Apparently it's still a thing in places like rural India for people to squat to poop out in the fields, and then risk being bowled over by a pig rushing over to eat it.
They truly will eat anything.
As far as meat goes, they are not just scavengers - I've seen videos of wild pigs chasing after rabbits, actively hunting them down.
I'd never head of those Chinese "pig toilets", but it reminds me of a Chinese friend who said that growing up (maybe still?) it was common practice in the villages to feed infant poop to the pet/village dogs.
The "why" in this article doesn't exactly make sense to me. If the argument were "economic conditions suck in the industry right now so managers have to write more code", sure. But "AI" is supposed to be saving us time writing code so we can focus on other things.
One flaw in the article is that the sample size of surveyed people is quite small and seems biased toward a particular type of company.
None of this is relevant to Berkeley since California law prohibits rent control on vacant units (and has for decades). When renting ti a new tenant landlords can charge whatever they like.
It's honestly absurd to read this thread because everyone who has ever rented in the SF bay area knows this, yet there's a whole discussion based on some half-assumed idea of what the system is.
> Violating the constitution means that evidence gets thrown out in court and the victims get financially rewarded. It is not in the police's interest to violate people's rights.
Victims get financially rewarded by the state and the officers involved receive no kind of punishment at all. It's not hard to see why incentives lead to this already being widespread, and that's just what we know about when it gets thrown out or overturned. There's a whole shady practice of parallel construction going on.
This state of affairs benefits the ruling class of both parties. Causing harm is much simpler for the state to follow through on than improving conditions, and it's less likely to require meaningful sacrifices from wealthy elites. Republicans can run on "we'll hurt people you don't like". Democrats can run on "we won't hurt people as much as they will". Both can avoid dealing with spiraling wealth inequality, the sacred cash cow of US militarism, the healthcare system we've all been complaining about for decades and decades, etc...
We're going in the other direction. In Seattle it's common for restaurants to tack on an extra "service charge" that's not a tip, just because. It's supposed to be declared somewhere.
Then, if you wish, tip the staff whatever amount you prefer. (Though at this point, any restaurant that tries sneakily adding an additional charge to my bill probably isn't getting anything).
Or a date would look at it as me being so cheap (or secretly broke) that I'm willing to make a production over something that isn't really that big of a deal, financially speaking.
But, date or not, it's not something I'm OK with doing. It's just not worth it when I can resolve the issue completely with much less bother.
It's pretty common where I live in Asia, and they almost always write it on their menu, too. I don't really see it as shenanigans as long as it's communicated in advance. We don't have a tipping culture, though.
They disclose it in the US as well. It's shenanigans to me because it's sneaky. Rather than being honest an increasing the price of the food, they're using a "service fee" separately to try to trick you into thinking the restaurant is less expensive than it is. I genuinely find it offensive, for pretty much the same reason that I find tipping culture offensive.
That’s also very common in the UK, and shows up elsewhere in Europe sometimes. In the UK, they are legally but not practically or socially discretionary. There are some tax advantages for the restaurant and in the ideal case for staff.
Touristy places in central London maybe. They wouldn't dare try sneaking an undeclared service charge onto a locals bill in Northern England or Scotland :-)
> In the UK, they are legally but not practically or socially discretionary.
Speak for yourself. When entertaining clients at touristy places in London, one routinely asks for this underhand charge to be removed from the bill. (Whether or not we then choose to leave a cash tip is a matter of discretion, but the chances are rather low after such shenanigans).
Then is should be declared in advance on the menu.
Adding an undeclared "service charge" to the bill only when it is presented to you is what we are talking about here. It is an increasingly common underhand tactic in and around London and an charge which one should ALWAYS ask to be removed ("that wasn't on the menu mate").
And yeah, on top of abusing the employees by not paying them (and relying on the customers to pay the employees directly), stealing from the tip is even more abusive.
And let's not even talk about those delivery (and similar) apps that also abuse the tips in their algorithms.
Let me restate what the OP said. (quotes used for paraphrasing, not for quoting)
"Restaurant owners set a price on their dishes, because if everyone payed at will, the owners know they would make less money. Therefore we can assume owners know that paying at-will does not optimize earnings. Therefore, it's insane that they make their staff work for pay that's at-will".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_toilet
reply