There are plenty of “fast casual” restaurants in the US (Panera comes to mind) that have you order up front before sitting down with a buzzer or an order number on a placard so the servers know...
There are plenty of “fast casual” restaurants in the US (Panera comes to mind) that have you order up front before sitting down with a buzzer or an order number on a placard so the servers know where to drop off your food. But I agree that it’s hardly ubiquitous, and I think a ticket system could help curb issues like this even more.
That kind of ruins the ambiance of a nicer fine dining restaurant though. There’s something to be said for asking your server clarifying questions or for recommendations, ordering your drink first...
That kind of ruins the ambiance of a nicer fine dining restaurant though. There’s something to be said for asking your server clarifying questions or for recommendations, ordering your drink first so you can sip and chat while you peruse the menu, observing what others are having before deciding, adding on dessert after the main course, etc. Personally I don’t eat at places like this very often but I’d hate to see them go away. The human connection and higher level of service make it feel special (and worth the higher price).
That's a reasonable sentiment, but I feel like dine and dashers are more likely to target more blue collar type establishments. Stuff like diners, noodle houses, burger bars, where you pretty much...
That's a reasonable sentiment, but I feel like dine and dashers are more likely to target more blue collar type establishments. Stuff like diners, noodle houses, burger bars, where you pretty much know what you want and know what you're getting. That system sounds ideal for places like these.
Totally agreed, I was just providing an example to the contrary. I think a “sit down” experience with a proper wait staff is something to be enjoyed and celebrated and shouldn’t be totally...
Totally agreed, I was just providing an example to the contrary. I think a “sit down” experience with a proper wait staff is something to be enjoyed and celebrated and shouldn’t be totally steamrolled in the name of convenience and avoidance of dine and dash nonsense.
I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Like I elaborated on a top level post, it is the norm in some countries. It doesn't mean you don't get a server, or don't a menu. For example, one place...
I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Like I elaborated on a top level post, it is the norm in some countries. It doesn't mean you don't get a server, or don't a menu. For example, one place I went to, you are seated, and given a menu. At this point you can ask the waiter whatever you want. Once you know what to do, you go up to the front desk to order and pay at the same time. If you need more, the waiter will be around, and they will charge you as they take the order.
Maybe these places will have to start charging 5% to make up for one in 20 dine and dashers. I'm on the opposite spectrum: food tickets at the front machine or payment when the food arrives would...
Maybe these places will have to start charging 5% to make up for one in 20 dine and dashers.
I'm on the opposite spectrum: food tickets at the front machine or payment when the food arrives would be great everywhere. If wait staff want to chat they could but otherwise I'm here to eat, not chat. I wonder if there's an introvert vs extrovert factor to this. I find having to deal with wait staff to be taxing: not a lot, I manage fine, but it still takes away energy rather than replenish it.
Someone mentioned Japan, but in Taiwan most, not just fast food or ramen or curry, restaurants you order at the front and pay then, not at the end. This just seems to make sense to me - even as a...
Someone mentioned Japan, but in Taiwan most, not just fast food or ramen or curry, restaurants you order at the front and pay then, not at the end. This just seems to make sense to me - even as a customer it's nice you can just, like, leave after you finish your meal. It also prevents dine-and-dashing, of course.
If you order extra, the server just brings the terminal over and you pay then.
Fun fact: in Japan, it's customary that you're supposed to walk to the front desk to pay, the servers don't bring the check to you. You know people are American tourists if they sit at a table confused, waiting for a server to bring them the check. Well, I suppose that's obvious enough visually.
I think it’s more typical in Japan to make the X sign with your fingers to summon the check, if they haven’t been maintaining a running total that is kept at your table the entire time.
I think it’s more typical in Japan to make the X sign with your fingers to summon the check, if they haven’t been maintaining a running total that is kept at your table the entire time.
My recent experience in Tokyo and Kyoto was going to a payment counter was the default unless the restaurant specifically catered to Westerners or was too small for a payment counter.
My recent experience in Tokyo and Kyoto was going to a payment counter was the default unless the restaurant specifically catered to Westerners or was too small for a payment counter.
Were you aware of the X practise? Because while you can certainly just go up to the payment counter, I think it’s more common that you will get the check at your table and bring it with you,...
Were you aware of the X practise? Because while you can certainly just go up to the payment counter, I think it’s more common that you will get the check at your table and bring it with you, rather than making them figure out where you were sitting.
That's true they'd usually drop off a receipt after the orders were brought out, and we'd take that to the counter (though not universal) I've never heard of making an X with your fingers for the...
That's true they'd usually drop off a receipt after the orders were brought out, and we'd take that to the counter (though not universal)
I've never heard of making an X with your fingers for the check though. Could you find any references or examples? I'm only familiar with making an X when someone says だめ and wants to physically emphasize what they're saying (usually when being slightly cutesy or communicating with foreigners).
Slightly tangential but this morning I almost accidentally didn't pay for breakfast because card reader software says PLEASE DONT REMOVE CARD and it's so easy to read that as REMOVE CARD and then...
Slightly tangential but this morning I almost accidentally didn't pay for breakfast because card reader software says PLEASE DONT REMOVE CARD and it's so easy to read that as REMOVE CARD and then remove your card too early and then not pay. (Especially if you are short and the glare often makes it hard to see the top of the screen)
The hostess caught my mistake and we laughed about it but omg this language is so infuriating to me, WHY would you have the "dont do this" message end with a phrase that means "do this"
Countless misery could have been avoided if the authors of the universal card processing machine had written "PLEASE KEEP CARD INSERTED" instead
I'm not discounting your experience, but is there a better way to say "Don't remove card" than "Don't remove card"? Like, what would be a better way? The chip needs to stay in communication with...
I'm not discounting your experience, but is there a better way to say "Don't remove card" than "Don't remove card"? Like, what would be a better way? The chip needs to stay in communication with the terminal until the transaction finishes.
As a general rule, humans are more likely to misinterpret negative statements. If the card reader simply said "keep card inserted" there's no ambiguity or potential for misreading.
As a general rule, humans are more likely to misinterpret negative statements. If the card reader simply said "keep card inserted" there's no ambiguity or potential for misreading.
While a lesser factor, even a positive voice could induce a misreading; the "please keep [...]" might be taken as a prompt to action before the customer scans the rest of the message, in which...
While a lesser factor, even a positive voice could induce a misreading; the "please keep [...]" might be taken as a prompt to action before the customer scans the rest of the message, in which case the natural action would be to remove the card, as the intended behavior to keep the card inserted would be a *non-*action.
I have no idea how that could be mitigated, though, and it's still definitely a better solution than the alternative.
Maybe a description first? "Card is being read" in large letters and "please keep card inserted" in smaller ones beneath it. That way you don't immediately feel prompted to action, you simply...
Maybe a description first? "Card is being read" in large letters and "please keep card inserted" in smaller ones beneath it. That way you don't immediately feel prompted to action, you simply understand that the transaction is in process, but if you're confused by the lack of instruction there's the smaller text to clarify.
theres a lot of things you can write here that are in a positive voice and not a negative voice. It's best to use positive voice always and tell some to do the opposite of what you don't want them to do; rather then to tell them not to do what you don't want to do.
Every single dang time police are too lazy to earn their keep it's automatically "a civil matter". Shoplifting is exactly what's criminal. Bad cop. And the very next paragraph the police...
“We called the police, but they were unable to help us. They said it was a civil matter – but it’s not, it’s a criminal matter.” [...] Again, Esposito says the police were unable to help. “They said we could have taken the larger group to court,
Every single dang time police are too lazy to earn their keep it's automatically "a civil matter". Shoplifting is exactly what's criminal. Bad cop.
(police and crime commissioner) Jones told the MailOnline that she doesn’t believe these are “typical thieves”. “They’re driving away in their own cars,” she said, before urging businesses to “share images online … and to name and shame those individuals”.
And the very next paragraph the police spokesperson says no don't do that. I agree. If restaurants had NAMES they shouldn't be posting them online and exposing themselves to lawsuits or violent retaliation, YOU should be doing the policing. So this is wonderful: folks call the cops, they do nothing, and then they're told they should have called the cops. Maybe it's the police that should be named and shamed online.
The website police.uk offers tips to business owners to help them “deter these restaurant thieves”. Suggestions include installing CCTV inside and outside the premises, greeting every customer – “thereby ‘registering’ their faces” – and considering the exit points from a security perspective. They also encourage the collection of phone numbers and credit card details from customers when booking.
CCTVs are expensive and "demoralizing", like the last person in the article said. There's no sense of being made whole and the sense of well-being, regular "yay people are nice" sense of security doesn't easily get repaired, when there isn't justice being done. Also, how does greeting someone register anything. At a busy night each server would have scene maybe 100 people known mostly by where they sit and what they ordered. And thieves wouldn't give real names and numbers. And they'd also have a fake cc number. What a great way to piss off 95+% of your customers if they start demanding it. Photographing their driver's license? People wouldn't go for that.
In my teens I was working FOH and some christian group of ~50 or so came in and almost all of them left without paying. Shift boss was all over the hosts, 'why did you let them leave?!' as if they...
In my teens I was working FOH and some christian group of ~50 or so came in and almost all of them left without paying. Shift boss was all over the hosts, 'why did you let them leave?!' as if they a) knew, b) could.
Its disgusting.
Another time I was out with this group I didn't know very well. There were about 14 of us and we ordered, but the food was taking forever. About 30 minutes in, no drinks etc, the 'leader' of the group said that we should jet if we don't hear anything soon. Another half hour and we all left. One of the guys came out and was all 'your food is up now!' and the rest of them just kept walking. I went back later that week and gave them $50 and apologized.. I hate shit like this so much.
I wish, like others have said, we just paid up front. In the second case, I would have been so happy to just sit there with these randos I met at a conference. Instead, leaving like that soured the evening. The worst part is that the 'leader' decided to go to another restaurant which took half an hour for food anyway. So stupid.
Morality is relative and subject to personal interpretations thus under many views stealing from someone such as Rupert Murdoch could be justified and seen as a moral act dependent on the...
Morality is relative and subject to personal interpretations thus under many views stealing from someone such as Rupert Murdoch could be justified and seen as a moral act dependent on the frameworks that a person or group operate under.
This falls apart when someone justifies stealing from you. I don't believe this is subject to personal interpretations as much as it may look like it is in a vacuum. But the moment someone poorer...
This falls apart when someone justifies stealing from you.
I don't believe this is subject to personal interpretations as much as it may look like it is in a vacuum. But the moment someone poorer than you justifies nicking your stuff because you are richer you no longer believe this relative at all and you'll very much unphilosophically call the very real police.
If you're going to justify it based on whether or not he's a bad person and therefore it's ok, then sure, morality is subjective.
I still think it makes it too easy to make the same argument, because people can also say you are a bad person based on their own personal beliefs and then steal from you with a moral high ground.
It's a lot less relative when it comes to physically taking something from someone else. It's far easier to blur the lines when it comes to ideas or ideologies.
If you're going to take a step back and look at it from a universal perspective, where you weigh everyone's morality and tally the score you may have a point. But I wasn't, and on an individual basis I think it's immoral to take from others.
Except you're speaking to an anarchist in this instance and I have been assaulted and robbed and I refused to call the police. I have had multiple instances in which my own personal morals violate...
Except you're speaking to an anarchist in this instance and I have been assaulted and robbed and I refused to call the police. I have had multiple instances in which my own personal morals violate your interpretation of this sooooo. Yeah, dunno what to tell you but you're just wrong. Morals are inherently subjective. By definition.
Understanding that poverty, lack of access to resources and opportunity drives the impetus to crime makes me recontextualize why someone might steal from me thus creating an empathetic reaction to what is perceived as a personal transgression.
Edit: I just wanted to add that I'm gonna go touch grass (feed people) now so I'm not gonna be responding to this until much later in the evening (if at all). Good luck friendo!
But where does the buck stop? Who decides who's poor enough to steal? Am I poor enough to steal? I'm going to stop responding here before we further derail it. But feel free to respond, I'm giving...
But where does the buck stop? Who decides who's poor enough to steal? Am I poor enough to steal?
I'm going to stop responding here before we further derail it. But feel free to respond, I'm giving you the closing statement. Or don't. It's anarchy baby.
At the very least: thanks for the responses so far!
The people around them get to decide. Laws are just a formality. The thing that makes them strong is the willingness of society to enforce them. Without the will of the public, laws are just...
The people around them get to decide.
Laws are just a formality. The thing that makes them strong is the willingness of society to enforce them. Without the will of the public, laws are just justifications for violence from the government. Just look at marijuana for an example: here in the US it's technically a federal crime, but the public really doesn't like it and as a result, most local and state governments have given up trying to enforce it and the federal government is on the brink of legalizing it. The role of public in regards to law is more or less recognized formally in many governments' judicial systems, where crimes are judged by a jury of the defendants' peers.
I'm not talking about the law though. I was talking about the morality of justifying the taking from others. There's a lot of moral grandstanding around the topic where it's good and great and...
I'm not talking about the law though. I was talking about the morality of justifying the taking from others. There's a lot of moral grandstanding around the topic where it's good and great and fantastic when it happens to the rich(-er than you), but that opinion turns on a dime when it happens to themselves.
The justification is often flimsy. Most societies have a law against this specifically because a personal justification doesn't suffice in a functioning society.
Edit: snap, I said I wasn't going to derail further but I couldn't help myself. This was the last one, promise!
Morality, society, and law, are all tightly linked together. It's basically impossible to talk about one without bringing up the others. Even if you're not talking about the law, it doesn't change...
Morality, society, and law, are all tightly linked together. It's basically impossible to talk about one without bringing up the others. Even if you're not talking about the law, it doesn't change the fact that the people who decide weather something is right or wrong are the peers of the society they are involved in.
Morals are just crystalizations of complex thoughts and feelings, and those things are subject to change. This is also why laws and the functioning of a working justice system are subject to change. There are no morals that are handed down from god. There are people who want to make such things, but that's when things go from morals to being ethics.
I don't mind you breaking your promise. I think this is a philosophical conversation that everyone should be having from time to time because it's very important for the functioning of society.
Recognize that this is how you feel and I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but your tone implies that this is a settled question when it assuredly is not.
Yeah, dunno what to tell you but you're just wrong. Morals are inherently subjective. By definition.
Recognize that this is how you feel and I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but your tone implies that this is a settled question when it assuredly is not.
A study of philosophers suggested that more than half leaned towards moral realism (and a strong majority were atheists, so it was presumably not theistic moral realism.)...
A study of philosophers suggested that more than half leaned towards moral realism (and a strong majority were atheists, so it was presumably not theistic moral realism.)
I understand that you personally do not agree with moral realism, but I think a blanket statement dismissing it does a bit of a disservice to what is a massively debated topic.
But isn't that reflected in division in voting for new laws or ballot measures? As a society we disagree and go with majority rule, but that doesn't mean there is consensus. I agree that broadly...
But isn't that reflected in division in voting for new laws or ballot measures? As a society we disagree and go with majority rule, but that doesn't mean there is consensus. I agree that broadly most of us think similar things but I do think there is plenty of subjectivity.
The difference in my opinion is two-fold. 1. His gains are morally ill-gotten. The only reason he was able to legally accumulate stop much is because he used that money to manipulate what is...
The difference in my opinion is two-fold. 1. His gains are morally ill-gotten. The only reason he was able to legally accumulate stop much is because he used that money to manipulate what is legal. That's number 2. Him having that money allows him to do active, severe harm to society.
I can't buy a senator or a supreme court justice, and I'm not making our laws worse so that I can.
Removing money from Murdoch and people who behave the way he does is akin to disarming someone acting violently. Keeping the weapon yourself isn't great probably, but if you're doing way less damage with it, then it's an improvement on the situation.
Look, I'm not disagreeing that Rupert probably deserves what's coming if we'd collectively decide that his wealth needs some impromptu redistribution, but you should assume the reverse is applied...
Look, I'm not disagreeing that Rupert probably deserves what's coming if we'd collectively decide that his wealth needs some impromptu redistribution, but you should assume the reverse is applied to you when someone justifies why you should be relieved of your ducats.
Perhaps Rupert thinks he's justified in taking his ill-gotten gains from you as well. Perhaps because he thinks your vote is against the betterment of humanity. Who knows.
Point is, it's difficult to justify it based on relative morality when -unless you're an anarchist apparently- it happens to you!
Ehh, if there was a good argument that I was using my "wealth" to the active and significant detriment of humanity in a way that could be avoided if it was taken from me, then I guess they can...
Ehh, if there was a good argument that I was using my "wealth" to the active and significant detriment of humanity in a way that could be avoided if it was taken from me, then I guess they can have my savings account? It would be a super tough argument to make, because I don't have enough to make a significant difference one way or the other. How can I buy a senator if I can't even buy a house?
I wouldn't make this argument against trust fund babies who are just quietly chilling on their private islands or whatever. I think their use of resources is probably grotesque, but they aren't actively weilding their wealth as a weapon against the populace.
Rupert Murdoch has willfully made choices with his money that have caused people to be killed. You can't make that argument about me. If somehow I've gotten someone killed with my spending, it was certainly not a predictable outcome.
If we built our laws on the idea that "doing X is illegal, unless people don't like the victim", I think that would cause a lot more problems than it solves. I think the golden rule still applies...
If we built our laws on the idea that "doing X is illegal, unless people don't like the victim", I think that would cause a lot more problems than it solves.
I think the golden rule still applies here; don't do things to people unless you would be OK with them doing it to you.
If you have a home. A stove. A refrigerator. I don't think these people were lacking any of those things, just pointing out the exception to your statement.
If you have a home. A stove. A refrigerator. I don't think these people were lacking any of those things, just pointing out the exception to your statement.
I think on a utilitarian basis stealing from Rupert Murdoch should be encouraged – Rupert Murdoch spends his money on terrible things (his media empire) and the average person spends their money...
I think on a utilitarian basis stealing from Rupert Murdoch should be encouraged – Rupert Murdoch spends his money on terrible things (his media empire) and the average person spends their money on considerably less terrible things (food, rent, etc) so it is a net positive if this capital is redistributed!
Society has blanket rules against vigilantism because everyone has different moral frameworks. There are very passionate people across the moral spectrum, and there would be bloody chaos if they...
Society has blanket rules against vigilantism because everyone has different moral frameworks. There are very passionate people across the moral spectrum, and there would be bloody chaos if they all felt sanctioned to act unilaterally and extralegally.
We put offenders through the justice system, as constrained by the laws that our democratically elected lawmakers have created, so that we can attempt to mete out justice systematically and consistently, even if imperfectly, according to the broad and averaged wishes of society.
A far-right extremist utilitarian could justify murdering an abortion doctor because doing so would, in their logic, save hundreds of "unborn" lives.
Someone else could then calculate that assassinating a far-right extremist utilitarian is justified because it could save the life of an abortion doctor who would then save multiple women's lives.
A vegan extremist may believe that the eat-meating majority are complicit in mass animal murder and decides to secretly poison all the meat products in a grocery store so that meat eaters get ill because, hey, they're culpable of murder and murderers deserve whatever's coming their way.
And so on and so forth.
If we allow people to act extralegally on their moral passions instead of through democratic processes, we sanction not only ourselves to act on our moral frameworks but we also sanction those whose moral frameworks we may find odious.
While I agree with your point that lawlessness creates chaos and society needs stability, I think this characterizes an ideal that increasingly does not exist. (Caveat: speaking about the US)...
We put offenders through the justice system, as constrained by the laws that our democratically elected lawmakers have created, so that we can attempt to mete out justice systematically and consistently, even if imperfectly, according to the broad and averaged wishes of society.
While I agree with your point that lawlessness creates chaos and society needs stability, I think this characterizes an ideal that increasingly does not exist. (Caveat: speaking about the US) There's a huge disparity between the way justice is applied for the rich and the poor. If you're poor, you barely get representation and the system stacked to incentivize a plea bargain for any crime. If you're rich, it takes years to resolve a protracted set of appeals, and the likelihood that you see jail is almost nil. And that's if you can even be held personally responsible and are not shielded by a corporation.
Examples: Trump, both Clintons, Martha Stewart, the recent article about the Sackler family.
I think much of the sentiment justifying robbing Rupert Murdoch (or whoever) is rooted in the gap between the ideal (as quoted above) and the reality that most people experience. Couple that with the fact that the people experiencing the injustice are basically powerless to change the system, and I think we are no longer at
"the broad and averaged wishes of society".
Utilitarianism would also hold it a net positive if I took literally everything you own and redistributed it to those who would do more with it, leaving you penniless and naked on the street. It's...
Utilitarianism would also hold it a net positive if I took literally everything you own and redistributed it to those who would do more with it, leaving you penniless and naked on the street. It's really not a very good ethical system. :)
That's incorrect. Once you took enough from them that they could do more with it than the people around them, it would no longer increase utility to keep going, certainly stopping before...
That's incorrect. Once you took enough from them that they could do more with it than the people around them, it would no longer increase utility to keep going, certainly stopping before "penniless and naked on the street."
I feel utilitarianism gets beat up on unfairly. The fuzzy definition of "happiness" or "utility" in utilitarianism is a feature designed to make it more versatile, but it seems that a lot of...
I feel utilitarianism gets beat up on unfairly. The fuzzy definition of "happiness" or "utility" in utilitarianism is a feature designed to make it more versatile, but it seems that a lot of people take advantage of that and insert meanings that exist specifically to "disprove" it. Even then, I've always thought of it more of a yardstick than a pair of calipers; it's not really meant to be a complex or overly specific philosophy that deals with absolutes, it's a general set of ideas that give you ideas about how to pick actions within the context of a society.
There are plenty of “fast casual” restaurants in the US (Panera comes to mind) that have you order up front before sitting down with a buzzer or an order number on a placard so the servers know where to drop off your food. But I agree that it’s hardly ubiquitous, and I think a ticket system could help curb issues like this even more.
That kind of ruins the ambiance of a nicer fine dining restaurant though. There’s something to be said for asking your server clarifying questions or for recommendations, ordering your drink first so you can sip and chat while you peruse the menu, observing what others are having before deciding, adding on dessert after the main course, etc. Personally I don’t eat at places like this very often but I’d hate to see them go away. The human connection and higher level of service make it feel special (and worth the higher price).
That's a reasonable sentiment, but I feel like dine and dashers are more likely to target more blue collar type establishments. Stuff like diners, noodle houses, burger bars, where you pretty much know what you want and know what you're getting. That system sounds ideal for places like these.
Totally agreed, I was just providing an example to the contrary. I think a “sit down” experience with a proper wait staff is something to be enjoyed and celebrated and shouldn’t be totally steamrolled in the name of convenience and avoidance of dine and dash nonsense.
I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Like I elaborated on a top level post, it is the norm in some countries. It doesn't mean you don't get a server, or don't a menu. For example, one place I went to, you are seated, and given a menu. At this point you can ask the waiter whatever you want. Once you know what to do, you go up to the front desk to order and pay at the same time. If you need more, the waiter will be around, and they will charge you as they take the order.
Maybe these places will have to start charging 5% to make up for one in 20 dine and dashers.
I'm on the opposite spectrum: food tickets at the front machine or payment when the food arrives would be great everywhere. If wait staff want to chat they could but otherwise I'm here to eat, not chat. I wonder if there's an introvert vs extrovert factor to this. I find having to deal with wait staff to be taxing: not a lot, I manage fine, but it still takes away energy rather than replenish it.
Someone mentioned Japan, but in Taiwan most, not just fast food or ramen or curry, restaurants you order at the front and pay then, not at the end. This just seems to make sense to me - even as a customer it's nice you can just, like, leave after you finish your meal. It also prevents dine-and-dashing, of course.
If you order extra, the server just brings the terminal over and you pay then.
Fun fact: in Japan, it's customary that you're supposed to walk to the front desk to pay, the servers don't bring the check to you. You know people are American tourists if they sit at a table confused, waiting for a server to bring them the check. Well, I suppose that's obvious enough visually.
I think it’s more typical in Japan to make the X sign with your fingers to summon the check, if they haven’t been maintaining a running total that is kept at your table the entire time.
My recent experience in Tokyo and Kyoto was going to a payment counter was the default unless the restaurant specifically catered to Westerners or was too small for a payment counter.
Were you aware of the X practise? Because while you can certainly just go up to the payment counter, I think it’s more common that you will get the check at your table and bring it with you, rather than making them figure out where you were sitting.
That's true they'd usually drop off a receipt after the orders were brought out, and we'd take that to the counter (though not universal)
I've never heard of making an X with your fingers for the check though. Could you find any references or examples? I'm only familiar with making an X when someone says だめ and wants to physically emphasize what they're saying (usually when being slightly cutesy or communicating with foreigners).
http://www.tengulife.com/2014/04/crossed-fingers-and-paying-check.html?m=1
https://www.nihongomaster.com/blog/8-body-gestures-you-should-know-when-in-japan
Slightly tangential but this morning I almost accidentally didn't pay for breakfast because card reader software says PLEASE DONT REMOVE CARD and it's so easy to read that as REMOVE CARD and then remove your card too early and then not pay. (Especially if you are short and the glare often makes it hard to see the top of the screen)
The hostess caught my mistake and we laughed about it but omg this language is so infuriating to me, WHY would you have the "dont do this" message end with a phrase that means "do this"
Countless misery could have been avoided if the authors of the universal card processing machine had written "PLEASE KEEP CARD INSERTED" instead
Standards developed before user interfaces as an area of study became really significant. And now making a change to an existing system is anathema.
I'm not discounting your experience, but is there a better way to say "Don't remove card" than "Don't remove card"? Like, what would be a better way? The chip needs to stay in communication with the terminal until the transaction finishes.
As a general rule, humans are more likely to misinterpret negative statements. If the card reader simply said "keep card inserted" there's no ambiguity or potential for misreading.
While a lesser factor, even a positive voice could induce a misreading; the "please keep [...]" might be taken as a prompt to action before the customer scans the rest of the message, in which case the natural action would be to remove the card, as the intended behavior to keep the card inserted would be a *non-*action.
I have no idea how that could be mitigated, though, and it's still definitely a better solution than the alternative.
Maybe a description first? "Card is being read" in large letters and "please keep card inserted" in smaller ones beneath it. That way you don't immediately feel prompted to action, you simply understand that the transaction is in process, but if you're confused by the lack of instruction there's the smaller text to clarify.
This is what some of the newer terminals I've used say.
Yeah so like
theres a lot of things you can write here that are in a positive voice and not a negative voice. It's best to use positive voice always and tell some to do the opposite of what you don't want them to do; rather then to tell them not to do what you don't want to do.
Every single dang time police are too lazy to earn their keep it's automatically "a civil matter". Shoplifting is exactly what's criminal. Bad cop.
And the very next paragraph the police spokesperson says no don't do that. I agree. If restaurants had NAMES they shouldn't be posting them online and exposing themselves to lawsuits or violent retaliation, YOU should be doing the policing. So this is wonderful: folks call the cops, they do nothing, and then they're told they should have called the cops. Maybe it's the police that should be named and shamed online.
CCTVs are expensive and "demoralizing", like the last person in the article said. There's no sense of being made whole and the sense of well-being, regular "yay people are nice" sense of security doesn't easily get repaired, when there isn't justice being done. Also, how does greeting someone register anything. At a busy night each server would have scene maybe 100 people known mostly by where they sit and what they ordered. And thieves wouldn't give real names and numbers. And they'd also have a fake cc number. What a great way to piss off 95+% of your customers if they start demanding it. Photographing their driver's license? People wouldn't go for that.
These places have security cameras right? Post videos of people dining-and-dashing on social media and enjoy the fireworks.
In my teens I was working FOH and some christian group of ~50 or so came in and almost all of them left without paying. Shift boss was all over the hosts, 'why did you let them leave?!' as if they a) knew, b) could.
Its disgusting.
Another time I was out with this group I didn't know very well. There were about 14 of us and we ordered, but the food was taking forever. About 30 minutes in, no drinks etc, the 'leader' of the group said that we should jet if we don't hear anything soon. Another half hour and we all left. One of the guys came out and was all 'your food is up now!' and the rest of them just kept walking. I went back later that week and gave them $50 and apologized.. I hate shit like this so much.
I wish, like others have said, we just paid up front. In the second case, I would have been so happy to just sit there with these randos I met at a conference. Instead, leaving like that soured the evening. The worst part is that the 'leader' decided to go to another restaurant which took half an hour for food anyway. So stupid.
Poor people stealing from other poor people :(
I wish they would dine and dash Rupert Murdochs mansion.
Which is ultimately still immoral.
Morality is relative and subject to personal interpretations thus under many views stealing from someone such as Rupert Murdoch could be justified and seen as a moral act dependent on the frameworks that a person or group operate under.
This falls apart when someone justifies stealing from you.
I don't believe this is subject to personal interpretations as much as it may look like it is in a vacuum. But the moment someone poorer than you justifies nicking your stuff because you are richer you no longer believe this relative at all and you'll very much unphilosophically call the very real police.
If you're going to justify it based on whether or not he's a bad person and therefore it's ok, then sure, morality is subjective.
I still think it makes it too easy to make the same argument, because people can also say you are a bad person based on their own personal beliefs and then steal from you with a moral high ground.
It's a lot less relative when it comes to physically taking something from someone else. It's far easier to blur the lines when it comes to ideas or ideologies.
If you're going to take a step back and look at it from a universal perspective, where you weigh everyone's morality and tally the score you may have a point. But I wasn't, and on an individual basis I think it's immoral to take from others.
Except you're speaking to an anarchist in this instance and I have been assaulted and robbed and I refused to call the police. I have had multiple instances in which my own personal morals violate your interpretation of this sooooo. Yeah, dunno what to tell you but you're just wrong. Morals are inherently subjective. By definition.
Understanding that poverty, lack of access to resources and opportunity drives the impetus to crime makes me recontextualize why someone might steal from me thus creating an empathetic reaction to what is perceived as a personal transgression.
Edit: I just wanted to add that I'm gonna go touch grass (feed people) now so I'm not gonna be responding to this until much later in the evening (if at all). Good luck friendo!
But where does the buck stop? Who decides who's poor enough to steal? Am I poor enough to steal?
I'm going to stop responding here before we further derail it. But feel free to respond, I'm giving you the closing statement. Or don't. It's anarchy baby.
At the very least: thanks for the responses so far!
The people around them get to decide.
Laws are just a formality. The thing that makes them strong is the willingness of society to enforce them. Without the will of the public, laws are just justifications for violence from the government. Just look at marijuana for an example: here in the US it's technically a federal crime, but the public really doesn't like it and as a result, most local and state governments have given up trying to enforce it and the federal government is on the brink of legalizing it. The role of public in regards to law is more or less recognized formally in many governments' judicial systems, where crimes are judged by a jury of the defendants' peers.
(Full disclosure: I am not @oliak.)
I'm not talking about the law though. I was talking about the morality of justifying the taking from others. There's a lot of moral grandstanding around the topic where it's good and great and fantastic when it happens to the rich(-er than you), but that opinion turns on a dime when it happens to themselves.
The justification is often flimsy. Most societies have a law against this specifically because a personal justification doesn't suffice in a functioning society.
Edit: snap, I said I wasn't going to derail further but I couldn't help myself. This was the last one, promise!
Morality, society, and law, are all tightly linked together. It's basically impossible to talk about one without bringing up the others. Even if you're not talking about the law, it doesn't change the fact that the people who decide weather something is right or wrong are the peers of the society they are involved in.
Morals are just crystalizations of complex thoughts and feelings, and those things are subject to change. This is also why laws and the functioning of a working justice system are subject to change. There are no morals that are handed down from god. There are people who want to make such things, but that's when things go from morals to being ethics.
I don't mind you breaking your promise. I think this is a philosophical conversation that everyone should be having from time to time because it's very important for the functioning of society.
Recognize that this is how you feel and I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but your tone implies that this is a settled question when it assuredly is not.
Non-theistic moral realism is on pretty shaky ground. Theistic moral realism is, I think, not worth spending time discussing.
A study of philosophers suggested that more than half leaned towards moral realism (and a strong majority were atheists, so it was presumably not theistic moral realism.)
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
I understand that you personally do not agree with moral realism, but I think a blanket statement dismissing it does a bit of a disservice to what is a massively debated topic.
But isn't that reflected in division in voting for new laws or ballot measures? As a society we disagree and go with majority rule, but that doesn't mean there is consensus. I agree that broadly most of us think similar things but I do think there is plenty of subjectivity.
The difference in my opinion is two-fold. 1. His gains are morally ill-gotten. The only reason he was able to legally accumulate stop much is because he used that money to manipulate what is legal. That's number 2. Him having that money allows him to do active, severe harm to society.
I can't buy a senator or a supreme court justice, and I'm not making our laws worse so that I can.
Removing money from Murdoch and people who behave the way he does is akin to disarming someone acting violently. Keeping the weapon yourself isn't great probably, but if you're doing way less damage with it, then it's an improvement on the situation.
Look, I'm not disagreeing that Rupert probably deserves what's coming if we'd collectively decide that his wealth needs some impromptu redistribution, but you should assume the reverse is applied to you when someone justifies why you should be relieved of your ducats.
Perhaps Rupert thinks he's justified in taking his ill-gotten gains from you as well. Perhaps because he thinks your vote is against the betterment of humanity. Who knows.
Point is, it's difficult to justify it based on relative morality when -unless you're an anarchist apparently- it happens to you!
Ehh, if there was a good argument that I was using my "wealth" to the active and significant detriment of humanity in a way that could be avoided if it was taken from me, then I guess they can have my savings account? It would be a super tough argument to make, because I don't have enough to make a significant difference one way or the other. How can I buy a senator if I can't even buy a house?
I wouldn't make this argument against trust fund babies who are just quietly chilling on their private islands or whatever. I think their use of resources is probably grotesque, but they aren't actively weilding their wealth as a weapon against the populace.
Rupert Murdoch has willfully made choices with his money that have caused people to be killed. You can't make that argument about me. If somehow I've gotten someone killed with my spending, it was certainly not a predictable outcome.
If we built our laws on the idea that "doing X is illegal, unless people don't like the victim", I think that would cause a lot more problems than it solves.
I think the golden rule still applies here; don't do things to people unless you would be OK with them doing it to you.
I find this one hard to justify as they are stealing a luxury service. It’s always cheaper to cook at home.
If you have a home. A stove. A refrigerator. I don't think these people were lacking any of those things, just pointing out the exception to your statement.
I think on a utilitarian basis stealing from Rupert Murdoch should be encouraged – Rupert Murdoch spends his money on terrible things (his media empire) and the average person spends their money on considerably less terrible things (food, rent, etc) so it is a net positive if this capital is redistributed!
Society has blanket rules against vigilantism because everyone has different moral frameworks. There are very passionate people across the moral spectrum, and there would be bloody chaos if they all felt sanctioned to act unilaterally and extralegally.
We put offenders through the justice system, as constrained by the laws that our democratically elected lawmakers have created, so that we can attempt to mete out justice systematically and consistently, even if imperfectly, according to the broad and averaged wishes of society.
If we allow people to act extralegally on their moral passions instead of through democratic processes, we sanction not only ourselves to act on our moral frameworks but we also sanction those whose moral frameworks we may find odious.
While I agree with your point that lawlessness creates chaos and society needs stability, I think this characterizes an ideal that increasingly does not exist. (Caveat: speaking about the US) There's a huge disparity between the way justice is applied for the rich and the poor. If you're poor, you barely get representation and the system stacked to incentivize a plea bargain for any crime. If you're rich, it takes years to resolve a protracted set of appeals, and the likelihood that you see jail is almost nil. And that's if you can even be held personally responsible and are not shielded by a corporation.
Examples: Trump, both Clintons, Martha Stewart, the recent article about the Sackler family.
I think much of the sentiment justifying robbing Rupert Murdoch (or whoever) is rooted in the gap between the ideal (as quoted above) and the reality that most people experience. Couple that with the fact that the people experiencing the injustice are basically powerless to change the system, and I think we are no longer at
"the broad and averaged wishes of society".
Utilitarianism would also hold it a net positive if I took literally everything you own and redistributed it to those who would do more with it, leaving you penniless and naked on the street. It's really not a very good ethical system. :)
That's incorrect. Once you took enough from them that they could do more with it than the people around them, it would no longer increase utility to keep going, certainly stopping before "penniless and naked on the street."
I feel utilitarianism gets beat up on unfairly. The fuzzy definition of "happiness" or "utility" in utilitarianism is a feature designed to make it more versatile, but it seems that a lot of people take advantage of that and insert meanings that exist specifically to "disprove" it. Even then, I've always thought of it more of a yardstick than a pair of calipers; it's not really meant to be a complex or overly specific philosophy that deals with absolutes, it's a general set of ideas that give you ideas about how to pick actions within the context of a society.