show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions
You can't prove a negative, screwball. It's literally impossible to prove "never took advantage of anyone" about anyone, billionaire or not.
Not that you aren't almost certainly using an overbroad definition of 'take advantage', on top of it.
I'm down to change my view.
No, you aren't. People who are don't play these kinds of semantic games.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn't stuff their money under a mattress.
Then you must seek to increase your grunt range, or you'll never make it.
Nah, there's plenty of both, even mixed in very similar subject matter. Example:
An ATM (initialism) takes a card then asks you for its PIN (acronym).
It's true, happiness can't be bought. However, what money can buy is the removal of certain obstacles to that happiness.
Here's a great response to that:
If you're at a house party and you need to take a shit, do you do it with the door wide open so everyone can see and smell you? Or do you actually understand, when it comes down to it, that there are valid reasons for wanting privacy other than wanting to get away with something wrong or illegal?
Jimmy Carr said it best:
My father always said 'Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger...until the accident.'
Redundancies do exist, but I think we naturally try to get rid of them, mostly out of laziness probably, lol. That's the whole reason "u" and "r" ever got substituted for the words they're homophonic with. It only saves two letters, but there it is. Contractions in general are the same thing. "Goodbye" is the final form of "god be with ye", and even that is just "bye" the vast majority of the time.
We are a linguistically lazy lot.
You order your food through doordash. As soon as you place the order the food is made. Then a driver decides to pick up your order. It's already been 10 minutes since your food was made. It's now getting cold. The driver finally shows up. It's now been 25 minutes since the food was made. The driver picks up your order and drives it 10 minutes away. It's now been 35 minutes since your food was made.
None of this is relevant. The restaurant made the food the exact same way they always make it.
You paid more money for food that sat for over half an hour.
The food is now sub par and cold. You eat it anyway.
Only because of the passage of time, not because the food was any worse to begin with.
That tells these businesses they can just cut quality and charge more because you'll still pay for it.
That absolutely does not follow, lmao. What an absurd leap.
Firstly, the notion that a restaurant is actually going to go out of their way to tell their cook(s) to make a dish in a cheaper/worse way, but ONLY for doordash etc. orders, is patently ridiculous.
Secondly, the restaurant makes about the same money either way (doordash vs. in person, I mean); the % increase on doordash is typically very close to, if not equal to, the % cut doordash takes for the services they provide the restaurant (maybe a bit less because doordash also saves the restaurant money by them not having to hire delivery drivers). If they push the doordash price up much beyond that, it'll no longer be competitive, and competition is already MUCH more of an issue on doordash than it would be normally, because of how easy it is to 'shop around' restaurants in your area on doordash.
You little piggy. You're gonna eat this cold overpriced food little piggy. Come get your cold shit quality food little piggy.
What is wrong with you? lol
'He preferred that' is all the reason there needs to be, I guess, lol.
My man I don't think I give a shit where you think I belong.