> This isn’t just a niche issue either: this is a very real consideration for any corporate user
Very true, but I'd wish this "common" knowledge is more widespread. Security is a major issue commonly overlooked. People do a lot of insecure things for convenience.
As far as I am aware, Java is the only major programming language (other than JavaScript, which is also the only worse major language) that was not organically adopted by programmers.
JavaScript was forced on the world by being the language of the browser, but Java was foisted on the world by Sun Microsystems in a massive marketing campaign.
And then Java was bought by the kind of person who isn't a programmer but needs to make some kind of sensible choice at some company, along with the kind of person who needs to teach freshman programming according to the latest fad.
Don't forget the millions Sun spent literally ADVERTISING Java.
For 2-3 years (2003-4?) every other tech-related book that was published had something to do with Java. I remember going into a Barnes and Noble once, back in that era, and walking down an aisle that felt like it was 30 feet long and four shelves high of just Java books. It was all marketing.
After a decade people suddenly woke up and realized "oh, Java sucks".
Then the smart kids moved on, but the rest of the world is now stuck with Java, and there will always be those kinds of people around who aren't programmers but who need to make what they think is some kind of sensible choice.
Of course, the Java community has also realized what a pile of ** Java was, so now they've added all sorts of lambdas and better syntax and whatnot, but it's band-aids on top of a fundamental misconception, which is that object-oriented programming is the best way to model software engineering problems.
> JavaScript was forced on the world by being the language of the browser, but Java was foisted on the world by Sun Microsystems in a massive marketing campaign. [...] Don't forget the millions Sun spent literally ADVERTISING Java.
Also, don't ever forget that Java was the other "language of the browser". Netscape came bundled with a Java Runtime Environment, back when everyone used Netscape. You were supposed to write your web application as Java applets, with JavaScript being the bridge between the static HTML world and the dynamic Java applet world (which also explains why its name was changed from LiveScript to JavaScript).
> They are completely nonsense to non-programmers, and they rarely ever have good documentation
This applies the same to other "popular" languages like Javascript i.e. NodeJs. I'd argue Java apps being supported by large corporations actually have better documentation.
> Most only show up in old SO post, or application specific forums
And a lot of "popular" issues only show up in a hidden github issues comment that may or may not be relevant anymore.
> Is this why the US administration sees the Risc-5 architecture as a potential threat?
> and now finally it can have that thanks to an open architecture that's not monopolized by a single player
It's a threat because there's a lot of shady things going on behind the scenes. E.g. with x86 there was Via who fronted for China to make x86 chips. With ARM there was the whole ARM China fiasco and then the same group moving on to RISC-V.
1. Chinese firm enters partnership with a firm from abroad. Like manufacture X companies' product(s) on Chinese soil for its internal market. Of course this involves technology transfer in some form. And licensing deals / royalties, investments or personnel exchange back & forth, whatever.
2. Disagreement happens between the firms involved.
3. Chinese partner / subsidiary pulls out. But -crucially-
4. Continues making those products, or products employing the tech that was transferred. Can't un-learn what was learned, can you?
5. Legal conflict drags on for many years. Possibly without ever getting resolved (intentional, I'd guess).
ARM, or the Intel <-> VIA saga are just some well known examples.
> ARM, or the Intel <-> VIA saga are just some well known examples.
They are well known because of the intent, not so much the saga. With almost everyone having had manufacturing in China disputes were bound to happen.
There are government backed entities that aren't for business. From day 1 their intent was to "steal" technology. They weren't investing in the industry. Via and by extension HTC were victims rather than culprits.
There's no single source but plenty of articles and famous youtubers have covered the VIA - Intel shenanigans over the years which you can look up yourself if you search online, but that's pretty much dead and buried now since Intel kept suing and then buying out all of VIA's X86 spin-off teams.
You don’t have to tip, you just normally do. I had one abysmal experience waiting 90 minutes without our waitress even checking in on us, so I didn’t tip.
40 minutes after being seated is my limit before I walk out or whenever someone seated after me is served first. Let them eat the cost of their poor service.
Except you have to tip, because tipping is baked into the laws in the US. Tipped workers have a minimum wage of 1/3 of the regular one. Not tipping even the minimum, say, 12% is basically a crime.
Or, you could argue that the existence of such low minimum wages are the true crime, because now you have this shitty Nash equilibrium where you must beg for tips because everyone else does.
"Buy beer at our place. Pay us 5 units of currency and we will get you this beer."
There's absolutely zero reason for things to be more complicated than this.
If you live in a tipping society, you should tip (for services like being waited on). As others have said, you don't have to, but that makes you the <explicative>.
Is there anyone who thinks it's actually a better system than European-style tipping (i.e. an entirely optional way to thank people for particularly good service) rather than just a necessity considering the system is what it is?
As a Brit I do always tip when visiting the US, because I understand the implications of not doing so, but I've never understood why people on both sides of the equation (tippers and tippees) aren't lobbying politicians to change it such that menu items are priced the amount you'll actually have to pay - and yes, I feel the same way about VAT not being included in the labelled price, but that's been discussed in a different set of comments higher up the thread - and so that workers are paid enough to live on without getting any tips. And then they can choose whether or not to be extra friendly or to go above and beyond their responsibilities in the hope that people will feel they deserve a tip as an extra bonus on top.
I can't remember ever hearing anyone in favour of USA-style tipping for any reason other than it being the system they're used to, so would be interested if anyone does have a different argument for it.
There would be winners and losers if we switched systems, as with any change. The winners would be consumers and workers in lower-end restaurants where tips are generally small. The losers would be restaurant owners and workers in higher-end restaurants who make good money from tips under the current system. Right now, the potential losers are a lot more vocal and engaged than the potential winners (the system is shitty but not so shitty that most consumers get worked up about it, and low-wage workers just don't have a lot of political power).
Couldn't the higher-end / more expensive places just put their prices up by x% the same as a low-end place?
Is the fear that if both cheap and expensive places moved tipping to higher prices (as an example let's say every single restaurant just raised menu prices by 15%) then more people would choose to go cheaper than do in the current situation of not thinking about accurate total cost until it comes to paying the tip after the meal?
I know we all have cognitive biases so it's possible something like that would be the case, but from a purely logical point of view it seems that if people are happy to pay $500 per person for a meal and to tip $100 on top of that, then they should also be happy to pay $600 for a meal that doesn't need tipping, just the same as for meals that cost $15, and I feel that if it were a universal change (ie not just a single restaurant announcing "no tipping here" but a national or at least state-wide law) then there wouldn't be a huge amount of people chenging from visiting expensive to cheap places.
> "winners and losers if we switched systems, as with any change"
With many, even most, changes that's literally a requirement of the change - with tax changes that keep the total tax revenue the same you have to have some paying more in order to have others paying less. Or if the change is to raise more total tax revenue to fund more social benefits, some tax payers need to pay more in order for some people to get more help. Etc.
But in this case the only losers would come from other people acting on illogical cognitive biases (with the exception of people who currently choose not to tip, or to undertip, who would then be forced to pay the real amount - but surely those people aren't a significant lobbying group, not a sympathetic group that others feel need protecting). Unless I'm missing some part of the equation and there is actually a reason higher-end place for necessarily do worse under a system where tips are included in the sticker price?
> But in this case the only losers would come from other people acting on illogical cognitive biases (with the exception of people who currently choose not to tip, or to undertip, who would then be forced to pay the real amount - but surely those people aren't a significant lobbying group, not a sympathetic group that others feel need protecting).
As I see it, there are two big groups of losers: restaurant owners, who fear that people may dine out less because of the "sticker shock" mentioned in the article, and any tipped staff of restaurants, who fear that their take-home pay will go down if they are paid an hourly wage with no tipping. So even if the "sticker shock" problem corrects itself after an adjustment period, the amount of money to be made as a waiter could very well permanently go down.
The waiters' worry just needs to be addressed by, at the same time as banning tipping, a) removing the current loophole that allows hospitality staff to be paid less than minimum wage because tips will make up the difference and b) raising minimum wage anywhere that it's too low. It's crazy that instead of laws to prevent someone working full time as a waiter from being paid too little to live on they instead have to rely on customers not being too stingy and not tipping enough.
The fact that nobody in other countries wishes they had the US system should be a big clue as to how bad it is - no European waiter is thinking "I wish my salary were half what it is and customers were told their tips are what prevents me from starving". It really isn't a "some winners, some losers" situation it's just a shit situation.
> removing the current loophole that allows hospitality staff to be paid less than minimum wage because tips will make up the difference
This isn't really the issue: the employer is required to make up the difference if the worker's pay does not meet or exceed the normal (non-tipped) minimum wage. The issue is that the waiters are making serious money off of tips.
Say they are making $5/hr for a six hour shift and that they serve 10 tables who each buy $100 worth of food during that shift: then their total pay is going to be 6 * 5 + 10 * 15 = 30 + 150 = $180 (since the custom is to tip at least 15% of the cost of the bill). That means that in order to make the same amount of money without tips, they would have to make $30/hr (and I've chosen pretty low numbers; you can imagine that in more expensive restaurants the money just gets better). That's a pretty expensive wage and it seems unlikely that most staff would get it.
> no European waiter is thinking "I wish my salary were half what it is and customers were told their tips are what prevents me from starving"
Obviously it depends a lot on the kind of place but I would guess that in high-end places, American waiters are doing better than their European counterparts (at least in terms of raw wages), as illustrated above. Servers and bartenders in full-service restaurants are by and large pretty big proponents of the tipping system.
In any case, I'm not a proponent of this system at all; I'm just trying to answer your question of why it hasn't changed by showing that there are in fact groups that benefit from the system as is, so it's not pure inertia that prevents us from getting rid of it.
You don't. However, not tipping in the current system makes you an asshole.
In a perfect world tipping wouldn't be required, but we don't live there right now, and until then all you're doing by not tipping is hitting some working class person in their pocketbook.
Nope. Their employers are not paying them full wage. That's the problem. Tippers are subsidizing the restaurant owners and enabling the practice while feeling righteous about their destructive behavior.
Of course the best behavior is to completely avoid any place of business that runs on tipping when possible.
Restaurant X outlaws tipping and raises prices to enable wait staff to make the same income. Now non tippers are paying more money and tippers pay less.
Yes, you're right. I didn't counter that point because it was immaterial (of course the cost of the meal has to be paid). I was countering your assertion that not tipping made people assholes by pointing out the destructive and unethical effects of tipping.
If you grew up under an unethical system and had to muddle through it it is not honor to try to force the same broken system on all others just because you endured painful experiences. It's nasty.
I boycott tipping restaurants on ethical grounds. Voluntarily exploiting a broken system for your personal benefit makes you an asshole.
This isn’t the days of slavery where buying food required you to support an unethical system, you can go to a non tipping fast food joint, cook your own food, etc.
Most believed that M4 was not coming either until a last minute rumor. So who knows.
Related rumors:
- M3 process is expensive so it's getting dropped ASAP
- M4 needed for AI so the whole line is getting refreshed
- There's competition from Nuvia etc and M4 is needed to get ahead
Very true, but I'd wish this "common" knowledge is more widespread. Security is a major issue commonly overlooked. People do a lot of insecure things for convenience.
reply