How does anyone pay for food delivery??! It’s expensive and carbon-wasteful and exploitive. Go get your own food! It’s quite simple, why have we been propping up this industry.

@1
How is it exploitive?
No one is forced to drive for Door Dash or Uber Eats. People are making this decision on their own.

@2 "No one is forced to drive"

except people are forced to work second and third jobs. and this industry has a low barrier to entry. now why would that be?

"repeal a bill that seeks to phase out gas service in new buildings"

That is not even remotely close to what HB1589 does. The bill allows PSE to accelerate depreciation of their natural gas infrastructure so they can retire it sooner setting the stage for them to stop offering natural gas to any current customer. This will have several impacts. First in the short term accelerating the depreciation will lead to higher operational costs that will be passed through to consumers. Costs of natural gas and electricity for PSE customers are expected to rise significantly over the next few years. For this reason several progressive groups had urged Inslee to veto HB1589 including the Sierra Club, Washington State Budget and Policy Center, Washington State Community Action Partnership, and Sightline Institute due to potential impacts on lower income consumers.

Longer term it requires PSE to submit a plan to the utility commission to completely remove natural gas in the future. If/when this happens consumers who today rely on natural gas will face the very costly project of rewiring their home to support electric appliances (and of course buying new appliances). Esimates ranges from $40k-$70k depending on the age of your home. Not considered is the fact that WA state currently gets 33% of our energy from natural gas and there is no plan on how to generate more power to meet the additional demands of phasing out natural gas and growth. This will have an impact on all electricity prices so even if you are not personally impacted by the removal of natural gas you will pay more for your electricity due to the higher demand. So in the end we'll have a costlier, less reliable energy grid that will to little to actually change global climate issues while potentially forcing people who can't afford to upgrade to sell their homes. Other than that what's not to love?

@2, no one is “forced” to work anywhere but the alternative is being broke. Food is expensive enough, who can afford to tack on an extra 30-40% for delivery? Is Seattle really that full of overpaid people who can’t do simple tasks for themselves?

Last Week Tonight dedicated their most recent episode to the bizarre food delivery app business. Informative and funny as usual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsfJYWpqII

"Is Seattle really that full of overpaid people who can’t do simple tasks for themselves?"

yes. all liberals patting themselves on the back for their liberalness while supporting this type of libertarian wet dream bullshit

If the high capacity magazine ban gets struck down by a higher court, I propose we go back to early Republic gun laws:
No concealed carry
Mandatory unloaded storage of firearms
Registration of all firearms and ammunition with the state
Mandatory annual proficiency tests for every firearm a person owns
Mandatory annual medical and psychological exams for firearms owners

All supported by the 1790's era Militia Acts and other early Republic laws.

Alternatively, we can all understand that the Founders didn't ban high capacity magazines for much the same reason that the didn't ban nuclear power--the technology didn't exist and wasn't in view when the Second Amendment was passed.

“The apps suck. They've created an unprofitable business model, and the only way they can survive is by bullying cities into allowing them to skirt minimum wage law.”

While I hope that whining made the Stranger feel better, the simple economic reality here is of a low-margin business which adds small and subjective value. It works if used as intended: offering persons who were already going from Point A to Point B a way to grab some quick cash for a small detour via Point C. As a full-time paid employment, it won’t work, and so minimum-wage legislation will shut it down. Take your pick: enforce the minimum wage, effectively ending this gig for many persons, or allow it to continue. Just don’t blame someone else for your choice.

The world where you were going to enforce the minimum wage solely by sticking it to big, bad business does not exist. Stop whining about your fantasy not being real.

The "disruptive" business plan exemplified in Uber / Doordash / AirBnb etc has always relied on two key factors:
1. The new model somehow evades regulations on an existing business (taxis, hotels, etc)
2. Initially the business is propped up by venture capital meaning it can operate at a loss for several years before regulations can catch up, and in this period capture a significant portion of the market while driving their "non-disruptive" competitors out of business.

Just wait until 2025 when Uber rolls out their latest disruptive innovation, Surge-Pricing Ambulances.

@5 @3
Yes, a lot of people take on side gigs to supplement their incomes. Each one of them has to weigh the pros & cons of whatever options they have and make the decision that is best for them. No one is forcing them.
@5
As for why someone would choose to spend all the extra money on getting meals delivered?
Who cares?

How did a judge in frigging Longview come to be determining the constitutionality of a weapons bill?

Was some Gunner org judge shopping?

@13: ah: "...a Cowlitz County Superior Court judge presiding over an enforcement action against Gator’s Custom Guns ruled that Washington’s ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines is unconstitutional."

@8
Are there any other old tyme laws you’d like to back to?
Maybe the 1st Amendment should only apply to printed media. Newspapers and pamphlets and not to radio, television and the internet.
I mean the technology didn't exist and wasn't in view when the First Amendment was passed.
I’ll never understand why leftists want criminals to be the only ones armed.

"The higher court's ruling is embarrassing for Davison; sucks when you use public funds to take something petty to court and fail."

The Washington Attorney General's Office routinely looses appeals on behalf of State agencies, including cases where the State not only looses, but must also pay the other side's attorney fees.* But you won't see the Stranger saying that result is embarrassing for Bob Ferguson. Why Davison is treated differently?

*Example: https://www.courthousenews.com/washington-state-ag-must-pay-4-3-million-to-thrift-store-chain/

@15 "I’ll never understand why leftists want criminals to be the only ones armed."

Liberals want gun rights restricted not leftists. Like Marx wrote: "under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

@26 "But what is the policy choice Europeans make? They have far more cops per capita than we."

Not really. Some countries, like Serbia, Turkey and Russia do. Others like the UK and all of Scandinavia have fewer. Interestingly the country or territory with at least 1000 inhabitants that has the most cops per capita is Palestine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers

The silence about Davison's latest embarrassing loss from her supporters here speaks volumes. Whether you agree with her politics or not she and her deputies are proving to be pretty incompetent at lawyering. Wonder if she'll win another term (or even try).

@5: As a tech worker, one of the few good things to come out of the pandemic was realizing I could "pay people to do stuff" like deliver groceries and take out. The money doesn't matter to us, but it does to them, and you can "brute force" a fair wage by trying to focus as much as possible on options where 100% of the tip goes to the driver. Win-win.

David Mitchell for every public office in Seattle. Simultaneously. He's dreeeeaaaamy...

Also, just ban all guns already. Nobody needs them.

@16: the ban was on magazine size not whether hypothetical home-invasion victims can have a firearm or not.

guns aren't being grabbed and the slope is not slippery. it's barely a slope.

@20: Thanks for answering the question @18. ;-)

(I’m guessing, “The silence about Davison's latest embarrassing loss from her supporters here speaks volumes,” will have to do as replacement for all of the rhetoric about, “Comrade Sawant brilliantly leads us to total victory on all fronts,” as that all seems to have fallen by the wayside somehow?)

@15 It's not my standard. It's the Supreme Court's. The "originalists" there have said repeatedly that constitutional amendments have to be understood as they were at the time. The judge in this case cited that precedent by saying that there weren't any limits on magazine size in the 1790's, so there can't be now.

Me, I'd like to have laws that make sense in the present. If we can't have that, then I'm not opposed to taking a hammer to originalist doctrine. Call this one malicious compliance. No doubt it would cause the "originalists" to stand on their heads to say why laws entirely in accordance with 1790's law are unconstitutional.

Oh, and I'm not saying that anyone can't have guns. I'm saying that if they do, they need to be part of a well-regulated militia.

@25
trumpfy's
Brownshirt
Society's Always
looking for a Few
Good Men - well--armed
(& -regulated! by Cadet Bone-
spurs), poorly-Educated and Willing
to Take One (or two!) for Team trumpfster

if they'll just Sign Away
their Power of Attorney to
trumpy and company, when
they're inevitably're Sacrificed
by El trumpster their Families'll get
a Solid Gold-plated "Freedom!" plaque
cum medal from the "President' Himself!

who'll utilize their Life Savings
to Help Make America GREAT yet Again!
(& Pay all trumpfy's Lawyers & MASSIVE Fines).

so Gott BLESS
our Second Amd.
(and all Commas!)

@25
I identify as well regulated.
And after all, isn’t that what really matters?

@22
It’s not for you to decide who needs what.

@27 So just because someone needs heroin for their fix, it should be legal? After all, it's not for you or anyone else to say what they need. How very abolitionist of you.

@27 yeah it is, and you need to stop fantasizing about murdering people.

BTW, the originalists (Scalia, in the Heller decision) decided that "militia" actually just meant "everyone". Seriously, it's actual legal precedent now. Ammosexuals take this to mean their ability to murder people is a commandment from god, when it actually just means we have stupid laws on the books. If we have to ban every part of a gun piecemeal in order to achieve a full ban of guns, we should do it. Laws that enshrine terrible things don't deserve respect. If we operated that way, we'd still have slavery, and the ability for every man with an anger management problem to shoot their wives is a terrible thing. It doesn't matter what militia means, it matters that horrible things are happening.

Seriously, conservatives look at things going off the rails in a legal fashion, and just decide, "Welp, this is my life now. It's fine as long as other people are dying, not me" instead of thinking, "Hmm, maybe the going off the rails part is more important than the in a legal fashion part".

@29 "you need to stop fantasizing about murdering people ... Laws that enshrine terrible things don't deserve respect"

You sound like the anti-abortion crowd

That 101-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature -- it's from 2022, not 2024.

@1,2,3,5 - Think. If you're not married with children, rent a room & go on welfare, you can probably live better than working. But then we pay for that. Do you really want to ad welfare to the $10 cost of delivering your $5 burger? How about American workers unionize & the rest of us figure a better way to stuff our faces? (Yeah, I know. Unions have nothing to do with delivery surcharges.)
@6, Thanks, that was helpful.
@9, Do you really think most Uber drivers are just picking someone up on their way somewhere else?
@10, I think that's a bit closer to the truth.
@12, I think people who get a second/third job are at least in part forced. Many personal expenses, utility bills, auto prices, tuition, etc are at bottom contrived based on how much they can force the average man to pay so you don't have much choice.....And, yeah, you're right, if someone pays $5 to have $200 worth of food delivered for a party, who cares.
@all, Have you ever actually tried to fire a weapon with a 30 round magazine? When I was into the shooting sports (paper targets at commercial ranges only) I had an SKS (AK looking gun) with a 30 round mag. Unless you're just walking down a street spraying everything, they're useless. It gets in the way of everything & unbalances the weapon. And you damn sure can't shoot one at targets from a bench with the magazine holding the gun a foot above the rests.

30 round magazines turn a rifle from a broomstick into a 4'x8' sheet of plywood. Try carrying that around all day.

@25- funny how Clarence Thomas never mentions the 18th-century law that says he can’t bone white women.

@32: “Do you really think most Uber drivers are just picking someone up on their way somewhere else?”

No, but that’s the way Uber, Lyft, and now delivery apps, were originally sold. It did not take long for the model to shift. I lived on Capitol Hill at the time, and the rapid increase in automobile traffic made every day on Pike-Pine look like Saturday evening.

@16- the problem is that apparently the more kids there are in the grade school or movie theater one is attacking, the bigger the magazine needs to be.