u/Existing-Round4556

You know the car: sitting right outside the store entrance with hazard lights on, while everyone else has to squeeze around it. They're waiting for someone who's “just running in for a minute.”

If you're actively dropping someone off or picking them up, fine. But if you're waiting, the parking lot is right there. Pull into a spot.

Hazard lights don't make you less in the way.

Recruiters often say that each opening attracts hundreds of applications, many from people who are not plausible matches. That presumably makes it harder for qualified candidates to be noticed.

Beyond simply “write a better resume,” what could applicants do differently to make the overall process work better?

Apply more selectively? Be more candid about gaps in their qualifications? Provide information in a more standardized way? Avoid applying when they meet only a small fraction of the requirements?

What applicant behaviors would genuinely help you identify the strongest candidates more efficiently?

Oakland's litter and illegal dumping problem comes up here often, and people regularly post photos of what they see. The problem is that those photos end up scattered across dozens of unrelated threads.

I wonder whether there would be value in having them collected in one place instead. It could make recurring hotspots easier to identify, show whether some areas improve over time, and help discussions be based on a broader picture rather than individual examples.

I'm deliberately not suggesting how that should work. Maybe it's a recurring thread, a separate subreddit, a website, or something nobody has thought of yet.

Do you think this would be useful? If so, what would be the best way to do it? If not, what are the biggest drawbacks?

This is a genuine question. My intent is to find solutions and not just blame or shame.

We pay taxes so the city can provide basic services. To me, keeping streets and neighborhoods reasonably clean is one of those services.

I'm not saying city workers should spend all day picking up trash after people. Their job is to make littering the exception, not the norm - through enough trash cans, enforcement, cleaning hotspots, and whatever policies have been shown to work in other cities.

If, year after year, the city still can't provide a reasonably clean environment, why should residents keep paying the full price for that service?

Should taxpayers have some kind of bill of rights that provides a tax credit or partial refund when a city consistently fails to deliver a basic service?

Reporting individual piles of trash through 311 may get that particular location cleaned, but litter is a persistent problem across many roads, sidewalks, and public spaces.

Has anyone successfully escalated this as a broader city-service issue? Is the most effective route to document repeated 311 reports and take them to the district councilmember, or is there another specific office or process that has produced measurable results?

I am looking for the most effective accountability path that has worked for folks, not a list of ways to contact the city.

A self-respecting business earns its revenue by pricing and selling its product. It does not sell you the food, quote a price, and then ask whether you would like to voluntarily pay extra for handing over the order.

If the listed price does not cover the restaurant’s labor and operating costs, raise the price. Turning the checkout screen toward the customer and asking for 20% more is not a compensation model. It is institutionalized begging, made socially awkward enough that many people pay just to avoid feeling cheap.

Here is the restaurant model I would prefer:

Takeout: Pay the menu price. No tip screen and no tips accepted.

Sit-down dining: Pay the menu price plus a fixed service fee, charged either per person or per table.

The service fee would replace tipping completely. No additional tips would be accepted, even voluntarily. If a server does a great job, tell the manager so it can count toward their bonus.

The service fee should not be a percentage of the bill. Bringing a $50 meal to the table does not take five times as much work as bringing a $10 meal.

Most of the service fee - say 80% - would go directly to the server or service team for that table.

The other 20% would go into a bonus pool. Servers who consistently provide better service would receive a larger share of that pool, based on customer feedback, manager reviews, reliability, and teamwork.

The restaurant would not be allowed to keep the service fee or use it to replace the wages it already pays.

This way:

• Servers are paid for the work they do.
• Better servers can still earn more.
• Customers know the full cost before they order.
• No one has to decide the server’s pay at the end of every meal.

What is the strongest argument against this model?

EDIT: To clarify, I’m not talking about crossing the solid white line early. I mean after the line becomes dashed and the driver is already up to speed. Some drivers pass several safe openings and continue until the acceleration lane physically ends, then force a merge. Is there any reason to do that when traffic is flowing normally?

ORIGINAL POST:

I often see drivers stay in an on-ramp or ending lane until the absolute last possible moment, even when traffic is moving normally and several safe gaps are available earlier. They pass those gaps, reach the point where the lane disappears, and then force surrounding traffic to make room.

I understand using both lanes until the merge point in bumper-to-bumper traffic. That is a proper Zipper Merge and makes better use of the available road space.

But does the same advice apply when traffic is moving at 40–65 mph? It seems safer to match the speed of traffic, choose an appropriate gap, and merge smoothly when one becomes available - not deliberately wait until there is no lane left.

Is there an accepted rule? Should drivers generally use the entire acceleration lane, or merge once they have reached traffic speed and found a safe opening?

I ask because I have noticed the “wait until the lane physically ends” behavior much more often since moving to the San Francisco Bay Area, but I’m curious whether it is common elsewhere too.