oh go fuck yourself. i make decent money normally, but i’ve also been in the position where im scraping by, and right now im much closer to the latter category, having been recently laid off.
I tip well when I can afford it, but if i can’t afford to do so, i don’t fucking go out. I’m not going to fuck over someone who makes a few bucks an hour before tip so that i can eat cheap food someone else made, im cooking from home now that im unemployed, and even once i have a job again it will be a while before i can indulge in that.
a lot of people seem to be missing my point in this thread, which is that you have a few choices here:
tip well, to support employees, because US tax laws allow you to pay someone a fraction of minimum wage if you can say they’re a tip-based worker, and even if you can’t just put up a tip jar and pay minimum wage
don’t go to places which rely on underpaying workers to give you cheap prices, because the cruelty is what makes it cheap
you live in an area where tipping is weird because everyone is paid well
don’t tip, because you can’t afford to
don’t tip, pay 100% of the employer’s asking price, and go brag on the internet about how you don’t tip and you’re sticking it to capitalism, while the only person you’re hurting is the employee.
Most of the above are fine. The second from last, if you have empathy for others, you’ll probably at least realize who you’re hurting, even if you can’t help it.
That last one though just makes you a certifiable piece of shit. You’re not cool for fucking over the little guy and calling it sticking it to the man.
My solution is to tip well, because not tipping is hurting the employee, not the employer. If they were paying the employees a fair wage, the prices would be higher anyway.
“can’t solve the problem as long as capitalism exists, so may as well contribute to capitalism while patting myself on the back and pretending i’m sticking it to the man by helping them exploit workers” is such fucking bullshit. “i can’t change the world so may as well contribute to the fucked up” is exactly what keeps the practice sustainable.
you are only contributing to wage theft by deciding you’re a hero for not tipping.
if you want to try in other ways to make effective change in society? go for it. do that too. but don’t hit no tip and then go jerk off publicly over how sexy you are for fighting capitalism.
Or just don’t pretend you’re sticking it to capitalism by helping them stiff their workers. You’re directly supporting the practice. You’re no fucking hero for not tipping, and the only people you’re sticking it to are the underpaid employees.
Trust me, as a vegan, i know how hard it is to research everything you consume or buy or purchase. You give up convenience to support a cause you care about or believe in, because those conveniences are exactly what feeds the problem. And trying to find stuff that isn’t contributing to the problem is way more expensive, because cruelty to animals or cruelty to your human minimum wage workers are exactly what makes your food so quick and easy and cheap.
As a general rule, i’d guess that if you don’t want to tip, but don’t want to support companies that don’t pay their wages well: give up cheap fast food. give up most large national or international chains. you’re probably looking at a lot more cooking for yourself from home, probably buying your food at a local small co-op. It’s not going to be easy.
That or tip well because the person taking your order is the person you’re fucking over by not tipping, not the people profiting.
Either way don’t pretend you’re doing anything other than supporting the problem.
I think Apple intended it to allow people to understand when a message was secure or not
I don’t even think it’s security; It meant the messages are free. A large part of the early marketing for iMessage was that it bypasses the sms network entirely and that you could text as much as you want even if you didn’t have unlimited texting on your plan, as long as you were talking in blue bubbles.
this is a dashed seven thread. we don’t take kindly to straight-topped threes. double-bubble eights are also not “one of us”, nor are angle-ticked ones (if you’re gonna tick a one you better give that tick a curve). slashed and dotted zeroes are ok, but naked zeroes are heresy. overly-hooked 6s and 9s make us feel uncomfortable. triangled fours are the worst, though.
To understand it, and how and why it evolves over time, just like any other study. There’s no such thing as prescriptivist physics, or math, or biology, or etc etc. We don’t get to tell the world how it works, and pretty much no science is focused on that assumption other than historical linguistics.
we could all just speak however we want as long as we understood
We do speak however we want, and we do understand, because we pick up new trends in language on an unconscious level and this is the way languages have always worked and evolved.
then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles
We’ve already ended up there, and that’s nothing new. Sure, new languages/dialects/creoles creep into the world, but that’s how all languages evolve — instead, the lines between “what’s a language”, “what’s a dialect”, and “what’s a creole” get grayed and more blurry and fuzzy.
The thing is, humans developed language a very very long time ago, and those languages evolve and split off due to large-scale trends in the lives of humans speaking those languages, for a multitude of reasons that interact and make the process essentially random.
Here’s one way to look at it: it’s the opposite of the “jurassic park” problem, instead of “your scientists were preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to ask whether they should”, linguists spent so much time arguing over prescriptivist/descriptivist arguments, and never asked whether prescriptivism actually can control the evolution of a language.
Anybody, even some random teen in some random neighborhood in any english speaking country, can come up with a new word, and it can catch on and eventually become a new accepted and widely-used word. That’s because it’s a “you can use this if you want” situation, whereas the prescriptivist version is “if you use ___ you are wrong, if you want to be right use ___ only”.
It should be obvious why telling someone they can do something is an easier argument than that they can’t, and this is why prescriptivism has failed. especially because, again, nobody saw “should of” in this post and thought “oh god i don’t know what this is supposed to mean”; instead people either understood and said nothing, or they understood but jumped in to tell people they’re wrong for making them understand in a way that contradicts what their own english teachers in school said they SHOULD be able to understand.