It tells me that businesses have decided it’s okay to be obtrusive and rude.
I’ve had jobs where my income was heavily dependent on tips, so I keep that in mind when leaving a tip myself. I understood that tipping could be a sensitive subject, so I was careful to never make guests feel like it was mandatory or expected.
I certainly never asked for a tip before any service had been rendered - but that’s what has become normal for many businesses. The employees aren’t the problem. The owners/managers who choose the POS software are.
“What do we owe to each other in general?” is an excellent question. I’m not being shown the same degree of courtesy that I worked hard to show others, and that bothers me.
Nah, tip jars don’t bother me. What I don’t like is that the person at the register can immediately see exactly how much I’m tipping. It’s impossible to be discreet. If I’m leaving a generous tip, I don’t like to feel as if I’m showing off.
With tip jars, I make a point of tipping when the person at the register isn’t looking (like when they’re relaying my order to the kitchen or something). Maybe I’ll toss some money in the jar on my way out the door. When I’m getting table service, whoever waited on me doesn’t see the tip until I’ve already left the room.
I don’t like the Square POS (or whatever) because it turns tipping from a spontaneous, pleasant surprise to a in-your-face formalized routine.
I can’t blame you if you find my response frustrating. I’m fully aware that I’m being irrational.
I don’t appreciate being asked for a tip when I’m eating at a place that only offers counter service. If all you’re doing is sliding a tray of food across a counter, then no, you don’t deserve to be tipped like an actual waiter.
Yeah. What the hell were the plaintiffs supposed to do? How do you get proof of something like this? Break into an exec’s office? Hack an auto manufacturer’s network?
Oh, wait a sec. Evidence that’s acquired illegally generally isn’t admissible. So even those ridiculous plans wouldn’t work. I guess the best we can do is wait until the harm is done, and then hope there’s a sloppy enough paper trail to unequivocally prove exactly who did it.
Apparently, that’s MUCH better than using some common sense.
An auto manufacturer, who has no business snooping on your texts in the first place, should not have permission to keep copies of them. Ever. It’s an absurdly obvious question. The plaintiffs shouldn’t have to prove they’ve been harmed. The auto manufacturers should have to prove that their intentions benefit all customers, AND that those benefits outweigh the risks.
And no, advertising that’s specifically targeted at my perceived needs and interests doesn’t count as a “benefit”. Sorry not sorry.
I’m going to assume this judge hasn’t been unduly influenced.
This looks like a classic case of following the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law. The law seems like it’s intended to punish harmful violations of privacy. No reasonable person can conclude that the sale of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people’s private data is entirely harmless, but that’s what this judge did.
US courts often take “reasonable” assumptions into account when making judgments or issuing sentences. Just because the plaintiffs couldn’t actually prove specific damage is no reason to assume it didn’t/won’t happen.
This is one of my biggest sources of frustration when listening to opinions on the issue - people conflating criticism/praise of a government with criticism/praise of a religion.
To me, it should only “matter” for technical reasons - to help find the root of the problem and fix it at the source. If your roof is leaking, then fix the roof. Don’t become an expert on where to place the buckets.
You’re right, though. It doesn’t matter in terms of excusing or justifying anything. It shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place.
Hey, you gotta understand religion if you want to effectively argue against it, so thanks! Clarification is always welcome! I don’t see any trolling here.