berrytopylus

Also the internet throws a lot of our traditional understandings of culture out the window. A 20 year old and a 40 year old might not have had as much reason to hang out before (although things like sports and hobbies did pull age groups together some) but now they're all playing against each other in the new Call of Duty, sharing memes about Among Us, laughing about how they're too old for the Skibidi Toilet and arguing on Twitter.com

There's lots of injokes and references and slang that I don't understand not because of my age, but because I don't watch Streamer X or play Y game or have Z streaming service. And yet plenty of people younger, my age, and older will get those references because they do. Meanwhile the opposite is true, I've played some online games from my childhood with kids who weren't even alive when the game came out! It was kinda shocking really.

The tipped wage allows unskilled workers

It allows conventionally attractive young white unskilled workers in dense enough areas to do that.

It really just depends on where you work and your demographics.

Young black male in rural city? Lol you're fucked. Attractive young white woman in dense urban center at trendy expensive restaurant? Absolutely crazy amounts of money.

I've known people who graduate, get a job in the field they wanted and then quit and went back to serving because they fell into the right demos and location.

The tipping floor is the lowest it can possibly be but the ceiling is extremely high. And it's largely based off unfair reasons.

Lol what the fuck is that petition, there is no way 4.5k people work at Casa Bonita who would be affected by it when they don't even have 350 staff.

That means at least some part of the signatures are not employees but outsiders trying to speak for the employees.

Which also means that they might not even represent many employees to begin with! For all we know 99% of workers don't want to go back to tipping.

And going off the line at the bottom (although it is quite possible they are lying, management does lie often), it seems like that could potentially be the case. After all the article only identified two people who were upset.

Of 256 employees, 93 were a part of the shift and only two said they were unhappy about it, management said at the time.

The petition claims to have more than this but it also claims to have almost 5k signed on so it's pretty unreasonable.

Yeah I always do that if I don't know and can't reasonably ask them at the moment.

The idea that Mao had regressive views on women should not be shocking in the slightest. Modern women's rights are really really recent developments across the world.

One shocking fact I like to bring up is that women weren't even allowed to own their bank accounts till like the 70s/80s. My mom brings that one up when talking about how much things have changed since her childhood.

But it's also not particularly relevant. People don't listen to Mao for his views on women's rights. It's the same way we don't dismiss electricity just because the society back then owned slaves.

One lesser spoken about part of short term capitalistic pressures, how successful and delicious recipes will inevitably get destroyed in pursuit of cost cutting until the product fails to sell anymore.

It's an opinion article, those always have takes that are much different then the mainstream. For better (like the one here) or for worse (pretty much all of NYTs).

“It’s not only a long-standing moral commitment; it’s a strategic commitment,” then-Vice President Biden said in 2013. “An independent Israel, secure in its own borders, recognized by the world is in the practical strategic interest of the United States of America. I used to say … if there were no Israel, we’d have to invent one.”

No I'm sure it totally happens. Antisemitism is a very real issue. Fash doesn't go away just because they have a cover for it, it's just good to not be stupid and dismiss the cover as being fash like Israel tries to do. It's a cover because it's not bad to do.

You say "address" as if they were able to appropriately fix the issue, rather than addressing it as a limitation of the study. Limitations are fine, I'm just trying to explain the big one here in an easier to understand way because the reporting makes it seem like it's a consistent 12% eating a shit ton of beef.

A lot of this reporting is a big misunderstanding of statistics.

As the study says

About 45% of the population had zero beef consumption on any given day, whereas the 12% of disproportionate beef consumers accounted for 50% of the total beef consumed

Now just as a thought experiment, do you think that almost half of the US never eats any beef? No, of course not. But on any given day? Sure, quite possible. People's diets vary.

A randomly selected person might have a McDonald's hamburger for lunch and a steak for dinner and be part of the 12% on the first day but then eat mushroom ravioli for lunch and pizza for dinner on the second day and be part of the 45%.

And there might be certain demographics that are more likely to make up that 12% on a given day but that doesn't mean there's a particular nonchanging group of high consumers.

I'm not going to dig into the study here but just as an example, let's say Dog Breed X is 1.5 times more likely to bark than Dog Breed Y is. You can't hear a dog bark and say "Ah it must be Breed X then!", you can only say "Ah, it's more likely from Breed X than Breed Y".