NXTR

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 used to work for a wealth management firm who got pre-IPO shares of DWAC. Even with the lockup period, anyone who bought those shares made an incredible amount of money. To anyone who invested at or after the IPO…they’ve lost quite a bit. Just goes to show that being good at investing boils down to having lots of money and knowing the right people. Basically the rich get richer with absolutely no risk while the average person gets fucked to line their pockets.

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

This seems to be the solution. I found a thread where someone had the same problem and what you suggested fixed it for them.

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.