LetMeEatCake

... I didn't say they can't do so. I said they're allowed not to. Since it's allowed, that's what they do.

Because they're allowed not to do so. The answer is shitty yet simple.

Someone not tipping won't change that either; all that will do is stiff a worker. This needs to be fixed by changing labor laws.

Service charge I would presume is primarily paid out to the non-wait staff at the restaurant. The kitchen in particular.
Tips go to the wait staff, and they will pay some of that out to other staff (e.g. front staff) depending on how the restaurant works.

These are going to be separate. The service charge is there so they can increase prices by a tightly controlled amount without needing to fuck up the carefully targeted price points ($8 or $7.99 is a lot better than $9.44). Which is shitty, to be clear: it's a hidden way to increase prices while still advertising the same price. But it's not something that replaces or complements the tip, it's just a shitty price-adjustment.

A waiter or waitress is still going to be dependent on the actual tip.

The basic outline of where to split the company seems straightforward to me.

AWS get split off first and foremost, that part is blatantly clear to me.
From there, the retail webstore (what we generally think of as "Amazon") gets split off from its broad category of services: music and movie streaming and everything in that category.
After that, split anything that involves designing/repurposing other designs and selling a specific consumer product off. Kindle, Alexa, Roomba (if that purchase goes through), Amazon Basics, etc.

I think there's a decent amount of room to get more granular with the process, but I think that covers it as a basic outline.

BRICS isn't an alliance or a cohesive entity. It's the equivalent of the G7 for major non-western economies. India and China hate each other. China and Russia only really get along in being anti-US. Brazil and South Africa have no real intersection with the geopolitical goals of the other. BRICS isn't a geopolitical anything of any meaning.

I suspect India is doing this for the simple reason that they have zero control over Windows while they would have as much control as they want over internal-Linux use. They're large enough that they can make it work, assuming they're willing to dedicate the people and the money to it and put up with the non-insubstantial switching costs. Open question on what their follow through will look like, but it's entirely within their capability.

This is a result of a SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS membership is determined by the president and control of the senate at the time of vacancies. Neither of those are influenced by gerrymandering.

At the core of it this comes down to 2016 when a larger than typical number of people on the left lied to themselves and said "eh, they're all teh same" and tossed their vote at a third party or just didn't vote at all. Following that, SCOTUS went from a 4-4 tie (with 1 vacancy) to 6-3 conservative advantange.

I wouldn't blame laziness, but instead a combination of apathy and people who are more interested in ideological purity than in accepting the available-better such that they would rather complain about the unavailable-best.

RBG refusing to retire in 2012-2014 also shares blame. She could have retired then and the court would be 5-4 instead.

Not a final decision. SCOTUS (via Kagan) refused to overturn a stay on a decision while legal proceedings continue. Basically just an order to keep things as-is until the case finishes working its way through the courts.

Which as I understand it is generally how things work: if there's no clear likely winner, go with the interim situation that most easily can be rectified if it is later ruled to have been wrong. In this case, if the ruling goes against Apple than they can be ordered to give money to Epic and other app-owners based on the revenue brought in from them to Apple during the appropriate period. The opposite case would require more complex estimates (how much revenue was shifted away from Apple incorrectly, in the case where Apple wins) and further it'd result in unnecessary consumer friction: users would go from A to B then back to A again.

It's smart, I don't know how people will feel about it but it's smart.

The US and China are in an escalating economic cold war. It's goes completely against US interests to invest finite resources into growing the economy of an economic rival — and ditto for the converse of China investing into growing the US economy. Especially in an aggressively competitive economic sector where relative technological advancement is king for competitive purposes.

In theory it's exceptionally illegal to curtail unionization efforts.

In practice, the law has been whittled away by decades of conservative judiciary decisions and weak department of labor enforcement.This isn't helped at all by the balance of power.

Companies can afford to scare off some degree of workers, especially at the lower end of the salary range. Big businesses can survive shutting down a store or losing business at locations indefinitely. Bug businesses can afford expensive lawyers and to indefinitely stay in litigation over union busting efforts.

For workers, it's a completely different proposition. Is Walmart or Home Depot or Starbucks going to want to hire someone that is actively suing another major corporation for anything at all? It's even worse if it's labor rights related, but just suing them in the first place is going to make it a struggle to find employment at a lot of places. That's even pretending they can find & afford lawyers. Or that they can handle the transition period from job A to job B even if it isn't difficult to find job B.

These businesses hold all the cards and they know it. You see similar thinking, though different details, behind Hollywood's decision to just try and wait out the striking writers and actors. They can survive losing billions of dollars in income a year from now with unmade projects; striking workers will struggle to get by with no salary.

Superdelegates have never decided a democratic primary.

At the end of the day the delegates are fully aware that if they take the nomination away from the candidate that won the most votes that it would utterly destroy the party and they would be surrendering that year's election up and down the ballot. Even in an extreme scenario like e.g. credible accusations of sexual assault coming out, they'd still be reticent to do it and would basically be stuck picking how to lose the election.

And before anyone says it: superdelegate pledges do not sway primary voters in any meaningful numbers. I'd wager >90% of democratic primary voters don't know what the fuck a superdelegate is, and likely only have superficial understanding of the overall process by which a nominee is selected. They're not going to know the superdelegate pledge counts or any of that bullshit. The people that follow politics enough to know that stuff are also overwhelmingly the people that care enough about politics that they're still going to vote for the same person, even if they do not outright know it's bullshit. The audience of voters that could be swayed by those pledges is so vanishingly small as to be borderline imaginary.

Superdelegates have only mattered to give losing candidates a justification they can offer to their supporters to keep running. Clinton tried it in 2008 and Sanders tried it in 2016. Amusingly this makes both of them a bit hypocritical on the subject...

The 2020 primary came down to the not-Sanders wing of the party starting off heavily divided and then consolidating on a single candidate after enough of them were winnowed out by the early states. Biden only survived that long because he ran a frugal campaign and had a strategy on SC that he was going to stick to. Honestly, going in I thought it was a horrible strategy with no chance of success. I was clearly quite wrong.

Yup! Source I have from 2016 has it even more unbalanced than your numbers. All shipping is 1.7% vs all road transport at 11.9%. Wish I had more recent data but their claim wouldn't be true even if those top ten ships represented the entirety of ocean emissions and was tripled afterwards.

For the majority of people out there, all their income is going to have digital records. A cash only store still deposits money in a bank, after all. For the people that don't... chances are their income without a digital footprint isn't being reported, and is small enough that no one is worried about that in the first place.

If the IRS is being told by a person's work how much they're paid, by their bank how much interest they got, by any Etsy-esque services how much they were paid... then the IRS has every bit of information it needs to get automatic withholding correct.

Right now withholding systems default to taking too much money out, because it's easier for the government to send you money than it is for them to request money from you. It also avoids the headache of most people being hit with surprise IRS bills. The IRS could keep that default, and then as the year goes on it could shift that withholding down until it's laser close. The negative there is that variability is bad for budgeting too, but with some work they could make it start close enough that it shouldn't be all that variable.