Halosheep

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago

People downvoting this comment are just mad that you're right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

That depends on a lot of factors as well, a lot of fast food isn't made to order and some can be created ahead of time if you're expecting a lot of orders to come in. Fries, burger patties, some other fried goods like chicken fingers can be held for a little while without them going bad. There's always the chance that the people working the kitchen may have had the smaller order on hand but needed to make some fresh things for the larger order.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

As someone who worked in an understaffed fast food restaurant for like 3 years... No, going inside doesn't make your order faster. From my experience, orders get made in chronological order of when they were placed. You may be able to place your order quicker (if you're lucky there's enough staff to take an in-store order while there's people in the drive through) but you will probably still wait about the same since the food can only be made so fast, and the few people have to splits their attention even more.

If it's a normally staffed restaurant then you might have luck, but usually long wait times in the drive through aren't because the drive through itself is slow... Excluding the random people who pull up with the good ol', "can I get a uuuuuhhhhhhh...."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

You have a significant amount of free time, don't you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think the way your commenting is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Are you including the fact that $100,000 in the 1950s is more than $1million after accounting for inflation?

According to some quick googling, $1,300,000 is the modern equivalent of $100,000 in 1950. That would put you in the top 5% earners (and very nearly in the top 1%). According to the IRS, the top 5% contribute about 65% of the tax burden.

The top 25% make up about 90% of contributions, but that starts around $70,000 annual income.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

Seems like everyone agrees that Netflix and the writers behind the show weren't following the source material very well and were making a lot of bad decisions in terms of show direction.

Cavill is known to want to keep things close to the source material. It seems implied that the "showrunner" and writers were against that attitude, so when he started pushing back, he gets called a misogynist and g*mer for trying redirect the show.

Sounds to me like film industry bullshit and trying to redirect the narrative from someone wanting the show to stay accurate to him being misogynistic simply because he was contradicting a woman.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

Ah yes, and when it no go it no go until go.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago

This is being reported poorly. This is a voluntary program that is intended for social media brand embassadors, aka, the people who go out and rep a brand. It makes sense to include some language requiring someone prepping your brand to show preferable to it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Obviously, but we're talking about a really, really small subset of users that probably would earn Microsoft less than a week of coffee in their corporate office.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

People who are technical enough to get around the system requirements to install windows 11 on a system that doesn't meet the minimum requirements is most likely technical enough to upgrade their own computer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago (7 children)

How does that make any sense? Does Microsoft get a cut of sales for component upgrades?

view more: next ›