Those are by definition not gross sales. It makes sense to combine them with the actual sales from CD as well as other sources of royalty for an overall metric of apparent success, and that's exactly what they do now when they chart songs and albums, but it's not "gross" anything.

When a movie "grosses" $100M in a weekend, it literally means people went and spent $100M on tickets to see that movie. Straight up. It's unfortunately just a term people repeat where it applies because they've heard it used in a close context but don't understands why it doesn't apply. Pedantic I know but I lack the self control to ignore it.

Dexter was a popular TV show at one point and I feel like I would be out of line if I put a plastic wrapped bloody corpse in a bathtub on my front lawn. I'm on the fence over whether this isn't poor enough taste to be a problem. I'm personally not bothered by things almost ever so I have a hard time judging what's appropriate in the context of society in general, something being a reference to a TV show doesn't magically make it fine if it otherwise wouldn't be.

For starters Netflix doesn't have ads and Spotify does. Spotify also does not generally make or license their own content. So even though it is technically not accurate to say grossing when you are including streaming plays of songs you can kind of get maybe close enough by drawing a direct comparison to the compensation agreements and the payment that goes to artists and record labels when Spotify plays their song. But it's still really not right.

They're not measured by gross sales that's for sure.

Words mean things. "highest grossing" literally means it had the highest gross sales over a given period.

"grossing" doesn't make any sense for a show that is streaming and generates no direct sales. Or shows in general.

A daycare run by a church is doing shady shit? Least surprising thing I've heard in weeks.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, bud.

A bunch of people having a different opinion from you isn't a "brigade" just because you lack the emotional maturity to deal with opposition.

You don't need to pick up food elsewhere. You can bring a meal with you if your work is too far from restaurant (it's cheaper and healthier to do anyway). It's a meal break not a fucking siesta.

I know this is trouble for the night school sociogy crowd to understand but time where you are permitted to do what you want is but definition free time and that doesn't magically go away because there are practical limitations that prevent you from exercising whatever scenarios it can concoct.

Under you hilariously bad logic my time tonight isn't "free time" because I can't travel anywhere that would prevent me from getting back to work on time in the morning.

"This thing that is clearly comprable isn't comparable because I don't like what it does to my argument."

Lol, k.

They're unpaid in almost every single state that actually requires them, although some call out specific circumstances that require it to be paid.

Physical impossibility due to circumstance is still not the same thing as a lack of freedom, practical or not. I can't visit Virginia between work days because there isn't enough time to get there and back between shirts. That doesn't mean that I am not free during that time.

I'd say you're welcome but I doubt you have the personal restraint, self control, rhetorical filter, or contextual literacy skills to actually use that information effectively after being such a dismissive baby about people not telling you what you want to hear, but what can I say I'm a sucker for fools I guess.

At this point you clearly just keep using words you don't even know the meaning of and it's sad as hell.

Nobody is saying the locations are physically the same. This isn't some metaphysical shit, chief. The argument is that the situations are comparable, and for some reason while you could easily disagree with that you've decided to just start unilaterally declaring things fact because you think it helps you (it doesn't).

I have to be on the road at 7:45 AM not because I want to be, but because I have to be to get to the office by 8am, get paid, and not get fired. I can't take a Trip up to Maine after work today because I wouldn't get back in time to get my ass to work tomorrow.

My dude you advocated for a political change on the internet. People are gonna tell you that they think it's a bad idea. Grow the fuck up and get over it, because you're sure as hell going to have to deal with it if you want to actually push for such a change.

Pissing at people and telling them they "don't have anything to add" because they didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear is fairly charitably described as being petulant.

But... since I'm feeling nice and you seem like you need all the help you can get to get your shit together here, of the 3 politicians you mentioned, 2 of them are federal offices and one of them is a mayor. None of them are going to do dick about MA labor laws. Focus on state and even local level officials. If you have trouble figuring out who to go to there start with your representative, not the senators. They'll more likely know your local contacts in your specific part of the state and those people and their staff are more likely to help you network and find like minded people in other election districts who feel the same. They'll have a better idea of what districts will be receptive to making it a campaign issue and who will listen.

Ah so I see we've just reached the point of the pissed of kid who just took a sociology class declaring everything he believes to be objective fact to win internet points.

There is actually an extremely popular mechanism that a large portion of the labor sector in both the US and the rest of the free world tend to use to collectively bargain for terms with employers based exactly on the kind of value propositions we're talking about here.

Now you're just being petulant and dismissing people for "having nothing to offer" because they don't just bend over backwards and agree with you. Continue behaving like this and you'll never get anyone to come around to support you even if they nominally agree with your positions.

You seem to have a vocabulary problem where you insert terms you don't understand the meaning of like "incorrect" when you mean to say "I don't agree with this."

Your first reply to me, while I don't agree with it, was much less unhinged and Ben Shapiro-esque.

Calling something nonsensical just because you disagree with it or don't understand it just paints you as a child throwing a pissy fit because someone has a different viewpoint from yours.

It literally is "Free time" You can go where you want. You just have to be back. Which is no different than the time in the morning between when you wake up and when you arrive at work. My work doesn't pay me for my mornings because I have to make sure I'm home and out the door by 7:30 to make an 8am meeting. I can choose to spend that time at home, at a diner getting breakfast, or rubbing one out in a motel room, nobody cares as long as I show up on time. Same for lunch.

If you are not allowed to leave they have to pay you. If it's just impractical for you to leave because you don't want to waste time goin to and from a different place, that's honestly no different than you not being paid for your commute.

As a matter of law, if you are forbidden to leave, you are supposed to get paid. If it's impractical but technically allowed for you to leave, it can be a grey area but it only usually falls on the employer if they are the ones putting up a roadblock that stop syou (for example requiring you to change out of uniform)

I don't really have a problem with that honestly. If I'm frree to walk out the door and not suffer any negative employment consequences I don't see why I'd get paid for that time.

"Fun" fact... very few states actually require a lunch break at all. Almost every employer gives one though because they know that not giving one is the best way to get their legislature to get around to changing that under terms that may not be as favorable to them.

Also, I don't particularly find it egregious. The law is simple on it. You are free to come and go during the break in almost all cases. It's gone to court before and that's generally the distinction. If they tell you that you can't leave they likely have to pay you if you push it. In that regard it is no different than not paying you for your commute time to and from work. It's generally universally accepted at least across the US that employers only have to pay you for time you are either doing work for them or are otherwise under their control.

Oh that's cute it thinks it figured out how to read and do math.

"That's not how loss ratios work." That's literally my point. It's like you're just using phrases you've heard an adult say in an argument before without understanding their rhetorical function.

Just, because you have a literacy problem doesn't mean I or anyone else here besides you "doesn't understand ratios."

The fact that you aren't even capable of articulating what you think I'm getting wrong but are arguing it anyway just outs you as a barely literate trog trying to sound smarter on the internet than you could ever in your absolute wildest dreams hopw to actually be.

It's literally in the first sentence. But since you seem literacy-challenged I'll just reiterate that there's no causal link between this law and them raising rates.