| |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It absolutely was not worse in the 80s. Unless you mean more expensive. Yes. It DEFINITELY was more expensive. When I booked through a travel agent or over the phone with the airline, the fees were pretty transparent. I sorta feel for the airlines here because before deregulation they had to commit to unprofitable routes before they realized HOW unprofitable they would be. That cost was spread over the profitable routes and ultimately everything was more expensive. But... oh man... remember when you could get on a flight where only about 25% of the seats were filled and the food wasn't great, but was free? I remember being able to lift the arm-rests on seats up and stretch out and take a nap on the plane. Those were the days. Before American's MD/SD-80s started falling out of the sky, I would fly out to DFW from SJC each week and it was delightful. And baggage handling systems are much better than the 80s. It's been 5 years since an airline has lost checked luggage for me. But of course, it's been 5 years since I checked luggage, so who knows? I really miss Yamato 宅配便 from when I lived in Japan. Americans really don't know how to travel correctly. Meh. The dollar is probably going to be devalued soon so the dream of air travel for the typical American will likely only be in the rear-view mirror. We'll all be lost in wistful nostalgia about the time when normal people could afford air travel. So... SOME things were worse in the 80s/90s. Not all things related to traveling. | | |
| ▲ | Telemakhos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's been 5 years since an airline has lost checked luggage for me. It hasn't even been two weeks for me, although my luggage arrived the next day. I remember on Slashdot hearing the advice of always packing a firearm (even a starter pistol) in checked luggage when traveling domestically—not only is it legal, but the BATFE gets involved if the airline loses your luggage, so the airline is very careful not to lose your luggage. | |
| ▲ | ardit33 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No sure why this comment got downvoted. The 90s were more of no hidden fees at all. You paid the ticket, and that's it. Usually 2 baggages were included in the flight (standard), and food was free. US inland trips had crappy snacks, and some soda, but international ones all had food and drinks, including alcoholic ones. Prices of tickets were more expensive for sure, so air travel was more of a luxury. The era of the hidden fees started during the late Bush era, and with the advents of online booking, and with the rise of the 'cheap airlines' like RyanAir, Spirit, etc... They had hidden fees as part of their busisness model. The larger carriers started following suit with more restricitons for the cheapest base tickets (no luggage) and more fees for things that used to be included before. This is completely different from the 90s, which you paid and things were more upfront. | | |
| ▲ | caycep 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I could have gotten my decades wrong. I just remember not being able to get refunds by default, and then it was a glorious past several years where JetBlue and southwest would automagically refund my tickets back to my credit card. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dfee 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film) Looks interesting! | | |
| ▲ | pstuart 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a must watch movie -- there's multiple editions and you should watch the directors cut. | | |
| ▲ | lisper 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know that "me too" comments are frowned upon, but I really feel the need to chime in here. Brazil is my favorite movie of all time. It is eerily prescient. It's important to keep in mind while watching it today that it was made forty years ago. And yes, the director's cut. Absolutely the director's cut. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nyc_data_geek1 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is your form stamped? There's no stamp on it. | | |
| ▲ | thombat 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is your receipt for your husband. And this is my receipt for your receipt. | | |
| |
| ▲ | scrps 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't forget the inverse can happen, like when tech-bros read sci-fi and end up thinking Bad Thing is a good idea... :| | | |
| ▲ | herval 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I love/hate how many people in tech watched Black Mirror and went "that's a great idea! I'll build that" | | |
| ▲ | MangoToupe 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I see the causality as reversed: the show is based on extrapolating current tech trends to produce near-future dystopian sci-fi. |
| |
| ▲ | bryanrasmussen 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | geez, can you people stop tearing down the torment nexus for just one minute! | | |
| ▲ | MurkyLabs 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah yes, the Torment Nexus from the popular sci-fi book, "Don't build the Torment Nexus!" |
|
| |
| ▲ | smt88 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not sure why you think that would've helped. A lot of the people who won't shut up about 1984 and Ayn Rand still vote for the closest thing to monarchy they can find on their ballots. | | |
| ▲ | mr_toad 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." | | |
| ▲ | forgotoldacc 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | We're at a point where people would be glad to starve if they think it pissed someone else off. | | |
| ▲ | recursive 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think most of them would say that right up until they could actually feel the hunger. People spend hundreds of dollars on drugs that just make them less hungry so they eat less. So I don't think so. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Some people see "don't tread on me" as "don't tread on people," while others see it as "don't tread on ME specifically." | | | |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Okay - democrats will push us in 1984 dystopia where they force you to accept that reality is what they tell you, and republicans will push us in low life high tech Cyberpunk dystopia where corporations reign supreme. Choose your poison. | | |
| ▲ | raddan 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which reality is that? The real reality? Admittedly real reality is a pretty bitter pill at times. | | |
| ▲ | jacobgkau 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe the one where biological sex is imaginary. Or the one where Biden's health is good enough for another four years. You pick (or keep looking the other way and losing, to the detriment of far more important issues). | | |
| |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | oh, like that classic Democrat line "tylenol causes autism"? | | |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | We are talking about the same hepatotoxic compound that is absurdly easy to OD on but it gives negligible relief on stuff you should just power trough? That anecdotal - is barely better than a pacebo? Personally - I think that the two main drivers of autism are people having kids later and too high rates of smart people intermarriage. Of course Trump should not have said Tylenol, but paracetamol. And there are some very mild hints in the data that they are correlated, but not enough sigmas. And of course it could be Tylenol and something else with which ot interacts. And autism is so hard to be linked to anything because of how big the umbrella is and that we have such high delay to diagnosis that we will never know. Not taking medications when not really necessary is probably a good precaution principle | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wartywhoa23 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | red_rech 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but what then? The people would rather slaughter each other than reject their favorite entertainment personalities. | |
| ▲ | carefulfungi 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everyday I think to myself, "Biden and Trump sure do govern exactly the same - I can hardly tell anything changed!" | | |
| ▲ | tialaramex 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Assuming you felt the /s tag was superfluous I'm with you. Change is the only constant in the universe, if you only want different then voting really was a waste of time, that you are getting for sure. | |
| ▲ | CPLX 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Odd comment on an article that is a specific detailed example of a distinction between the two approaches. | | |
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where did these regulations come from that they're trying to roll back now? | |
| ▲ | nerdponx 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Voting doesn't work" is a right wing authoritarian propaganda lie. Don't fall for it. | | |
| ▲ | googlywoogly 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The right wing very vocally and openly calls for votes every election. In countries like the US and Canada voting is very obviously a scam - you get to vote for a few preselected candidates, and what determines the winner is actually the media and special interests who decide how much and what kind of coverage a candidate gets. Then, after the election, whoever wins just serves the special interests and is free to go back on every promise they made (and they always do). If you look at Canada (probably US too), every federal government for the last ~50 years, regardless of party, has had multiple corruption scandals involving various types of fraud and embezzlement of public funds. The RCMP, who are meant to investigate this, are top-down directly controlled by the PMO, who are free to block or shut down any investigation - and they do so routinely. There have been essentially zero punishment or repercussions for anyone involved and the scam continues. | | |
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps the GP comment was too US centric, but in the context of US politics, you can't really both-sides this argument or say that the right-wing are the champions of free and fair elections. The Republican party is by far the leader in voter suppression tactics, including closing polling places; restricting or banning mail-in or absentee voting; restricting who is allowed to vote; calling for partisan election observers; claiming fraud and abuse when they lose, in spite of a lack of evidence; and gerrymandering. On the last one, I don't dispute that the Democratic party also engages in gerrymandering, but it's hard to say that Democrats have been even close to as successful in that regard, and Republican gerrymandering is currently in the news as several states appear to be redrawing their voting districts specifically to benefit Republicans. | | |
| ▲ | googlywoogly 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > you can't really both-sides this argument or say that the right-wing are the champions of free and fair elections. Those are like two opposite statements, and I think you missed the whole point of my comment. You think you're in some noble partisan fight where your side are the good guys. In reality both sides work closely together to maximally fuck you over, while your cheer one of them on for some reason. | | |
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, I'm far too cynical to believe that anyone has my interests at heart. But I will acknowledge one side as being openly anti-democratic while the other is merely spineless in the face of opposition. My opening statement being contradictory was, admittedly, my fault. I couldn't tell if you were trying to champion the right wing or if you were trying to build a both-sides argument, so I tried to cover both bases. And that just made me look silly. | | |
| ▲ | googlywoogly 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both parties are very openly very anti-democratic and very corrupt. They openly sabotage and attack their own candidates if they don't fall in line (Bernie Sanders is one of MANY examples). They are pretty openly corrupt (look at Biden and family, look at all of the insider trading, etc), and pretty openly serve special/corporate interests like the military industrial complex. They constantly lie and try to misinform voters - which so very anti-democratic. If you think one side is not anti-democratic, all that means is that you drank too much side-favoured coolaid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
