I think that’s called mentorship

Though I do wish they'd been able to get a defensesice agreement out of it, because clearly it would have come in handy.

They really tried:

Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as artical 42.7 of the Mutual defence clause of the European Defence Union for European Union members), while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[18] In the Ukrainian and Russian version of the document, the wording "security guarantees" was used though.[20][21]

If you can find a mortician or taxidermist capable of making her expression, I’ll be very impressed.

God, that’s jarring.

Just such relief, for a moment.

It’s one of the few jobs in which an untrained and not especially strong person can make good money right off the bat without exposing themselves to extremely dangerous conditions.

I worked with a bunch of 40-70 year old women without many qualifications to put on a resume who earned decent money (they were often homeowners who paid for their kids to go to college). I don’t know of many industries where that is the case.

It’s very easy for an employer to exploit tipped workers in places with a difference, but I don’t know if getting rid of the tipping culture would make anything better. Restaurants constantly take advantage of their employees, whether they’re tipped or not, and if menu prices go up, that increase in revenue is not going to just be distributed among the employees. My guess based on how restaurant owners treat their employees is that prices would be raised by 15-20%, servers would be bumped up to minimum wage or just above it, and the rest would be pocketed by the owners.

In that scenario, customers are paying just as much as before, but now it’s mandatory, while servers are poorer (as are kitchen, dish, and bar employees who used to get tipped out [in some restaurants, each server gives 5-20% of their earned tips to various other sectors of the restaurant*]), and restaurant owners are richer. I don’t see how that’s a better situation than the one we have today. It’s definitely less hassle for consumers and it’s fairer in the sense that now nobody makes good money (except of course the owners), but I don’t think it’s an improvement that would stand alone.

If we were to improve the whole system for workers in general, I’d want to get rid of tipping, but not until then.

• I worked somewhere where the servers each tipped 20% to dish and kitchen (total, so if there were eight people in the kitchen, they each got 2.5% from each of the servers), and the employers used that as justification for paying everyone in the back as a tipped employee. The kitchen begged the front of house not to strike, because they were working quasi under the table and didn’t want to lose even a really shitty job. Just a fun anecdote about restaurant exploitation.

Yeah, I feel weird about this, but (I think) I perfectly empathize with his feelings. His behavior on the other hand, feels like something I would do in a nightmare, like my brain is trying to conjure up the worst possible thing to do in any given situation like a weird call of the void intrusive thought.

From my original comment:

If we were to improve the whole system for workers in general, I’d want to get rid of tipping, but not until then.

I now live in Germany and people with little training, strength, or desire to risk their health are able to support themselves at all types of jobs, plus they’re able to gain qualifications in their chosen field if they want, to further increase their wages. That just requires reworking the whole system.

The US absolutely could do that, but do you think they’re going to?

No worries, it’s kind of a silly question, because there’s definitely no “ideal” version of this ban, but these bills have such significant propaganda associated with them, I’m interested if there are other big problems that are more hidden.

Yeah, but we still have to show that we have weapons. Maybe add a cactus?

I’m sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I’m well aware of the privacy concerns and that’s the main reason I don’t support these bans.

The person I was responding to suggested that they could be implemented without privacy infringement, but they still didn’t support them, so I wanted to know their reasoning.

I’ll do fresh bananas or frozen berries, but it’s a waste of fresh berries and too much of a hassle for other fruit, imo.

God, choosing a least bad one is even hard. David Cameron or Gordon Brown? I don’t know if I was just less informed about British politics during their tenures or if they were actually better.

Edit: oof, I forgot about how Cameron handled brexit, not him.

I realized after I commented that he was also the one who brought the brexit referendum forward

That’s fair. Major was before my time, so I just did a quick wiki glance, and did automatically dismiss him because he was a conservative in thatcher’s cabinet, but that doesn’t make him inherently worse than the rest on this list.

Plus, we just saw what you get from a former civil rights lawyer in the Labour Party

Then can I ask why you’re against the ban? We know that social media has a negative effect on children, we know they have particular difficulty stopping use on their own, and we know that kids are very often more tech savvy than their parents, so a ban from the parents won’t necessarily be effective. My primary concern with bans has been the privacy incursions, but if that’s out of the equation, it seems pretty similar to age-based tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, or gambling restrictions to me.

I’m well aware that politicians try to make these bills seem reasonable though, so there’s a good chance I’m missing some of the consequences. I can also understand (though respectfully disagree) if you’re just maintaining consistency and you’re also against other age-based restrictions.

Edit: at least one of the obvious drawbacks is that any website with a comments section is included, but I’m still interested in the inherent negatives about an ideal bill

One might even say: more dollars than sense.

Way fewer Cubans navigating it in… less than ideal conditions.

I think he means she’s processing his items at the cash register

… Although I would not actually be surprised if a significant portion of the American population most supportive of Israel are really motivated by a desire to have a place for Jews to live so that they don’t live in the USA