Post food hacks and bog slop here: No Boglims allowed. Of age, alive, consenting, non-related, cisgender goth chicks welcome. TWU SATIRE. This page does not reflect the real business
A place for redditors to discuss quantitative trading, statistical methods, econometrics, programming, implementation, automated strategies, and bounce ideas off each other for constructive criticism. Feel free to submit papers/links of things you find interesting.
Booking my honeymoon and going for my first awards redemption. Wondering if there is a difference between the two. We'll be travelling with a 1 year old if that makes a difference.
Up until the Tchort fight I was flying through this game as a lightning sorcerer type build...but I juuust about scraped it by that fight with a pinch of health left and some blind luck. Felt like I was doing extremely low DPS, it took me a solid 7-8 minutes of running around to get their health bar fully down. Is there something obvious I'm overlooking maybe? What are the best ways to increase your DPS?
I have social anxiety, so when I went to book up my tattoo on Monday and was greeted by a different tattoo artist to the one I had initially spoken to on instagram, I got swept away and booked up with them (I only just figured out who they are) by accident because I was too socially awkward and anxious to say no.
I need to send a message to the initial artist I spoke to to apologise for booking up with someone else, but I don't know if I explain what happened and ask if it would be possible to switch to an appointment with him (even though I know the answer quite rightly will probably be no - will make sure to say I'm happy to stick with initial appointment I've booked if not possible) as I did want him to do it as I really like his artwork if that would be okay, or if that would be super offensive to the person I've booked up with for next Monday. I think I'll just leave it at apologising but I think I'm just panicking (which got me into this mess in the first place lol) because getting a tattoo is a big deal and I don't want to end up with a couple of tattoos that I'm not super in love with because of a stupid mistake that might be easily rectified if I just explain the situation.
TL;DR: accidentally booked up with wrong tattoo artist in a blind social-anxiety induced panic, is it okay to ask to switch to the tattoo artist I initially spoke to or should I just leave it?
- … we were enslaved [משעבדים, MeShoo`eBahDeeYM] to fundamentals [ליסודות, LeeYÇODOTh] [of] the world.
“The word τα στοιχεια [ta stoikheia], the elements ... meant (a) the letters of the alphabet… (b) the elements of which a thing was composed, as the fire, air, earth, and water of which the world was thought to be constituted; (c) the elements of the universe, the larger cosmos, including the sun, moon, planets, and stars; and (d) the spirits, angels, and demons which were believed to ensoul the heavenly bodies, traverse all space, and inhabit every nook and cranny of earth, particularly tombs, desert places, and demented persons. These spirits were said to be organized like human governments. In Rom. [Romans] 8:38 Paul calls them ‘principalities’ and ‘powers.’ And vss. [verses] 9 and 10 of our present chapter indicate that he has them in mind in vs. 3. …
Paul … includes in ‘the elements of the universe’ all sub-Christian ideas and observances, both Jewish and Gentile. He regards these ‘elements’ as slave drivers who frighten men with curses for not propitiating them by observance of special days and seasons, food taboos, dietary fads, and circumcision. In Christ he declared his independence of Fate, Fortune, Luck, and Chance, and from astrology, the counterfeit religion and bastard sister of astronomy, whose practitioners exploited the superstition that the stars controlled men’s lives from birth to death.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 521 & 522)
“The elements of the world] A mere Jewish phrase, יסודי עולם הזה yasudey ‘olam hazzeh, ‘the principles of this world;’ that is, the rudiments or principles of the Jewish religion. The apostle intimates that the law was not the science of salvation; it was only the elements or alphabet of it.” (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 387)
- But [אבל, ’ahBahL] as that was filled the time, sent forth, Gods, [את, ’ehTh] His son, born [of] woman, and subject [וכפוף, VeKhahPhOoPh] to instruction.
“The four words, το πληρωμα του χρονου [to pleroma tou khronou], the fullness of the time, express a whole philosophy of history. The Hebrew prophets and Jewish apocalyptists believed that their God was the creator of the universe and arbiter of the destinies of all men and nations. Nothing could happen that was not his doing, either directly or indirectly through angels and men. He had a time for everything, and everything happened exactly on time. … The completion of this present age would be marked by a blood-red revolution, in which all good men and good works would be ground under the heel of the tyrant, while the wicked reigned supreme. Then suddenly God would intervene with the lightning of judgment to snatch the world from the mouth of the bottomless pit and restore it to Paradise, whence it had fallen with the sin of Adam. Sorrow and sighing would flee away, and the Messiah would reign with the perfection of a theocratic king.
At this juncture, says Paul, when the appointed period of history was ‘full,’ god sent his Son γενομενον εκ γυναικος, γενομενον υπο νομον [genomenon ek gunaikos, genomenon upο nomon], ‘born of woman, bοrn under law.’ … Jesus was not only born under law, but was subject to it all his life. ...The ‘yoke’ of the Torah demanded that he observe the customs of his forefathers, such as wearing phylactery and prayer fringes, ceremonial washing of hands before eating, giving thanks at mealtime, praying at stated times, bringing tithes and sacrifices, and obeying the Ten Commandments.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 522 & 523)
Not to mention circumcision, kashrut, and the prohibition of associating with gentiles.
“Sent forth refers to God’s sending of his Son from his pre-existent state in heaven (I Cor. [Corinthians] 8:6; Phil. [Philippians] 2:6-8; Col. [Colossians] 1:15-17). Yet this Son was born of woman. There is nothing in these words, or elsewhere in Paul’s letters, to prove or disprove that he knew the story of the miraculous conception. His point here is that the Christ, although he was the pre-existent Son of God, did not come into this world with a body composed of celestial substance, but was woman-born like all other human beings. … It was very different from the conception of royal sonship in Ps. 2, where the king is called God’s ‘Son; because he has been chosen to be the Messiah. In Paul, Jesus is God’s Son by nature, and his Christhood follows by virtue of this sonship. This belief was the fundamental cause of the split between the Jews and the Christians. The lowly birth, the obscurity of Nazareth, and the fact that Jesus was a common laborer, constituted a grievous scandal in the eyes of all who were expecting their Deliverer to come riding on a chariot of clouds wielding the lightning of judgment. Paul’s gospel contradicts every form of hyperspirituality that fixes a gulf between God and his material world. On the other hand, his conception of the coming of Jesus was poles removed from the pagan stories of the births of heroes, savior-gods, and kings, whose legends were freighted with illicit relationships and lawless conduct like the lives of the devotees who had created them in their own image.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 523-524)
“Nothing is said explicitly about the Son’s preexistence, which is at most implied … born of a woman: … The phrase is derived from the OT [Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible] (Job 14:1 …). So born, Jesus submitted to the law by being circumcised and thus became capable of falling under its curse. But lest the Galatians draw a wrong conclusion, Paul [and The Interpreters’ Bible] does not mention Jesus’ circumcision. Instead of genomenon, ‘born,’ some patristic writers read gennomenon, and understood this ptc. [participle] as referring to Mary’s virginal conception; but this is anachronistic interpretation.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 787)
- Accordingly [לפיכך, LePheeYKhahKh], you are not [אינך, ’aYNKhah] a slave anymore [אוד, ’OD], for if [כי אם, KeeY ’eeM] a son, and, if a son, then [אזי, ’ahZahY] also heir from favor [מטעם, MeeTah`ahM] [of] Gods.
“This is Paul’s proclamation of emancipation.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X p. 528)
………………………………………… Worry of Shah’OoL to Galatians [verses 8–20]
- In [the] past, in a time that you did not know [את, ’ehTh] Gods, you slaved [את, ’ehTh] who that in their nature [שבמנהותם, ShehBeMahHOoThahM] were not Gods.
“The Jews never ceased to ridicule idols and denounce idolaters… They demoted the old gods to the rank of demons and made a list of detractive names for them: angels, shepherds, princes; kings, emperors, benefactors, heroes; demons, personifications, idols, nonentities. Some were living, some dead; some were good, but were not God. Most of them were bad, and their idols were but images of ‘things of nought.’ …
Paul did not deny the existence of these beings whose ignorant worshipers called them gods, but he declared that they did not partake of the nature of God (I Cor. 8:4-6). God permitted them to plague mankind to punish sin, especially the sin of participating in the sacraments of the Gentile cults (I Cor. 10:19-22; 11:28-31). But Christ had conquered them and no Christian needed to fear them.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X p. 529)
- Behold, you are honoring days and new-[moons], seasons [מועדים, MO`ahDeeYM] and years.
“Days like the Sabbath and Yom hakkippurim [“Day of Atonement”] are meant; months like the ‘new moon’; seasons like Passover and Pentecost; years like the sabbatical years… Paul can see no reason for a Gentile Christian to observe these.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 788)
Two the covenants [verses 21-26]
- Say to me, you, the wanters to be subject to Instruction, have you not heard [את, ’ehTh] the Instruction?
- Is it not written that to ’ahBRahHahM there were two sons, the one from the maid [האמה, Hah’ahMaH] and the second from the woman the free [החפשיה, HahHahPhSheeYah]?
- But [אך, ’ahKh] [the] son [of] the maid was born according to [לפי, LePheeY] the flesh, and however [ואילו, Ve’eeYLOo] [the] son [of] the free upon mouth of the promise.
- The words the these, they are a parable to two the covenants: the one from Mount ÇeeNah-eeY [Sinai], the birther to slavery, and she is HahGahR [“The Sojourner”, Hagar].
“It is well known how fond the Jews were of allegorizing; every thing in the law was with them an allegory: their Talmud [ancient commentary] is full of these; and one of their most sober and best educated writers Philo, abounds with them…
It is very likely, therefore, that the allegory produced here; St. Paul had borrowed from the Jewish writings; and he brings it in to convict the Judaizing Galatians on their own principles: and neither he, nor we, have any thing farther to do with this allegory, than as it applies to the subject for which it is quoted; nor does it give any license to those men of vain and superficial minds, who endeavour to find out allegories in every portion of the Sacred Writings; and by what they term spiritualizing, which is more properly carnalizing, have brought the testimonies of God into disgrace. May the spirit of silence be poured out upon all such corrupters of the word of God!” (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 390)
“Allegorical interpretation rests upon the belief that every word, figure of speech, and grammatical form in scripture has a special ‘spiritual’ significance besides its literal meaning. The theory is that the God who dictated it meant more than rests on the surface and that while he said one thing, he also meant something else in addition to the literal sense… The Greeks had long since applied the method to explain away the immoral things which the gods said and did in Homer… Then Greek-speaking Jews, like Philo Judaeus, employed it apologetically to read Greek philosophy into the O.T. [Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible], proclaiming that Moses had said all these good things long before and better than Homer and Plato.
The wonder is that Paul has so little allegory. His restraint is explained partly by his training as a Pharisee. The rabbis were suspicious of any interpretation of scripture that tended to make Jews lax in their observance of the law. Jews with Gnostic leanings, and those who considered some of their ancestral customs outmoded, could resort to allegory to justify their philosophy and conduct, while maintaining that they were the spiritual superiors of the conservatives who held to the letter of the law … His argument, however, is never strengthened by allegorical symbolism and typology, for these are convincing only to those who by imagination can find them so. Rather, as in Rom. 9-11, he introduces unnecessary complications such as the moral difficulties involved in predestination. His gospel does not rest on the quicksands of allegory, a specious method of interpreting scripture. Its interpretations are of interest to the historian not as correct representations of what the writers and first readers of the Bible had in mind, but only as source materials for understanding the life and thought of the allegorists themselves.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X p. 540)
- Hagar signifies [מסמלת, MeÇahMehLeTh] [את, ’ehTh] Mount ÇeeNah-eeY, that is in Arabia, and parallels [ומקבילה, OoMahQBeeYLaH] to Jerusalem of our day, for she is in slavery with her sons.
“… why does Paul mention Arabia…? Possibly because Mt. Sinai is in Arabia[?], which is Ishmaelite territory; he thus associates the Sinai pact with the eponymous patriarch of Arab tribes … Paul thus suggests that the law itself stems from a situation extrinsic to the promised land and to the real descendants of Abraham. Paul’s Jewish former co-religionists would not have been happy with this allegory.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 788)
- But [אבל, ’ahBahL] Jerusalem from ascended [מעלה, Mah`eLaH], [the] daughter [of] freedom [חורין, HOReeYN] is she, and she is mother to us.
“The Jerusalem which now is was a most unholy “Holy city”, full of injustice, violence and murder, and subject to the cruel and wicked rulers imposed by a Gentile empire. But over against this Jerusalem of slavery lay an ideal celestial city, unseen at present, but destined soon to supersede it. Paul called it the Jerusalem above. Sarah, the free-woman, was the ancestress of its citizens, who were the people of faith and of freedom in Christ…
Paul speaks of Jerusalem above, because this new city of freedom already exists in heaven where Christ is, where dwell the souls of those who have died in Christ. But it also exists on earth as the church, the body of Christ, whose members are colonists from heaven sent to prepare men for the full establishment of God’s kingdom at Christ’s second coming (Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3).
The biblical root of this conception of an ideal future and heavenly Jerusalem is Isa. [Isaiah] 54. Other descriptions appear in Ezek. [Ezekiel] 40-48; Zech. [Zechariah] 2:1-13; Hag. [Haggai] 2:6-9; Tob. [Tobias] 13:9-18 Ecclus. [Ecclesiasticus] 36; Pss. Sol. [Psalms of Solomon] 17:33. Historically the expectation assumed three forms. According to the earliest hope, God would build the new Jerusalem in Palestine and make it the capital of his theocratic world government. The plan of this glorious city was graven upon the palms of his hands (Isa. 49:16). From this idea it was but a step, especially for those influenced by Greek ideas, to think of this ideal Jerusalem as already existing in heaven. According to the Apocalypse of Baruch, God had shown it to Adam in Paradise before he sinned; to Abraham on the night mentioned in Gen. 15:12-21; and to Moses on Sinai, when he gave him the heavenly pattern for an earthly tabernacle (II Baruch 4:1-6; cf. [compare with] Heb. [Hebrews]12:22). The third conception combined these two ideas. The Jerusalem which was ‘above’ would come down to earth to be established in Palestine in place of the city that ‘now is’ (cf. Rev. [Revelation] 3:12, 21:2; II Esdras 7:26; 13:36; 10:54).
So the new Jerusalem belonged to both worlds and to both ages, to heaven and earth, to the present and the future. Its constitution was the new covenant, and its citizens were the men of faith in Christ, a new kind of freemen who traced their spiritual ancestry through the line of Isaac and his mother Sarah as heirs of God’s promise to Abraham. As for Ishmael and his tribe, they were the men of law, predestined to be slaves forever. Needless to say, the Judaizers found Paul’s allegorical exclusion of themselves utterly unacceptable. They believed that the Torah was God’s blueprint for all creation, and that it would be observed forever in the new Jerusalem. That, they said, was why God was going to purge the old city – to establish an order of life in which perfect obedience to his law would be possible.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 541-542)
“…it was a maxim among the rabbins, that, ‘Whatsoever was in the earth, the same was also found in heaven; for there is no matter, howsoever small, in this world, that has not something similar to it in the spiritual world.’ On this maxim, the Jews imagine that every earthly thing has its representative in heaven: and especially whatever concerns Jerusalem, the law, and its ordinances. Rab. Kimchi, speaking of Melchisedec, king of Salem, says, זו ירושלים של מעלה Zu Yerushalem shel me’alah – ‘This is the Jerusalem that is from above.’…
There is a spiritual Jerusalem, of which this is the type; and this Jerusalem, in which the souls of all the righteous are, is free from all bondage and sin: or by this, probably the kingdom of the Messiah was intended; and this certainly answers best to the apostle’s meaning, as the subsequent verse shows.” (Clarke, 1831, vol. II p. 391)
- That see, is written:
“Chant, barren, not birthing, [רני עקרה לא ילדה RahNeeY ahQRaH Lo’ YahLahDaH] burst chanting and shouting, not travailing, [פצחי רנה וצהלי לא-חלה PeeTsHeeY ReeNaH VeTsahHahLeeY Lo’-HahLaH] for multitudinous are sons of her deserted than [מי, MeeY] sons of her mistress [כי-רבים בני-שוממיה מבני בעולה KheeY-RahBeeYM BeNaY-ShoMahMeeYHah MeeBeNaY BeooLaH].”
“A telling item in the counterpropaganda of the legalists was the argument that even among the Christians only a radical fringe consisting mainly of foreign Jews, of whom Paul was one, were proposing to abandon the law of Moses. …
In one respect his quotation of Isa. 54:1 does not fit Paul’s allegory. It was Sarah, the mother of freemen, who possessed the husband, and Hagar, the slave, who was the deserted woman. As usual with Paul’s illustrations (cf. Rom. 7:1-4; 11:17-24), the details cannot be pressed without making them go lame …
The Isaian figure to describe the plight of Jerusalem during the Babylonian exile grew out of a common experience in Hebrew family life. Childlessness, particularly the failure to bear sons, was great grief and disgrace. Such was the sorrow of Jerusalem; but the prophet bade her look forward with courage to the time when all her scattered children would come back to her (Isa. 54:3). God was her ‘husband,’ and he would treat his faithful remnant with everlasting lovingkindness, making them more numerous than the former population and giving them a heritage of great peace and prosperity (Isa. 54:13-17).” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X p. 542)
“The prophet’s words are addressed to deserted Zion, bidding it rejoice at the return of the exiles.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 788)
- But you, my brethren [τεχνα, tekhna, “children”], you are the sons of the promise, as was YeeTsHahQ [“He Laughed”, Isaac].
“The Judaizers claimed that Abraham had obeyed the law of Moses by anticipation, and that God’s promise was his reward. Consequently the descendants of Isaac were children of promise only if they followed Abraham’s example in obeying the law. Paul turned it the other way about: the promise must be taken on faith, not as credit for obedience.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X p. 542)
- And just as [וכשם, OoKhShayM] that then pursued, [רדף, RahDahPh] the son that was born according to [לפי, LePheeY] flesh, [את, ’ehTh] the son that was born according to the spirit, yes, also now.
“In Gen 21:10 Sarah, seeing Ishmael ‘playing’ with Isaac and viewing him as the potential rival to Isaac’s inheritance, drives him and his mother out. Nothing in Gen is said of Ishmael’s ‘persecution’ of Isaac, but Paul may be interpreting the ‘playing’ as did a Palestinian haggadic explanation of Gen 21:9 (see Josephus, ANT. [Antiquities] 1.12.3§215 …” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 788)
“A rabbinical tradition of the second century A.S. interprets the Hebrew participle מצחק [MeeTsHahQ, “play”] (LXX παιζοντα [paizonta] in Gen. 21:9 to mean that Ishmael’s ‘playing’ became so rough that Isaac’s life was in danger. This son of a slave is said to have shot arrows at Isaac to kill him, and Paul’s statement shows that some such tradition was current in his day. He applied it to the Judaizers who were trying to force the Christians to observe the whole law of Moses, and to the unbelieving Jews who were excommunicating the Christians and their families and getting them into trouble with the civil authorities (1:5; 4:17; 5:10; I Thess. [Thessalonians] 2:14-16).” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X p. 543)
- But what says the Written [Scripture]?
“Banish [גרש GahRaySh] the maid and [את, ’ehTh] her son, for not will inherit [יירש, YeeYRahSh], son [of] the maid [האמה, Hah’ahMaH], with son [of] the free.”
“The quotation is from Gen. 21:10 … The speaker of these words is Sarah, who is filled with rage against Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham is represented as greatly grieved, but God is said to have sanctioned the demand of the cruel and jealous wife….
This story was one of the effects and one of the causes of the perpetual feud between the Israelites and the tribes that descended from Ishmael. The Hebrews were so sure that God wanted them to have Palestine that they found no moral difficulty in saying that it was God himself who had overruled Abraham’s conscience (Gen. 17:18-21). They affirmed that Ishmael’s character and destiny had been predetermined (Gen. 16:12). Consequently, even his circumcision at the age of thirteen could not make him a member of God’s chosen people. However great this innocent victim of a family feud might become by virtue of the halfhearted blessing conceded by an uneasy conscience (Gen. 17:20-21), he and his descendants were barred forever from the higher blessing. Theirs was to submit to the religious imperialism of the most favored nation or die. Moreover, all Abraham’s other sons except Isaac were barred from the promise and sent away ‘unto the east country’ (Gen. 25:5-6). And yet while all this was said to be the Lord’s doing, it was in the same breath declared to be the doing of the human actors in this drama of the nations. Sarah herself was said to have suggested that Abraham become a father by her Egyptian slave girl. Then, too, it was explained that Hagar’s flight from the cruelty of her mistress was voluntary, making her, rather than the callous compliance of Abraham, responsible for her plight ‘in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur’ (Gen. 16:7).
Paul’s use of Abraham’s expulsion of Hagar and her child has its parallel in the equally heartless treatment of Esau which he employs in Rom. 9-11 in his longer discussion of the divine process of selection. Here too it was assumed that the hatred generated by centuries of war for the possession of Palestine lay in the heart of God. “I hate Esau,” said Malachi (1:3), making God the speaker; and Rom. 9:6-13 presses it to the utmost limit of predestination. But the love of God in Christ Jesus made Paul’s heart better than his inherited doctrine … When the history of the struggle for the possession of “the Holy land” is allegorized to justify a doctrine of “election” which foredooms countless souls to an eternity of torment in a future hell, it becomes as morally atrocious as it is irreconcilable with Paul’s gospel.
Nevertheless Paul’s allegory gives the historian an insight into Paul’s mind as he wrestled with the insoluble problem of God’s sovereignty and human freedom.” (Stamm, 1953, TIB vol. X pp. 543-544)
“Paul bids the Galatians rid themselves of the Judaizers – and, ironically enough, obey the Torah itself.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1990, TNJBC p. 788)
i'm currently on a semester abroad in germany. we had a meeting planned, or a trip rather, with our university on a particular weekend where we would go on a thursday and stay the night, then spend friday as the university hosted company day. I thought it would be a good idea to stay the weekend too because i'm not sure when i'll get the chance to do this again. So, I booked a hostel for just myself, because I couldn't find anyone else in the program who wanted to stay 5 nights in Berlin.
A few days later, two of them said they found an airbnb for a price that would be cheaper for all of us if we book it because it was for three people. I said ok, and cancelled my hostel reservation. That was 2.5 weeks ago. One of them messages me an hour ago to say that ''they never got the confirmation for the booking, and we were thinking of coming back to our city for the weekend for so and so event so its best if you can book something for yourself if you want to stay in berlin longer''
suffice to say, I am pretty upset right now. my stay was supposed to be from 22 June to 27th June, but i'm having trouble finding good places now. Obviously, i mean.
if there's any suggestions that you guys can give me i would really appreciate it. Something that's close enough to the major neighborhoods, or to the museums, the major landmarks, or at least a non sketchy part of berlin where I as a female solo traveller would feel safe.
thank you for reading, and good night <3
Hi all this is my first post in this sub.
I am female, and I've long loved the look of field watches. I really want to get one and I'm deciding between these two. One thing to note is I have very small wrists around 6.25". So I don't want something that will look too large. The Hamilton is 38mm and the Seiko is 36mm, I will be going down to a store to try them, but they will both look a bit oversized but that's okay. I am looking at the hand-winding version of the Hamilton as that is more in my budget.
Important factors to me:
-Waterproofing, all my life I've used dive watches. I don't swim often but they should ideally be able to hold up to showering. I am a bit worried about the Hamilton as while it states 5 Bar waterproofing, I've read a lot of people having issues with that. The Seiko seems a lot more reliable because of it.
-I don't mind the wind-winding Hamilton or the automatic Seiko
-Size and weight is are important factors as I mentioned my small wrists. The Hamilton while having a bigger face has a slimmer profile as a handwinder. I am afraid the Seiko is going to be too chunky overall. I will get a better idea once I try them on in person.
I would be happy to get either, just interested to hear any feedback :)
I moved to NYC about a year ago from Europe. Prior to that I would come visit the US often as my partner was living in SF. I have also visited NYC once in 2018 for a quick vacation. So I'm not entirely new to US tipping culture. For someone who is from Europe I always found the US tipping culture at restaurants a bit weird. The idea that I, as a customer, am responsible for the employee, the waiter(s), to make enough to live is beyond me...
Anyhow, I finally moved here last summer and have noticed that now tipping is not only requested in restaurants, but basically everywhere... I am asked to tip when I order a coffee at the barista, even at the coat check at some clubs, the bartender at the bars, the handymen ... everyone is asking for tip. While I understand the economy is tough out there right now and everyone is just trying to make their money, I am absolutely annoyed by this system and am unwilling to submit to this. I also cannot understand how everyone is willingly giving in to this and just "going with it". I have gotten nasty comments twice already (once at a bar and once at the coat check) for not tipping on those stupid tablets but honestly I don't care. Nowhere in the law does it say I have to tip so I won't. I will tip whenever I think someone was very nice and/or went above and beyond their job. But why am I tipping a barista when I'm standing in line and ordering my coffee at the counter? Am I tipping for them to do their job? Shouldn't that be in the price of the coffee? Whenever I have brought this up to American friends here, they have admitted that the system is screwed and then they usually shrug their shoulders like "It is what it is".... But as an outsider I really think this system is unacceptable... Just pay your workers appropriately and show me the final price I have to pay and don't guilt trip customers into paying your employees.... I've also heard people say "Well if you can't tip then don't go out".... Really???
So my question is... do Americans/New Yorkers think the tipping culture here is acceptable? Is 20% or 25% plausible? Will it ever change or just keep increasing?
I also would like to add that I have worked in the service industry (restaurants and cafes) myself during my college years back in Europe. And there we definitely don't expect tip. Usually people will round up the bill, if it's 27.99 Euros then it's likely someone will give 30 Euros. But it is also very common to not tip at all. To get 5 Euros or even 10 Euros for tipping was like a highlight and would happen very rarely. So it's not that I don't think people in the service industry deserve it because they don't work hard, no, I've been there myself. But the high tipping percentages here are just astonishing to me...
I spent 40 minutes or so playing the circuit and I had only reached tier 1 and the bar was not even halfway.
With all the things that have to be farmed in the game and with the little time that some of us have to play... Spending an entire weekend just to do the circuit is something that I think could be changed.
Imo the best option would be to match the experience gained on both the normal circuit and the steel path, idk why the didnt do like that.
I’m looking for some romance/fantasy books that have a high level of spicy content and a really good storyline!