MystikIncarnate

I'm with you, either lawful or chaotic neutral is the way. Everyone else is trying to hard or not trying hard enough.

I've had two conversations with the same person at the same time.

Really common with text chatting, since they reply to conversation 1 while I'm replying to conversation 2, then we switch.

It's 7 bits....

Pay attention. 🤪

So fancy!

I am unsurprised. I thought it would take longer for it to become outrageously priced, but here we are. this specific pricing is extra crazy IMO.

In any case, I scoffed at the pricing when it was almost reasonable during their trial phases.... Back then IIRC it was like $100-150 usd/mo. or something.... That's too much for me already. Seems like they've previously increased it to around $200-300 and now they've lost their damn minds.

Star link was never economically sensible, price hikes were inevitable. There's just too few people in their target audience and too many satellites that are simply too costly to maintain at the levels they previously had. I hoped, for the sake of anyone who required starlink for a reasonable Internet connection speed, that the business plans and corporate users would shoulder most of the cost, but here we are.

We're trying to speed run it, any%.

Not sure why his current consumption matters. Those prices are worse than 2010 3G.

Not sure how star link is going to stay in business if this is what they're going to start doing....

That's the same in more.... Socialized employment insurance.

We have government EI here in Canada, and if you quit, unless it's for a very good and provable reason, you're getting denied.

... In some cases if you're fired with cause (eg, stealing) you're also ineligible. You have to basically get downsized to get a payout.

Yay capitalism.

You think these golden parachute fucks are going to learn ???!?

Hilarious.

If profits go down, shareholders will just move on to more profitable stocks.

Any publicly traded company is going to be the same.... Many privately held companies will also be the same, it's just that the shareholders will be the ones running the show.... Which might be worse in some cases.

None of this is wrong, however, management wants the more tenured (read: more experienced) people to move on because they're earning more than others.

They believe, often incorrectly, that the skilled workers job can be filled in for by the rest of the employee pool, and they will just fill in the hours gap with a lower-paid newbie.

In reality, the higher paid/higher experience people are often holding things together, so when they walk out the door because you treated them like they were nothing, all hell breaks loose; often resulting in most of the team leaving.

On paper, this makes management happy, because the cost of wages goes down, but when the revenue also takes a dip because shits fucked and nobody knows how to fix it, they (hopefully) start to realize how dumb of a decision they made. Unlikely as that seems.

At a previous job, there was a fairly typical air of nobody taking about wages. I have and continue to be of the mindset: fuck that. If I'm making more than you, and you're doing the same job, you should go get yours. If I'm making less than everyone else, I need to go get mine. If the current employer won't pony up, then find someone who will... Anyways, as a direct result of a discussion I had at work, with coworkers, one of the longest standing employees found a better job. Good thing too. I wasn't there for a while lot longer either (not wage related for me, but still).... It was not a great workplace.

What I'm hoping we see is that the highly skilled talent walks out, and they have to pay more to get someone similarly skilled to replace them in order to keep things running.

But that assumes these capitalist fucks learn anything at all. In my experience, few ever do.

What they meant to say is: "we don't have money for raises if we're going to add more value for shareholders (who are more important to us than you are)"