Pika

Dominos doesn’t have to be a government entity to have a moral compass and not provide food to companies that are intending to put their workers at risk by delivering to locations that the same establishment has decided isn’t worth the risk to their own employees. There is proper ways of doing this that doesn’t involve risking people who don’t have the ability to easily say no without it effecting their contractor or employment status.

I agree with your statement that they(doordash) /could/ give that alert, but they don’t. The closest to my knowledge that they use is a weather/crime reporting service that only triggers with major crime events(such as a mass shooting) or major weather events (and even that is iffy). Instead they do the opposite: they ding the drivers account if you deny or reject the order, and if you do it too many times they terminate you as a contractor. There is no system in place to allow for an opt out like you describe. If they did that would be amazing and make it a slightly better solution. My opinion is that since doordash knowingly doesn’t provide that system, Domino’s as being the source should step in. Honestly, you could hot swap Dominos with any establishment that DD works with and my opinion would be the same. As it would if you hot swapped DD with any of the other big food delivery services because to my knowledge they don’t offer any way for drivers to opt out either, it’s against their own self interests.

being said, I thank you for your responses to it, I do understand your POV and what you are saying. I just respectfully disagree and I don’t see that changing.

deleted by creator

lawnchair is what I swapped to a few years back. I do want to warn… be careful updating it. Always make a backup of lawnchair prior to allowing it to update because ive had it fail to update twice now and have had to restore the backup on the new version.

Wasn’t nova launcher basically shut down not even 2 years ago.

Last I knew they fired everyone but 1 dev, then that dev said “yea fuck this im out” and left as well.

the public indecency one is rough. I don’t know if I would hire that individual.

The issue in that situation isn’t the fact that he was caught for it, but the fact that he was willing to do it in public in the first place, so the risk factor there would be will this individual potentially try to do the same at my establishment? I think I would hire them if I was in a non-public style buisness such as office work, but if I was in a very public buisness like retail I would pass.

As for the last example with the fraud. In this case, it sounds like the person did do it. But if the person had not done it but was convicted of it, I would need some pretty compelling evidence saying the other direction. Because having someone who’s known to be a fraudster, managing anything with a company is not a good idea.

Firstly, I don’t think the statement of I can’t do anything about it is valid here. Those chains could for sure offer a safe way of delivering it to those areas, but they choose not to because of cost, which is somewhat understandable but still bleh to me.

The food deserts, as you described, is going to happen regardless of if Domino’s allows DoorDash to deliver to bad areas or not.As at the end of the day, Dominos decides where they open and how they operate and that’s not changing any time soon.

I can’t wrap my head around any situation where, logically, you should be sending someone in to a risk area that’s known for people getting mugged slash robbed because someone lives there. especially for the wages that those delivery drivers make on both Domino’s and DoorDash.

There are solutions to the problem you listed there and allowing a company to pawn everything off to a company that isn’t putting the proper safety measures in for their drivers is not the solution.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. DoorDash is as much at fault as Domino’s would be in this scenario.

I just don’t see the comparison of oh, it’s not safe enough for my company to send people there, so let me allow another company to send people there because they are willing to give me money for it.

If it’s not safe to go to, then neither company should be sending there, and anyone that’s assisting in allowing that to go there would be equally at fault.

it sucks for the people who live in that area, but I don’t see where it makes logical sense to cause additional human risk for someone else’s situation for the intent of increasing profits. It’s morbid.

the core issue is exactly like what you just mentioned. DoorDash could do that, however they don’t, they even actively penalize their drivers for refusing routes that go to specific areas. if DD isn’t going to do it, then that responsibility morally falls on dominoes the supplier.

It would matter extremely of what they were convicted of because that is ultimately a risk game.

If the guy was convicted of something related to financial(like fraud, theft etc) or hostility(murder, assault etc) I wouldn’t take the chance, otherwise I wouldn’t really care.

Remember, it doesn’t matter whether he did or not. it’s what society as a whole believes he did. If it’s a risk or liability to the company then it’s a no, but if it’s something that’s like a “oh well OK then” such as an old drug issue, IP violation, disorderly conduct etc, it’s whatever. If the public isn’t going to think differently of the company, and the financial stability of the company is not at risk, then go for it.

Although this also is assuming the guy has credentials, that would be worthwhile.

I’ve never once heard a song and said “I need to listen to all the songs by this artist”

but I think I would be concidered an EDM normie, so I just listen to what is concidered popular in the feeds.

Being said, I have heard some songs that were dual offs at times, like there’s a bunch of dubstep composers who I think fall under that where they had a real good ones and the rest are meh

I did just edit it to make my point a little clearer, which changed quite a bit of it. But to answer your question, if that area is an unsafe area, yes 1000%

Being said, it’s not because it’s an underprivileged area. It’s because the area isn’t safe to be in, so therefore, if you’re being robbed/mugged, delivering food to the area, don’t put people in that situation. To me, it’s absolutely stupid to think anything else.

yea, instead they are providing a company food so they can deliver there instead, since that makes it so much better lol

I can see the argument of, well, we didn’t know it was a DoorDash, we didn’t know where it was going, but like for partner establishments that excuse doesn’t exist, and even non-partner establishments could very easily just choose to not allow DoorDash at the establishment. It’s a huge “not my problem and gets me more money” mentality

yea DD does that with stores that don’t opt out of it. It’s dumb, while you do have the ability to actually partner with them(and in doing so you gain the ability to control when and who places/gets orders), if you don’t have an active partnership, they just send it via the dashers name and give the dasher a temp card to use for the transaction.

that last part is pretty fucked up. I know you likely had no control over that when there but,

“We aren’t willing to send our drivers into this area for profit because of safety concerns, but we will send another companies drivers into the area”

Is a bad/entitled policy.

edit: removed beginning as I didn’t want post to seem like I was directing it at PC.

I feel like all shapes and sizes are good. That also includes the potential of humanoid shapes if needed. The design should be based off what it’s meant to do. Humanoid like shapes would be best for things that are involving human interaction, and something that needs a diverse amount of tasks, but those types of shapes would also be the hardest to do and the most expensive. It would make sense to minimize cost and complexity as long as it isn’t making a compromise elsewhere.

yea i wonder if that’s the case.

There are a few laws regarding fake reviews and review suppression in the states as well. So I’m almost wondering if it was the classic case of they started implementing something and then legal was like, yo, cut that shit out. That’s not allowed.

But I still feel like it might be something to do with the push for removing explicit content from minors that every platform seems to be doing.

Where did you see that system? Because I went to the page and didn’t see anything like that.

there’s no apply button and it seems all reviews are there

Since it’s a content rating review system, I almost wonder if Amazon has internally marked your account as a minor or something like that, so they’re hiding explicit reviews or something.

Same, if I say nerd it’s always strictly meant to be playful, teasing or as as a description, not meant to be insulting

It depends on the system, some of them once connected to a network won’t allow shift-f10 to open a prompt.

I want to reiterate the importance of the “pull the network cable” part. If you fail to unplug the cable before the setup wizard detects that there is the possibility of a network connection, on some systems it will actually prevent you from making a local account altogether, as it will force you to connect to a network which will skip the shift-f10 step.

We had this issue setting up demo models on laptops for awhile, if you didn’t disable the wifi adapter before it saw there was networks available(even if they were password protected) it would require a second factory reset to even get to the point where it would let you setup a local account.

Yes, I post a review on every product and restaurant I visit. I wish more sites let you review more than once as there are some places/products that had amazing visits at one point, but then some visits that sucked hardcore, so allowing the average visit would be nice.

Why? Because I want to share what /my/ expereience with the service was. If they screwed up, others should know. If they did amazing? Others should know. If I was in the other persons shoes, I would rather have known.