|
Krispy Kareem posted:I was under the impression passenger trains didn't run on the same gauge as commercial hauling trains. That's not to say there aren't spots where they intersect. They run on the same types of tracks. Amtrak isn't always on freight lines, but 72% of their trains run on track owned by other people. They sometimes get deals worked out so they don't have to wait on other trains. I was definitely on an Amtrak train going from Seattle to Portland, and we ended up sitting for 20-30 minutes waiting on a freight train. Also took a train way back in the day when I was kid from Chicago to San Francisco, took over two days, but that's because there are stops all over the place, and in Denver we were stopped for a few hours. Long enough for us to get off and wander downtown for a little bit. quote:Seventy-two percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by other railroads. Known as "host railroads," they range from large publicly traded companies based in the U.S. or Canada, tostate and local government agencies and small businesses. Amtrak pays these host railroads for use of their track and other resources needed to operate Amtrak trains, with incentives for on-time performance.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
I figure by now most folks caught wind of United's social media fail related to denying two teens from boarding because of their leggings - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/how-two-teens-in-leggings-became-a-pr-mess-for-united-airlines.html When it went viral on twitter the, well, twit that runs their account kept spamming the exact same sentence that United had the right to remove people for "inappropriate" clothing. What they failed to explain was that the teens were flying on free passes from a employee and that's why there's a dress code. Which is still sexist and stupid, but had the social media person clarified that to begin with the initial anger would have been far less. It was such a clueless move I almost wonder if the employee was purposely trying to make United look worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
It was silly and could have been handled in so many better ways, but at least it reinforces the fact gate attendants and flight crews have that kind of power. I like that those people have that much control, even if it occasionally manifests itself in stupid or petty problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
SUPERMAN'S GAL PAL posted:I figure by now most folks caught wind of United's social media fail related to denying two teens from boarding because of their leggings - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/how-two-teens-in-leggings-became-a-pr-mess-for-united-airlines.html At the same time, I believe the father who was also flying on a guest pass was in violation of the dress code (dad shorts?) and was allowed on. Also, there's a difference between adults representing United Airlines and 10 year olds representing United. Also I think we as a society have accepted the fact that you no longer need to dress up for flying and should wear whatever is most comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Big Grunty Secret posted:At the same time, I believe the father who was also flying on a guest pass was in violation of the dress code (dad shorts?) and was allowed on. For me, the think that sticks out is that the complainer wasn't even involved or understood what was going on - they were just outraged on their behalf: quote:The girls were fine with the policy, Guerin says, but a traveler named Shannon Watts, who overheard the exchange, took offense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
spog posted:For me, the think that sticks out is that the complainer wasn't even involved or understood what was going on - they were just outraged on their behalf: To be completely fair, if I saw young girls getting kicked off of a plane for "inappropriate" clothes that were just normal leggings(and I didn't know that it was part of an employee ticket dress code), I'd be pretty pissed off too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Honestly the less teenage girls on flights the better imho. Atleast babies have an excuse for being loud and annoying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:To be completely fair, if I saw young girls getting kicked off of a plane for "inappropriate" clothes that were just normal leggings(and I didn't know that it was part of an employee ticket dress code), I'd be pretty pissed off too. Pissed enough to contact a news organization about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Big Grunty Secret posted:At the same time, I believe the father who was also flying on a guest pass was in violation of the dress code (dad shorts?) and was allowed on. Apparently they used to be much more strict and things like shorts were not allowed, but that has since changed and shorts were allowed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:To be completely fair, if I saw young girls getting kicked off of a plane for "inappropriate" clothes that were just normal leggings(and I didn't know that it was part of an employee ticket dress code), I'd be pretty pissed off too. Even knowing the policy exists, seeing United deny someone boarding for wearing leggings is more off‐putting than the existence of leggings on the plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Even knowing the policy exists, seeing United deny someone boarding for wearing leggings is more off‐putting than the existence of leggings on the plane. Really sure about that?    
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Ten‐year‐old are rarely that fat. But now that you mention it, airlines should take a tougher stance against the criminally obese, regardless of clothing. e: empty lines to push those images out of view
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
I feel I owe you and the other posters an apology for those images. I hope none of you were eating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
the last one looks like the mouth/snout of a dr seuss character
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
spog posted:I feel I owe you and the other posters an apology for those images. I hope none of you were eating. Well, not anymore... Cause I make sure to finish my sandwich before getting some high octane posting in. edit: sweeperbravo posted:the last one looks like the mouth/snout of a dr seuss character I never really considered the green eggs and ham to be a character in and of itself but that is one way of looking at it. Oh wait wrong picture Sam Faust has a new favorite as of 01:37 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
spog posted:For me, the think that sticks out is that the complainer wasn't even involved or understood what was going on - they were just outraged on their behalf: You're right, this is the real tragedy here
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Dumb Marketing Moves #54: Poor font choice. Edit: I had trouble reading it too. "Glitter." Phanatic has a new favorite as of 03:05 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Dumb Marketing Moves #54: Poor font choice. Great avatar for this post. ... What does it really say? Hitter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Great avatar for this post. Could be 'shitter'. I have no idea what that really says.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
glitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Schicklgruber?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Saw it as Glitter immediately so maybe I'm the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Dumb Marketing Moves #54: Poor font choice. Well, depends. Is that Hobby Lobby?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:Saw it as Glitter immediately so maybe I'm the target audience. Same here
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Dumb Marketing Moves #54: Poor font choice. Hitler wankes me happy 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Hitler wankes me happy This is some "gisnep" style bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:This is some "gisnep" style bullshit. I'm just having a laugh  It obviously says glitter. What's gisnep? *googles* huh, haven't heard that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
The font is questionable but from context it's not too hard to figure out it's supposed to be glitter. 'Hitter makes me happy' wouldn't make much sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
You are supposed to cut the horizontal bar from the second t before you apply the sticker, duh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I'm just having a laugh I think it was in some previous iteration of a branding thread in GBS a while a back, but some illiterate idiot goon mentioned having read the logo below as "Gisnep" for quite a while in their adult life:  e: apparently googling "something awful gisnep" brings up a bunch of SA Disney related stuff and auto-highlights Disney as a searchterm, so apparently this is widespread. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:The font is questionable but from context it's not too hard to figure out it's supposed to be glitter. It indeed says 'Glitter makes me happy" but unfortunately it's a reference to convicted pedophile Gary Glitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Can a URL constitute false advertising? http://www.drballitch.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Oh my god his first name is Harry
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
RandomFerret posted:Oh my god his first name is Harry Harry Jr. So they had one Harry Ballitch and kept going.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Saint Freak posted:Harry Jr. So they had one Harry Ballitch and kept going. "If I had to live with it, so will he!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
http://community.garadget.com/t/iphone-app-will-not-stay-open-just-flashes-when-trying-to-launch/1706 Phone app garage door opener bricks a guy's device (the door opener not the phone) after a relatively benign one star review. It hasn't gone that well for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCEm21aTh5Q The worst commercial. Even worse than the Cadillac one with Neil Mcdonaugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Yeah I saw that on Twitter earlier and Jesus.  You could write a dissertation on how many different ways this commercial is awful (and I expect to see a few of them online before I even finish this post) and you'd still have to make some really painful cuts. There's so much to unpack here from so many different angles that I don't even know where I would start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
It's like they watched the Chemical Brothers - Out of Control clip and turned it off 3/4 of the way through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sy8nS-Te6g It did allow me to see this hot take on the situation where someone completely misses the point of it all so very thoroughly. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 05:46
|
|