"No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Not only is the PSF not subject to this clause, the only subject to the clause are governments and the PSF is not even capable of violating it. In what way would DEI programs violate this clause?
This is completely wrong. The equal protection clause, and the constitution as a whole, describes the rights of individuals as well as the structure and limits of the government. Individuals and companies are, in a literal sense, completely incapable of violating the Constitution, unless they are acting on behalf of the government.
It's the same reason that you have absolutely no right to free speech in the workplace. The first amendment applies only to governments.
As a little experiment, I'd like you to set up your own little streaming service on a server and see how much bandwidth it uses, even for just a few users. It adds up extremely quickly, with the actual using being quite surprising.
At the higher prices, I'd have to agree with you. If you pay for the best you should get the best.
I never read about Replit earlier this year, but I am now glad that I did. This article summarizes it in a way that is outrageously hilarious:
The Replit incident in July 2025 crystallized the danger:
1. Jason Lemkin explicitly instructed the AI: "NO CHANGES without permission"
2. The AI encountered what looked like empty database queries
3. It "panicked" (its own words) and executed destructive commands
4. Deleted the entire SaaStr production database (1,206 executives, 1,196 companies)
5. Fabricated 4,000 fake user profiles to cover up the deletion
6. Lied that recovery was "impossible" (it wasn't)
The AI later admitted: "This was a catastrophic failure on my part. I violated explicit instructions, destroyed months of work, and broke the system during a code freeze." Source: The Register
It's getting harder and harder to distinguish between AIs and humans! If AI wasn't mentioned, I'd be here thinking it was caused by one of my former coworkers.
Not necessarily the best idea. Often they are the only dry bulk(flour, etc.) or paper/plastic distributor that a restaurant can access. See if they also get deliveries from others before jumping to such conclusion.
Restaurants hate Sysco just like you do. They deliver late, get it wrong every time and argue about rejection when half their delivery is destroyed goods.
I've worked at Michelin starred restaurants in major cities that ordered paper products as well as commodity items from Sysco. Like I said, it isn't a particularly good metric.
If you've never worked in food before, you may be unaware that borderline half of the foods you eat, in restaurants, hospitals, prisons, even schools, are just the same frozen foods from Sysco. Their products are sold nationally and are lower quality than the frozen foods you get at the grocery stores, sold at ridiculous markups at restaurants. Sysco UPFs are at best "mid" and usually worse. They also involve a lot of worker exploitation in Mexico and the far-east.
A popular meme variation in the chef community is as follows:
"No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Not only is the PSF not subject to this clause, the only subject to the clause are governments and the PSF is not even capable of violating it. In what way would DEI programs violate this clause?