cupboard

Maybe you're right. But hand waving the problem away with a knee jerk comment about how this is just a greedy CEO making up a problem that doesn't actually exist doesn't really add much to the discussion, and that was what my comment was addressing - the many comments pretending people flying drunk isn't an actual issue but instead an excuse to justify Ryanair's other shenanigans.

I get that Lemmy's kneejerk reaction is naturally that the big corporation's CEO is wrong and evil (he IS an asshole, at least), but drunk passengers on planes is an actual issue.

I have a couple of close relatives who've worked as air hostesses for Ryanair for years, and they mostly like the job except for summer flights from a specific European island country in which there's a big tradition of drinking a lot and big groups of men doing "guy trips" to my country either for specific football games or for the beaches. These usually involve an almost permanent state of drunkenness, getting into fights with locals, trashing places.

O'Leary's claim about inebriated people being hard to identify is partly bullshit from what my relatives tell me - they say that even when they can notice these groups are already drunk when boarding, Ryanair's staff isn't really comfortable policy wise in preventing them from boarding. Plane staff may refuse them alcohol on board but by then they're usually already in a state of general lack of control. I assume the company doesn't want to strenghten boarding rules in order not to lose these groups as customers, and staff gets shafted in the process. But these people shouldn't be getting this drunk on a plane (or in general).

While I've almost always read bad online reviews for McDonalds in the US, I think the experience might differ a lot in other places around the world, for context on what I'm about to write and why I think many people think the price is the worst offender.

Believe it or not, I've always had a good experience at any McDonalds I went to service wise. Over on this side of the pond they're seen much more positively in general, I think. Their food is pretty good by fast food standards, and it's way more consistent quality wise than pretty much every other fast food place. In the last few years they've also turned most of their restaurants from the typical fast food restaurant decor to cozier and actually comfortable places to hang out in, which is pretty cool.

BUT, the prices just don't make much sense anymore. The price for a basic menu is currently near the price point of an actual restaurant meal. At shopping centers over here there's usually always a couple of "somewhat fast" local food restaurants - I don't know what to call them, kind of an in between between what you would call fast food and what you would expect from a "slow" fancier restaurant - and it's actually become cheaper to get a normal menu there than at McDonalds. The one big attractive of McDonalds and fast food in general used to be price - but if it's currently cheaper to get a full plate of great much better food, why would I ever go to McDonalds unless I'm really in a hurry? They seem to be counting on people still going there out of habit, but I think there's not nearly as much of a fast food culture here, so I've started noticing that McDonalds around me have much fewer attendance than they used to.

It's amazing that people criticize Windows security with .exe's and then install packages from external repositories with the security of "trust in the repository".

As with almost every case of these sorts of comparisons, these are likely separate groups of people holding separate groups of opinions.

I don't use Arch anymore, but when I did I found that the AUR was really useful to quickly install niche applications that would take ages to be approved on to an official repository. Often those would be made by the application developers themselves or members of the community. I would personally vet the packaging script myself, but I'm sure many wouldn't - and that's fine. As with most software, there's some trust involved and often you assume that if you're installing from a reputable repository it's going to be fine. If people aren't vetting the installation scripts and are installing from random repositories, that's really their problem. I'm glad the possibility existed and it's the one thing I've missed in distros I've used since then.

I also feel like it "breaking all the time" was part of the stereotype itself. I stopped using Arch because it was stable for almost 3 years and part of the point of using it in the first place was learning Linux by fixing stuff that broke - except that stuff never broke so I grew bored of it.

This isn't anything new. There's a whole lot of people on the Fediverse who throw the word Fascist around willy nilly but who will happily make use of Fascist rethoric in regards to those who they see as political enemies.

They seem to think that the bad thing about Fascism isn't the authoritarianism, political violence, censorship, etc, but the fact it's a "right wing" government behind those - those would all be perfectly justifiable means to an end in the name of a left wing movement.

I see this happening more in american politics than over here, and I think it's in part a lack of knowledge of history, but also never having had an actual fascist regime in the country's recent history. My parents were tortured by the political police. I have a bunch of family who lived under an actual Fascist regime, and colleagues from other countries with a recent history similar to mine, and I notice that people in general, even in the far left, are way more careful about how they use the word Fascist. American internet "leftists" - which I put in quotes because many don't seem to actually hold any left wing views - love LARPing about living under fascism and that somehow excusing every thing they claim Fascism is bad for - against their political enemies.