Take your basic non super fancy restaurant, dinner for two with appetizers, entrees, desserts, a two rounds of drinks will probably be $100ish. And that table of two will be there for an hour. Assuming server gets 20% tip average, that’s $20 for the table. An average server will have four tables in their sections. That means if the restaurant is full, they are making $80 an hour in tips. They will get to keep 60% to 80% of that, the rest going in a tip pool that benefits kitchen staff, bussers, barbacks, etc. But they’ll still be making pretty good money.
Of course if the restaurant is empty or they only have one or two tables with people seated, they are making less.
The problem comes that if you get rid of this system, there’s a lot of financial risk for the restaurant owner. Currently they don’t have to pay the server or the staff very much, most of their compensation comes from tips, meaning there is less risk to them keeping the restaurant fully staffed if it’s not going to be busy. If you pay all these people are constant hourly, now there is risk on the restaurant owner in terms of staffing. Bring on too many staff when it’s quiet and they will lose a bundle. Don’t bring on enough staff when it’s busy and those people don’t have a financial incentive to bust their ass. It also becomes solely their job to ensure quality, because the server that spends half the time on their phone in the back room is making the same money as the server who is attentive to their tables. It also means less risk for hiring an inexperienced server, because if the server does a bad job they just won’t make good tips.
All that said, I agree something has to change. I think perhaps one answer would be a law requiring that each restaurant put 15% of gross receipts into a virtual tip pool. That way they aren’t paying through the nose to staff and empty restaurant, there would be a line item on the check like ‘automatic gratuity paid the staff $whatever on this check, further tipping is optional’.
Servers deserve a lot more than minimum wage. Servers would generally not accept anything close to minimum wage, especially when with tips they can be making $50 to $100 an hour on a busy night.
I am simply pointing out that it is difficult to compete with that.
Huh? This might be a different wording thing. In the US, entree is another word for main course. So the meal I am illustrating is for two, has two starters, two main courses, two desserts, four drinks in total.
In fairness, the scan required such astronomical resources because of how they were scanning it. They took the cubic millimeter chunk and cut it into 5,000 super thin flat slices and then did extremely high detail scans of each slice. That’s why they needed AI, to try and piece those flat layers back together into some sort of 3D structure.
Once they have the 3D structure, the scans are useless and can be deleted.
In time it should be possible to scan the tissue and get the 3D structure without such extreme data use.
The problem with that is dosages. First drug knocks you out, second drug paralyzes you, third drug stops your heart. But if you fuck up the dosages, the first drug wears off while the second drug is still in effect. So you are awake but paralyzed and can’t move, so nobody knows you are awake. That leaves you conscious while your heart dies which is quite painful.
I agree. Even at $120 each. 120 times tens of millions is serious fucking cash. We need to have a couple of big companies go bankrupt over this shit. Then maybe they will start taking it seriously. Perhaps at that point maintaining personal data on people will be seen as a liability rather than an asset. And that’s what we really need.
Yup. We need more of the corporate death penalty. And when corporations are so big that ‘killing’ them would harm the economy, I argue we’re back to too big to fail. Maybe the answer is giant fines, and if the company can’t pay, wipe out the largest shareholders and then resell the stock over time. Make people’s personal information a giant hot potato that nobody wants to be holding.
Disagree. Breaking the corporate veil would have a whole lot of unintended consequences and would basically kill investment as a concept. I agree we need to do more about corporations that violate the law with impunity and get wrist slaps. I don’t think that’s it.
Because it would greatly increase the cost and risk of investment. Think not just for billionaires, but for anybody. Imagine somebody buys a couple tens of thousands of dollars of a stock as part of their retirement, that company does something bad, and now not only do they lose their investment but they lose the rest of their retirement also.
I am all for wiping out shareholders, especially big ones, when a company does something super stupid. There should be an incentive for shareholders to hold companies they invest in accountable.
But suggesting that company owners become personally liable for the actions of those companies, especially when those equity owners have little or no control over the decisions of the company, that is a recipe for disaster.
Oh I’m sure there would be insurance for that, but it would be expensive. It would dramatically reduce the amount of overall investment in the nation. That is a very bad thing, it would slow down the rate of our economy and innovation. Don’t get me wrong, the current setup where companies treat your data like an asset and then lose it and nothing happens is broken. There need to be stiff penalties for it. Corporate death penalty even, especially with an ending of all too big to fail. I’m talking penalties scary to the point that whatever profit could be made from your personal information isn’t worth the risk of having it, companies are scared to collect info. This would especially be true if there is negligence involved, like when companies put their databases on open S3 buckets. Companies should be scared shitless of that. But destroying our system of investment is not the answer.
If a company ruins people’s lives, I’m okay with them disappearing and all their investors losing their shirts.
I agree that a company that can’t afford to pay for the damage it is causing is doing more harm than help and should go away.
What I think we can both absolutely agree on, is that the current system where companies forcibly collect all kinds of information on people, don’t take security seriously, get breached, and the only punishment that happens is a few million dollars fine they can just write a check for and everyone affected gets a year of credit monitoring, is a broken system. In many of these breaches, they happen because the data was stored so poorly one could make a serious argument for gross negligence. When a company does this and the punishment is a wrist slap, I have a problem with that. It becomes a cost of doing business, not something company management is actually afraid of.
Also, as somebody who actually works in IT, I can tell you cyber insurance is a thing. For small businesses it covers this sort of breach. When you sign up for it they send you a whole questionnaire that asks about your security practices. It’s all boilerplate bullshit. Real cybersecurity involves an insane amount of complexity and required understanding at every level, and the insurance questionnaire is like do you use multi-factor authentication for your email y/n?. If you check no you get a higher insurance premium.
Perhaps a solution would be a mandatory payment of $250 per person made directly to that person if their information is breached. And if the company fails to report it within 60 days, it triples. If the company intentionally conceals it, it quadruples. And should the company go bankrupt and liquidate, these payments to users will be considered the primary creditor and take priority over all others. So no more of this ‘$10 discount on your next purchase and a year of credit monitoring’ class action settlements, put some real fucking teeth in a law. People would get some real compensation. And personal information would no longer be seen as a $20/person asset but rather as a potentially destroy the company liability.
Oh the plane will be fine. Being a whistleblower is very stressful though. I would not be at all surprised if many if not all of them find it just too hard to go on and end up committing suicide by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head before jumping off a building.
There’s actually a really good explanation for this.
This is a mixing pump. It mixes ethanol into the fuel. Because the mixing happens before the part of the pump that measures how much is being dispensed, you need at least a few gallons to fully flush things out and get somewhere close to what you’re actually buying.
Nobody is going to come arrest you if you buy 2 gallons of gas. But the gas you get me not be the mix you wanted.
This is 100% correct. Look at the average rate of crashes per mile driven with autopilot versus a human. If the autopilot number is lower, they’re doing it right and should be rewarded and NHTSA should leave them be. If the autopilot number is higher, then yes by all means bring in the regulation or whatever.
It is not my place or yours or the governments to tell people how to spend their money or not. It IS our place to ensure that companies aren’t producing products that kill people.
Thus money doesn’t matter here. What matters is whether or not FSD is more dangerous than a human. If it is, it should be prohibited or only used under very monitored conditions. If it is equal or better than a human, IE same or fewer accident / fatalities per mile driven, then Tesla should be allowed to sell it, even if it is imperfect.
In the US we have a free market. Nobody is obligated to pay for FSD or use it. People can vote with their wallet whether they think it’s worth the money or not, THAT is what determines if Tesla makes more money or not. It’s up to each individual customer to decide if it’s worth it. That’s their choice not mine or yours.
As I see it, in a free market what Tesla has to prove is that their system doesn’t make things worse. If they can, if they can prove they’re not making roads more dangerous IE no need to ban it, then it’s a matter between them and their customer.
One company says they can build FSD with 15 sensors and sensor fusion. Another company says they can build FSD with just cameras. As I see it, the development path doesn’t matter, it’s the end result that matters.
If ByteDance doesn’t want to sell their stupid algorithm, they could simply rip it out of TikTok, replace it with a random number generator or any other off-the-shelf recommendation engine, and proceed with the sale.
Find their lowest paid summer intern from the university computer science department, tell him to write some sort of recommendation algorithm and he has two weeks to do it, then whatever he comes up with make it live and that’s all the new owner gets.
I would agree with something like this, but focusing on residential properties. I also think there should be limits to how many residential properties a single company can own. I don’t mean like apartment buildings, I mean like single-family or two / three family houses.
1 to 3 family homes are a resource that should be for the good of the American people. I’m not against somebody making money as part of that, but when the opportunity for investing starts pricing people out of the market then we need to have a hard think about whether the investing market is more important than the people or not. I don’t think it should be.
Squatters should have civil rights. Rights to the property that belongs to somebody else which they are squatting in should not be among their rights. If you are squatting on a property and that property owner wants you gone, you should be removed immediately.
I’m strongly in favor of laws restricting how many 1-3 family homes a company can own. I think that limit should go up and down the chain of corporate ownership including parents and subsidiaries. There should be exceptions for things like worker housing, but single family homes should not be an investment opportunity for large corporations. All that does is drive up the prices and makes it harder for average people to own a home. There is no overall benefit to society.
This is actually false.
There are not mass shootings with ARs every week.
Look at a website like mass shooting tracker, and actually READ some of the incidents. Most are like ‘victim1 and victim2 were leaving a house party on Crescent St. when suspect1 and suspect2 opened fire from a moving vehicle. Victim1 and victim2 returned fire and all four young men were wounded, along with bystander1 and bystander2.’ This will qualify as a mass shooting because four or more people are wounded, so it shows up on that stupid tracker. But there is no AR anywhere, just pistols. Read between the lines and you realize this is a gangland shooting. And in all likelihood all four firearms are illegally owned.
Reality is more people are punched and kicked to death every year than are killed by all rifles including ARs.
Furthermore, there are several million ARs in circulation, and only a couple hundred rifle deaths every year. From a pure statistic point of view, that makes it actually a pretty safe product.
California says restaurants must bake all of their add-on fees into menu prices (www.wshu.org)
Need this nationwide. I hate having fees added on to the price of what I’m ordering.
Full scan of 1 cubic millimeter of brain tissue took 1.4 petabytes of data, equivalent to 14,000 4K movies — Google's AI experts assist researchers (www.tomshardware.com)
Alabama sets nitrogen-gas execution for man who survived botched 2022 effort (www.theguardian.com)
Dell warns of data breach, 49 million customers allegedly affected (www.bleepingcomputer.com)
Is Boeing in big trouble? World's largest aerospace firm faces 10 more whistleblowers after sudden death of two (www.hindustantimes.com)
Windows 11 just isn't enticing Windows 10 users to upgrade, and its market share is actually falling (www.pcgamer.com)
Just saw this while getting gas. Why is it illegal to get less than 4 gallons? (lemmy.world)
Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving linked to hundreds of crashes, dozens of deaths (www.theverge.com)
ByteDance prefers TikTok shutdown in US if legal options fail, sources say (www.reuters.com)
Squatters take over Gordon Ramsay hotel and pub in London (www.theguardian.com)
Homebrew frag munition that Russians claim are being dropped by Ukrainian drones. (i.imgur.com)
t.me/combatfootageua/14586?single...