plaidturtle

Yet here we are.

"Tipping is why the most important thing in restaurant service is to be sexually attractive to your customers."

This isn't true. You tip for their service not sexual attraction.

It's hard to calculate the service they provide. Wouldn't you pay more for a pleasant drive than for an unpleasant one?

Besides these points, I think it is a stretch to say tipping is immoral.

From my previous conversations with Lyft drivers, if I recall correctly they get a sum weekly/biweekly and don't see who tipped.

I used to live in a country where tipping wasn't a thing. But having lived in the US for a while now I actually like it. It gives the servers incentive to do well. Also you always have the option to not tip if the service is really bad. I understand your frustration, though. Perhaps, I've gotten too used to it haha.

1. I don't think the drivers can see how much you tip.

2. In case of restaurants in the US, generally servers make very little without tip. When you pay you are paying the restaurant and not the person who serve you food. I know it's different in other countries but that's just how things are here.

More than the typos, I was more put off by the structure and sentence flow which made me feel like it was haphazardly put together, but didn't know he is ESL. Thanks for pointing that out. My apology to the author.

"politicizing attempts".

Sexual harassment is politicizing?

Poorly written (probably because it was written in a hurry to piggy back on Susan's article). This doesn't contribute anything new to the conversation.

Law itself has very little power without change in social norm. Look into Foucault's modern philosophy of power.

I see this kind of reasoning frequently, but I remember reading a study that showed that most of the Trump supporters were actually not victims of job-outsourcing and had good economic standing. Not sure if it was a non-partisan, credible study but unless you have good sources you might be theorizing?

Check out this video series by 3Blue1Brown: https://youtube.com/#/playlist?list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVF...

I agree that talent is not be-all and end-all. I did not mean that with my comment.

It is my fault for not being clear. I was making fun of the bumper-sticker, oversimplified statement. I have no quarrel with the idea that everyone has something unique to bring to the table. Also I was upset by the fact that it seemed to put all the burden on the individual, when in reality discovery and fostering of talent is as much a job of the society.

If you read my second sentence "I just wanted to make a point that such statement places all the burden on the individual, without acknolwedging the systems at play in fostering and developing talent", you would know that we hold the same position. The point I am making is not that some are talented and some are not (only idiots would believe in fully meritocratic outcomes), but that the burden of seemingly "untalented" people lies with the society as much as it does with the individual, and the original bumper-sticker statement does not acknowledge that complexity and power dynamic. I have no hostility.

What good is talent if you can't exercise it? Also you clearly do not get the point of my rebuttal. Also why so hostile?

Having no talent and not being worthy of being in the gene pool are not the same thing.

You raise a good point, and CA is the reason why trading with other nations is a good idea (econ101). I should have made my point clearer. I'm not trying to take the glass is half empty positon. I wanted to point out that such statement places all the burden on the individual without recognizing the system that needs to assist in fostering and discovering talent.

The word used was "everyone". All I have to do is point to a bum on the street and the original statement is false. I just wanted to make a point that such statement places all the burden on the individual, without acknolwedging the systems at play in fostering and developing talent.

Definitely not true. That is such a feel-good, sweeping generalization with no evidence that says nothing and helps no one.

With friends who live close by, we don't interact online. Instead we schedule dinner or make plans for weekends.

With friends who don't live nearby, I don't talk to them as often. I still have my FB account but I don't follow anyone on FB, so my News Feed is empty. I keep it alive for FB messenger, which I use to chat with some friends occasionally. Or if I'm traveling nearby, I'll let them know and schedule something. I used the word "offline" in a sense that I don't subscribe to people and I don't broadcast my activities.

I couldn't agree more with the points you raised. Social media services have their place and they can be a valuable tool.

By the way, I'd never heard of the term "self media" but I think it is perfect. I'm going to start using it now.

early 20 something here.

My friends and I went "offline" and we are much closer and happier. Social media is overrated. I think we will look back at this time in the future like how we look back at cigarette smoking in the 50s. It has its place but its usefulness is limited. I don't question Snapchat's business potential, though.

edit: also I find it funny (and pathetic) how industry analyst struggle to understand social media and what is the next big social media. They just don't get it.

While Android is a smartphone OS, it is questionable whether android devices are being used as smartphones by majority of the users who have android devices.

I'm not familiar with medieval Indian philosophy but that sounds more like a set of principle derived from a religion than a philosophy, much like zen buddhism. Again, that's my observation solely based on your short description. That is to say that I could — most likely — be completely wrong. The point I was attempting to make was that philosophy is more about process than the verdict. A good analogy would be math. What is important is not that 1+1=2, rather the fundamental law of addition. In addition, all other proofs in math use previously proven facts as building blocks. In the same way, philosophers use “a priori” and use them to build up to another truth. Syllogism is a good example of this. Where as in lifestyle philosophy, what is shown is the result, not the process that took to arrive at the truth. I would argue that what matters more is that you know how you arrived at that truth, rather than being told the truth and practicing that truth.

Disclaimer: My view of philosophy has heavy western bias because of the three classes I took (they were all about western philosophers).

As a side, I thought alchemy was a pseudo-chemistry aimed at finding elixir of life (immortality juice) and philosopher's stone (turning things into gold). I believe Newton was an alchemist himself and he harmed himself in his fruitless pursuit. I never knew there was a philosophy of alchemy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've only taken three philosophy classes in college so I'm by no means an expert. However, the distinction I see between philosophy as a study and philosophy as a way of life is that the latter is a consumer version of the previous. In philosophical discipline, we talk about the nature of things. For example, "what does it mean to be virtuous", "what is the fundamental mechanics behind what is good and bad", "how do we logically conclude that we exist", "can logic be trusted". While these discussions might seem frivolous and too-up-in-the-air, these are essential questions. Laws are a derivitive of philosophy. Today's understanding of human rights started from Immanuel Kant. The power dynamic between the state, private sector, and th people is explored by Foucault. Aristotle talks about what is the nature of the good life. Our current laws and society is heavily influenced by John Stuart Mil. On the other hand, philosophy as a way of life is like a bumper sticker. It's like saying "we should be kind to others to have a good life", or "do what makes you happy". These can be derived from philosophical texts but are stupidlfyingly simplified. If these philosopher could say what they wanted to say in a sentence, instead of writing a long book about it, they would have done so. So I think while philosophy as a way of life is very practical (since people don't have to really investigate it and just believe it), it is to some extent a dumbed down version, that lacks the backbone of hard philosophy (because it lacks the proof and arguments behind such ideas). The purpose of philosophy is not to give someone a lifestyle or life advice like a self-help book, it is to arrive at fundamental truth as hard as 16+26=42. Now whether that it is successful is a hard question to answer. But life style and life advice is a derivitive of the truth. That's the distinction.

Personal anecdote: C was the first language I learned while I was in middle school. I taught myself. I admit that I have gained a deeper understanding of C after I recently took Computer Architecture class, but I don't think learning assembly is essential to understanding the C language, stack/heap, and pointers. When I was first learning C, a simple memory diagram with simple description was sufficient. Perhaps the problem is learning a high level language first (most schools start with python or java)? Maybe students struggle with the transition or it isn't explained well enough. I couldn't say since I started with C. I'm interested if anyone had this problem because I tutor students.

Loved the humor in the intro video :D

People don't necessarily have to be "on" Facebook for Facebook to collect data about their user. Many apps connect to Facebook. So they can collect data even when people are not using Facebook. The more people use Facebook connected services, the more data Facebook collects about users. Which means better ads for the users & better data for businesses.

As a person close to the "teen" demographic, I can tell you that teens still use Facebook. Thinking of social media as a zero sum game is a common mistake; each has its own use case. For instance, Facebook is usually used when chatting on desktop/laptop with friends, adding new people you met, or chatting with people who you aren't really close to. Also, Facebook is widely used for groups and events, which no other social media provides. Snapchat might have replaced some aspect of the Facebook newsfeed but people still post things on Facebook. When a teen says, "omg Facebook is like so old and no one ever uses it". They mean to say that they don't use it as much but they still use it for things I mentioned.

Edit: It is important to note that Facebook has the "identity" aspect down like no other.