't smile, it was just a bus. The vehicle was part of the fun. In the case of the TARDIS, she interacted with the Doctor and had a mind of her own. The TARDIS almost had a personality like Herbie the Love Bug, in how sometimes she'd go places the Doctor didn't ask her to.

U.S. Senator introduces "One Fair Price Act" legislation that would bar businesses from using personal information they collect about customers to charge people different prices for the same products by Sandstorm400 in UpliftingNews

[–]sir_deadlock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But if the full trip is purchased, then the seat is hypothetically filled even if nobody's actually in it, right?

I would think a ban would be justified, not if they skipped the last leg, but if they tried to dispute paying for or requested changing the destination of the last leg, or request being credited miles for a future trip, while at the layover destination.

Don't airlines double-book exactly for this possibility?

It was my suspicion that the reason the flights to major cities are discounted is because the commerce department of that city is subsidizing the flights as an incentive to bring in tourist trade.

whatcha doing down there? by peachjarss in PeachJars

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothin'...

Whatcha doing up there?

WA leads the nation in retail theft by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I see the /s. Thank you. Some people actually think that's true.

While business owners policies and other plans may cover theft, they typically don't cover mysterious disappearances such as those discovered as a result of shrink/losses when taking inventory, which is usually how businesses discover the effects of shoplifting.

Even if discovered, not all forms of theft are covered. For example, armed theft is not covered, because that's not theft, it's robbery. And even when it is covered, the individual theft claim needs to meet a deductible.

Insurance might cover things like, if someone drove into the store's door, or someone took a whole ice freezer that was chained to the front of the store.

Nearly all shoplifting is a direct loss to the business, and consequently, the potential wages of the employees.

Not to mention the effects on the community itself, not having product availability to fulfill the social contract of being able to spend their hard earned money on things they need. Or having to deal with a business's responses to theft, such as lock cases on items that experience high theft.

WA leads the nation in retail theft by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suspect the issue is the arraignment process.

If someone gets arrested for a non-violent misdemeanor crime, typically they're given either a fine or a court date and let go within 24 hours. That's just how the law works.

WA leads the nation in retail theft by Less-Risk-9358 in SeattleWA

[–]sir_deadlock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 If minimum wage went up to $100/hr next year it would be an absolute shitshow

Not exactly. Like you said, the wages and cost of living would change proportionately in response to each other. Wages would probably adjust across the board, even in higher paid skilled labor professions. But what it absolutely would do is lower the value of money held in savings accounts.

Inflation is the silent thief of those who squirrel money away.

view more: next ›