A $4 tip plus $2 from the service nets me $6. I average 3 to 5 deliveries per hour, grossing $18 to $30 total. Minus $3 to $5 in expenses, and I’m earning $13 to $27/hr on that. Not great, but not terrible.

That was uncalled for.

In my area, I would not feel insulted by a $4 tip for a ~2-mile delivery.

The hotter it gets, the thicker the oxide layer form

This is accurate enough for tempering of most cutting tools, but technically, the oxide layer will continue to grow if you hold a lower temperature for a longer than normal time, and might not fully develop if you reach a higher temperature for a shorter than normal period of time.

This property useful if you are trying to develop a specific color rather than achieve a specific metallurgy. You can heat to a lower temperature for a longer time to develop a deeper, more consistent color.

In my experience, it’s easier to develop colors with an oven or propane torch rather than a forge or acetylene.

I won’t say that this blade is properly heat treated; it probably isn’t. In welding, the problem is the wide variation of heat affects in a very small zone. You can have material that is very brittle just millimeters away from material that is very soft and ductile.

You’re describing “normalization”, which is a process that makes steel uniformly tough, but “plastic”. When you flex it, it bends, and stays bent. “Annealing” is a similar process, where the temperature is raised a bit higher, and the cooling slowed even more. “Annealing” leaves the steel very soft.

In tool making, you’re first looking for high hardness (acquired with a “quenching” process). This makes it very brittle; it has no elasticity.

Next, you’re dialing back that hardness with a “tempering” process, which is done at a lower temperature than the normalization process, and the cooling can be much faster. When tempered, it’s still very hard, (significantly harder than “normalized”) but now it is slightly elastic. It will flex, but beyond a critical point, it just snaps; it probably won’t take on a permanent bend.

These colors are oxide layers that form at temperatures in the “tempering” range.

Uh… You might be confusing welding and heat treating concepts…

The 15% or 20% guidelines are based on the amount of work performed by the tipped employees (who earn less than minimum wage before tips.) the amount of the check correaponds pretty closely to how much time a waiter has to spend serving a table.

Drivers are not usually employees; they usually have $0/hr in wages, and pay their own fuel and vehicle expenses. Delivery services typically pay $2 per trip, and a trip will involve 2-4 stops. The base pay from the delivery service does not even cover fuel costs, let alone the driver’s time.

The amount of work a delivery driver performs is not at all related to the amount of the check. The 15%/20% rules are not remotely close to the amount of work the driver performs. $8 on a $20 order is a garbage tip if it’s a 10-mile delivery to a fourth-floor walkup. $4 on a $70 order might be a decent tip if it’s a 1-mile delivery to a front porch.

The appropriate tip for delivery is based on mileage, not food price. $1 for pickup, $1 for dropoff, and $1 per mile is a pretty basic tip. A driver can complete about 3, $2 runs per hour. $3 tips gives him a gross income of about $15/hr, and he can net about $10-12 of that after expenses.

The scenario you describe actually demonstrates my point. Where anonymity is “illegal”, the only entity you can trust to protect your privacy is you.

That fact does not change when anonymity is “legal”. That fact does not change even when anonymity is mandated. Even if it is a criminal act for me to make a record of who is accessing my service, that is only a legal restriction. It is not a technical restriction. You can’t know whether I am abiding by such a law at the time you are accessing my service. A law mandating anonymity doesn’t actually protect your anonymity; it just gives you the illusion that your anonymity is being protected.

The relevant difference between your scenario and reality is that in your scenario, nobody is blatantly lying about whether your privacy is under attack: it most certainly is.

The inherent flaw is thinking that “privacy” is something that the courts are capable of providing. They aren’t. The most that government/courts could possibly do is make it illegal to generally and indiscriminately retain IP address records. But that only protects you from law-abiding privacy invaders; it does nothing to protect you from criminals who would use that information nefariously.

When you take adequate and appropriate steps to secure your privacy, it doesn’t actually matter what the courts have to say about “privacy”.

There is an IOS app for hot air balloon pilots called “Hot Air”. There is a similar app for Android that… Leaves much to be desired.

There’s several functions that are needed. First, we need a map. We need to be able to enter waypoints and/or polygons charting landing zones, prohibited zones, targets, etc. we need an easy way to select targets, and our bearing and distance to those targets.

For planning purposes, we need a bearing line that we can place and move on that map. We need to be able to easily drag and drop each end of the line, and get the bearing and distance between the endpoints.

Next, we need track recording. It should record a ground track during flight, preferably with altitude information, and notes about the flight.

Next, a wind map. The wind speed and direction varies considerably by altitude. It needs to record direction and speed as we climb and descend, telling us what altitude has winds favorable for our current target.

Bonus points if we can prepopulate that wind map with data from a “pibal” (pilot balloon; a simple latex party balloon released and tracked with compass and stopwatch before a flight)

Next, coordination with other pilots and ground crews. 3D location sharing between participants; wind map data shared between pilots.

I’m not a fan of this approach. I think the idea that users should never touch a command line is an inherently proprietary philosophy. Without the command line, at any given moment, the user is fundamentally limited to whatever options the developer elected to offer.

I think a good GUI will assist a user in learning text configuration and command line functions.

WikiLeaks was a centralized platform.

Lavabit was a centralized platform.

Tiktok is a centralized platform.

Centralized platforms are proprietary, brittle, easily targeted. When they are taken down, they stay down.

Lemmy is, effectively, a protocol, not a platform. Anyone can host an instance, and they all talk to each other by default. Any of the big instances get knocked down, and they get replaced by a dozen others. An instance may die, but so long as someone wants to put up another, Lemmy remains.

Bitcoin is not a centralized platform. Tor is not a centralized platform. Government has had little success targeting these protocols.

The potential of an unhatched egg means that the egg can’t be accurately described as belonging to the offspring, until the offspring actually exists.

The proto-chicken egg does become a chicken egg, but not until a chicken exists. While the egg that will eventually become a chicken egg does exist before the chicken, it is not a chicken egg until the chicken exists. Until there is a chicken, it is just the egg of a proto-chicken.

We are discussing which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg. The answer cannot be the egg. The answer can be “neither”. The answer can the “the chicken”, if by “before”, we mean that the status of the egg is dependent on the existence of the chicken.

you define a chicken egg as an egg that came from a chicken, then if you have a dozen of eggs you cannot know whether they’re chicken eggs or whatever eggs unless you know specifically a chicken laid them

Correct, but that is information that can be known, whether it is actually known or not. When you eat a bird egg, you can know what bird it came from. You cannot know what bird it would have become, specifically because you prevented it from ever becoming that bird.

You could speculate that it could have become a new species, based on the genetics within the egg. But, even if you didn’t eat it, it could have failed to mature for any number of reasons. It might have become a new species of bird; it might have become a rotten egg.

The aphorism “Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched” specifically warns us against considering the future possibilities of the egg.

The act of giving it a name is irrelevant.

The distinction between “chicken” and “egg” is biologically irrelevant: they both refer to the same organism. The terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. The organism will progress the same way, regardless of what we decide to say about it.

The chicken/egg argument is purely one of semantics. “Giving it a name” isn’t just relevant to the discussion, it is the only factor relevant to the discussion.

The way you would have us describe the egg prevents us from accurately and consistently defining an egg. An egg laid by a chicken could mature into a new species, and by your arguments, should be described as an egg of that new species.

This creates a linguistic uncertainty in any case where the egg’s potential is not and cannot be known. Is there a Shicken egg among the dozen you bought? A Blargleblat egg? Do you have the eggs of a dozen new evolutions with a common chicken ancestor? You cannot say with certainty.

However, if we describe the egg as the product of the creature that laid it, we have no such uncertainty. If we describe it as the possession of the offspring within it, we have no such uncertainty. The uncertainty only arises when we try to define it by an unknowable condition that may or may not occur.

My bad, I was making a different point with that analogy, and I had moved on some time ago. The app I’m using makes it difficult to read back up the thread.

I think we are making similar arguments. I would say that the egg Amy hatched from is the first “chicken’s egg”, but it is only the first chicken’s egg because it belongs to Amy, and it did not exist until chicken-Amy existed, which was some time well after the egg was laid.

Sorry, I’m getting distracted with real life right now.

Amy is a proto-chicken. Her offspring, Brenda, is the first creature containing the mutation that distinguishes chickens from proto-chickens. Brenda is the first chicken.

Amy’s egg couldn’t be a chicken egg because there was no such thing as a chicken when she laid it. There would be no such thing as a chicken until Brenda existed, at which time the egg that would become Brenda also became a chicken egg.

The chicken egg could not have come first. The first chicken egg was laid by something that was not quite a chicken, but it didn’t become a chicken egg until it had developed into a chicken.

it didn’t somehow cease to have been an egg just because it doesn’t hatch.

Correct. But, it was an egg laid by a proto-chicken; it is a proto-chicken egg.

Our proto-chicken couple also laid an egg that would have become a “Shicken”, if I hadn’t eaten it first. But, because there was never a “Shicken”, there could never be a “Shicken” egg; the egg was only a proto-chicken egg.

So, it doesn’t become a Chicken’s egg until Brenda has come into existence. Brenda being the chicken. The chicken has to exist for the egg to become a Chicken’s egg.

The first chicken egg is the egg that Brenda hatched from, but it didn’t become a chicken egg until Brenda was a chicken and not just a (proto-chicken) egg.

That’s about where I got to as well. A proto-chicken’s egg that contains the genetic code for a chicken doesn’t become a chicken egg if I eat it first. At best, the creature has to have become a chicken before the surrounding egg can be described as a chicken egg, which means that the chicken has to come first (or simultaneously). The egg cannot come first.