NXTR

The quote you’re using is from the 2010-2011 peace talks. The reason those broke down is as follows:

Direct talks broke down in late September 2010 when an Israeli partial moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank expired and Netanyahu refused to extend the freeze unless the Palestinian Authority recognized Israel as a Jewish State, while the Palestinian leadership refused to continue negotiating unless Israel extended the moratorium.[3] The proposal was rejected by the Palestinian leadership, that stressed that the topic on the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the building freeze. The decision of Netanyahu on the freeze was criticized by European countries and the United States.

In regards to Oslo and the 2014 peace talks:

2014:

A deadline was set for establishing a broad outline for an agreement by 29 April 2014. On the expiry of the deadline, negotiations collapsed, with the US Special Envoy Indyk reportedly assigning blame mainly to Israel, while the US State Department insisting no one side was to blame but that “both sides did things that were incredibly unhelpful.”

Oslo: Both Oslo accords were signed, however,

the interim process put in place under Oslo had fulfilled neither Israeli nor Palestinian expectations.

This led to the Camp David Accords where the main issues and points seemed to be the following:

the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return

Judged from the perspective of Palestinians’ and Israelis’ respective rights under international law, all the concessions at Camp David came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side.

the Palestinians starting position was at the 1967 borders, but they were ready to give up Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and parts of the West Bank with Israeli settlements. Further, the Palestinians were willing to implement Right of Return in a way that guaranteed Israel’s demographic interests.

The proposals were, for the most part, verbal. As no agreement was reached and there is no official written record of the proposals, some ambiguity remains over details of the positions of the parties on specific issues.

The talks ultimately failed to reach agreement on the final status issues: Territory, Territorial contiguity, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, Refugees and Palestinian right of return, Security arrangements, Settlements

To summarize the 2010-11 peace talks broke down due to Israel not abiding by the terms of the negotiation. The 2014 talks are debated with more blame seeming to be placed on Israel. The Oslo accords were signed but left unresolved and unfollowed by Israel leading to the camp David accords where the main issue seems to be the right of return for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were displaced. However, who actually ended the talks is still debated.

World ending weapon in the form of a child? Never seen that before

Unfortunately, Valve would also have to build a CPU translation layer (Like Rosetta 2) since games run on x86 architectures and snapdragon uses an ARM architecture. The steam deck uses a Zen 2 CPU architecture which is already x86 so there would be little motivation on their part to do this. Currently proton uses wine to convert windows api calls into linux calls. The big thing Proton does is allowing games that use DirectX to run on Vulkan which is natively supported in Linux. So unless Valve makes the Steam Deck 2 with ARM or another company decides to make an x86 to ARM translation layer, then I don’t see something like Proton coming to android any time soon.

The performance of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 GPU is already about 10-20% faster than the A16 chip, depending on the benchmark.

Even if Qualcomm only gives the Gen 3 a 10% performance increase, that is enough to beat or even surpass the A17 in gpu performance (rumors suggest something closer to a 30% increase). The Gen 2 already outcompetes the A16 in GPU power consumption and efficiency as well. This may change with the A17 since it’s on TSMC’s 3N node, however this node has been having issues which is why TSMC introduced the 3NE and 3NP so we will have to wait for power usage numbers from the A17 to see.

Overall I’m disappointed with the improvements between the A16 and A17. 10% on the CPU and 20% on the GPU (due to have 20% more cores) doesn’t seem like the type of upgrade I would expect from switching nodes. Hopefully next year they can do more with the improved N3 nodes. I’m also getting the feeling that Apple is trying to deploy more complex transformer models on their devices which is why we are seeing such a focus on the NPU.

I think you hit on the main point which is that nobody will pour money into developing for android. Apple also has the ability to make deals with companies with Capcom and Ubisoft to ensure games come to their platforms. I can’t see Google doing this since they already “tried” and failed to have a AAA mobile gaming platform with stadia. The only other company with enough motivation and money to bring big games to android is Samsung, but their mobile chips aren’t doing too well (despite their RDNA 2 architecture making it easier to port games).

1: “Guess what happens when there are fewer workers willing to work in a role…?” You’re responding to a hypothetical I’m not making which doesn’t address my argument. I’m advocating fair pay so workers aren’t reliant on inconsistent tips, not banning tipping outright. In my proposal, fair wages means decreased tips wouldn’t deter workers. Your hypothetical keeps pay low with no tips, unlike my proposal. When discussing the potential for restaurants to seize more control over revenue, it’s important to highlight the power of unions and collective bargaining. Unions exist to represent the interests of their members, and in this case, the workers. They provide a structured, legal avenue through which workers can negotiate better pay, benefits, and working conditions. When a union negotiates with a restaurant or a chain, they’re establishing legally binding agreements that outline worker compensation and rights. This ensures that even if prices increase, there is a legal obligation to ensure workers benefit. It’s a mechanism that places a check on the natural inclination of businesses to maximize profits, ensuring workers aren’t shortchanged in the process. Additionally, unions have strike funds and other resources to support workers who are fired or face retaliation for union organizing, as we are seeing with the recent strikes in Hollywood.

2: The notion that tips place power solely in the hands of the workers is a bit misleading. In fact, tips are at the mercy of customers, and, to some extent, the establishment. Factors like ambiance, quality of food, and even factors beyond a server’s control can influence tips. The current reliance on tips effectively offloads the responsibility of ensuring a living wage from the employer to the customer. This shouldn’t be the case. Workers should be guaranteed a livable wage, with tips serving as a bonus for exceptional service. As for the profit margins, it’s an oversimplification to say that restaurants operate strictly on slim margins and can’t afford wage hikes. If that were the case, how do we account for thriving chain restaurants and franchises? There are restaurants that are extremely profitable, and while there may be challenges in the industry, there is certainly room for wage adjustments.

3: Citing the earnings of top-tier restaurant servers as a standard is cherry-picking. The vast majority of servers don’t earn anywhere near that amount. Additionally, the variability and unpredictability of tips don’t disappear simply because some servers in upscale restaurants earn well. And if every server is supposed to find the highest-tipping establishments, then who fills the roles at the lower-tipping places? The logic doesn’t pan out.

4: The claim that high-earning servers wouldn’t want to unionize misses the bigger picture. The vast majority of restaurant workers are not top-tier servers at upscale establishments. They are workers struggling with low wages and unreliable tips. These workers have every reason to come together and unionize to demand better pay and working conditions from restaurant owners. Historically, the groups most affected by an unjust system are often the ones to lead the charge for change. The claim that restaurants would lead this charge contradicts established trends. Restaurants, as profit-driven entities, are unlikely to spearhead efforts that might cut into their profits unless compelled by external pressures – like a strong union.

Tipping isn’t driven by customers, but an unfair system offloading fair pay onto them. Workers shouldn’t have to rely on tips just to get by. The solution is empowering workers to demand fair wages so tipping returns to being a bonus, not a business model.

I am on the Artemis app for Kbin which hasn’t been updated to allow quoting yet so excuse the strange formatting. Each of the following paragraphs will address each point in order.

1: Wages will certainly not adjust if tipping went away, there would just be less workers willing to take those roles. It’s not the workers keeping wages artificially low, it’s the restaurants owners who do. Having workers successfully demand higher wages on an industry wide scale just isn’t feasible without unionization. Sure there may be individual situations where workers actually get a raise but I don’t see this being the norm. Employers do not have to capitulate to raising wages, especially if workers have no other options available to them.

2: Workers can get tipped and be paid fairly. It’s not a zero-sum game. Paying workers a livable wage so they don’t rely on tips is what I consider to be the “winning situation”. Customers can tip if they want to which means more money for the worker and if they don’t receive tips then it’s not big deal since their wages are enough to cover their expenses. This is in contrast to what we have now where tips are used to supplement wages. So with increased wages and with people still deciding to tip on occasion, the average worker would actually make more money, not less. In terms of revenue for the restaurant owner or chain exec, I could care less.

3: You are ignoring a variety of important factors in the assertion. Not everybody lives in an area or can easily move to one where they can make that much in tips. Not everybody can easily switch jobs and take a gap in pay. Not everyone is in an area flush with jobs where they can get paid properly. Sometimes surprise expenses come up and mess up your budget when you are living paycheck to paycheck. Basically, not everyone has the means to actually do what you are suggesting. If people could easily find a new job to make up for any budget shortfalls then we wouldn’t see bankruptcy and homelessness run rampant.

4: People don’t care about the actual concept of tipping at all. Who needs to drive this is restaurant workers getting together and collectivizing to have bargaining power over restaurant owners. I doubt workers care about tipping over getting paid a livable wage with the added bonus of some people still tipping. If workers withhold their labor then restaurant owners will have to give in. This will lead to actual material change for these workers. I know it’s a long shot but it is a viable way to achieve these goals without involving consumers and their tipping habits. All of this is achievable (unless restaurant owners do what hospitals do when they try to unionize and bring in outside labor at a higher cost (which ironically would increase wages for those people, just not for those who got fired for trying to bargain) within our current legal framework.

I see what you mean. It is true that if the restaurant wage problem was solved tipping wouldn’t go away overnight, especially since many consumers in North America are used to the idea of tipping. However, I do believe it would slowly become less common as it is in other countries.

In places where tipping is less common, customers view the prices as fully baked in. What they pay includes the price of the food and providing enough so their workers can live. There’s no guilt over not tipping. Some people may if they like the service, but most won’t. Additionally, the consumer is able to make a more informed choice since they are able to see the actual cost of their meal. They also don’t have to choose having the soup vs. tipping someone enough to live.

I think my main point is that random patrons shouldn’t be able to determine whether someone can pay rent after working 12 hour shifts for a month. Letting the consumer split the cost of a transaction between the business and the worker is always a losing situation for the worker. The cost of the food is fixed, the business will always make X amount of dollars per transaction. Meanwhile, tipping is variable so the worker is never guaranteed a fair sum.

If workers were paid properly then tipping would be viewed as an actual reward for doing a good job instead of a restaurant worker subsidy program as it currently stands. As I see it, the whole industry needs to change with actual laws backing up it up or else a few bad actors can ruin everything in the name of wanting to be profitable.

I agree 100% especially given the behaviors that our current economic system incentivizes. I was simply responding to what you said about consumers preferences driving tipping culture instead of the industry.

Although consumers in North America feel comfortable and good about tipping, this tradition primarily stems from the push to increase profits by underpaying workers and offsetting their deserved pay with the “merit” based tipping system. It’s a clever trick that feeds into the idea that “the harder your work, the more you get paid”.

I don’t think this system will change unless profit is removed as the main factor in driving a business. Not to mention our legal system discourages and even prosecutes those who attempt to undermine the growth of a company against shareholder interests.

The only places this works is in privately owned businesses where the people who run it have the authority to prioritize paying employees over profits. However, this opens the door for businesses to reduce prices by cutting wages which undercuts the private business used in this example and could lead them to go out of business.

This example is basically to state that in order to eliminate the tipping culture and give workers the pay they deserve, the entire industry needs to change. One private company cannot be solely responsible for this change since another can come in and eliminate them. Now do I think this will happen? NO!

The industry decides that profits come before everything else. Large restaurant corporations could easily charge the same amount, pay workers more (with the add on effect of customers saving money by not having to tip), and take a hit to profits. Unfortunately, our legal system doesn’t punish businesses for not paying workers a livable wage or for using tips to deceptively price goods to overcharge consumers. Instead, it’s illegal to not abide by fiduciary duty in the pursuit of infinite profits. Due to this, I can’t see the tipping culture going away anytime soon. It isn’t the consumers who are driving this, it’s the restaurant industry.

I’m guessing it’s to train AI models for Microsoft 365 Copilot.

Although I would love to see it, as long as DirectX is the de facto graphics API, I don’t see Microsoft fading into irrelevance when it comes to the PC gaming market.

Hopefully Microsoft releases a handheld mode instead of just experimenting with it. Besides the interface, they also really need to optimize for performance. Even though, with the steam deck, proton is converting draw calls it still outperforms the same deck running windows with native driver support. This really shows how the mountains of extra crap running on windows hurts gaming performance on these low power devices.

A lot of consumer’s buying habits for products with inelastic demand is driven by cost. If companies weren’t driven by ever increasing profits then there might be more of an incentive to offer a wider variety of crops to consumers. Certain crops are already subsidized by the government to make it profitable for farmers. If other crops were subsidized then perhaps farmers would be more encouraged to grow them and if people see these at normal prices they might also be more interested in buying them. Of course, this would rely on multiple parts of farming being overhauled. For example, there’s a lot of cost sinks, one I can think of is the locked down maintenance of farming equipment (once again driven by the need for increasing profits via fiduciary duty). Eliminating these and other overheads would not only lead to more cost efficient farming, but also cheaper crops and increased variety offered to consumers.

On the flip side I’m worried about manufacturers realizing that the continuous revenue stream from autonomous vehicles is more profitable than selling vehicles outright thereby increasing the cost of buying a vehicle to the point where ownership becomes functionally obsolete except to the ultra-wealthy. This also makes it much easier to restrict the movement of people. Self driving car companies could easily disable the ability to travel to entire areas either because they say they’re too dangerous or not profitable enough to operate in. I can imagine entire cities and rural areas becoming ghost towns. While personally I think autonomous vehicles, in a vacuum, have the potential to save countless lives, the reality is that in time we will be giving the companies making these vehicles the ability to dictate where we can and cannot go.

I’m fine with toll roads, however, I would like to avoid express lanes (usually two lanes of a toll road with extra tolls so it’s less congested) and there doesn’t seem to be a toggle for that. I will admit that for some cities Apple Maps is on par or better than Google maps and for others it’s the opposite. For my city Apple Maps just doesn’t get the job done.

The American dream is essentially trying to tell people that the United States is a meritocratic society. The more work you put in the more you get out. However, I’m sure most of us know this isn’t true. Where you were born and what family you were born into is the primary factor in determining someone’s success. So you grow up hearing stories of “hard working” billionaires and think “I can make it there if I work hard” while ignoring your family who worked their asses off and got nowhere. You see more of the lie of meritocracy as you age. People around you work hard and fail, you might succeed with less effort or fail with more. The idiotic decisions of today’s billionaires solidifies the notion that the American dream never existed and was fabricated to get people to work more for less in the hopes that one day they will make it. In reality, it all comes down to the zip code you were born in.

Republicans voters to fantasize about restricting the rights of their fellow citizens but when republican politicians actually implement these into law their voter base tends to be less than enthusiastic. The lack of a “red wave” during the midterms is an example of this. The reality is that most republican voters don’t actually know what republicans stand for. In fact, many republican voters view Medicaid expansion in a favorable light which is in contrast to their legislators who wish to shrink the size of Medicaid.

As republicans pass more laws to restrict the rights and erode away the already rotting social safety nets in this country, the less support they will receive. Unfortunately, this doesn’t hold true when marginalized groups are targeted. Instead, their base tends to solidify their support. If they aren’t directly or indirectly affected then they don’t care.

To answer your question, I think republicans thought they could get away with restricting abortion rights since their rhetoric didn’t scare away voters in the past. However, when they actually implemented it and it directly affected republican voters, the mask came off and their support waned.

The only way Apple Maps is good is if you put in a million requests to fix all of the issues with mislabeled business, incorrect routing, nonexistent places, etc. Only then would I consider Apple Maps to be on par with Google Maps. Since I have an iPhone and like the interface I tend to use Apple Maps more often, but the terrible search (which routinely doesn’t list easy to find locations), awful routing (it loves to take the express lane which has different exits without providing a toggle not to use these lanes), and out of date mapping data (I’ve gone to multiple nonexistent locations) makes me go back to Google Maps every time. I will admit I do love their 3D maps and street view which I find to be higher quality than Google Maps. Besides this and the interface, Apple Maps is inferior to Google Maps.

Kbin is probably the closest thing to this. There’s a magazine section for lemmy/kbin communities and there’s another section for microblogging which brings in mastodon posts.

This is such a self report