I don't think I've seen one at the top..
I'd say bottom because I'd rather not have the cord coming towards me, rather than away, when I'm using the phone. Also it seems more ergonomic for me to put my phone in my pocket with the top pointed down rather than up.
New technology to increase hard drive storage? "Get perpendicular!"
It’s pretty fucking disgusting to self censor inoffensive language
It's disgusting to need to do it. I won't blame poster/commenter for doing it so that their shit doesn't get deleted.
Can us standing on the outside of the the pool piss into it?
The message specifically said it was due to the "unusually large tip". They wanted me to confirm that it was intended.
If the article linked below is to be believed, the credit card company does indeed know how much of the transaction is a tip due to the way the transaction is processed. Note that this was at a full-service restaurant, not tipping at the counter for fast food or some other thing.
Consider when you pay with a credit card at a sit-down restaurant, they read the card first. Then you write in the tip on the receipt, meaning that they process this part later after the initial card reading. It is probably different with the tabletop self-checkout devices though.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-tips-given-in-restaurants-never-show-on-credit-card-statements
It was instilled in me from a very early age that cops are not your friends.
Law enforcement in the U.S. in its current form is a gang. The key points here are lack of accountability, lack of oversight, and a lot of unjust laws. The latter may not be their fault per se, but it is still a factor that needs to be corrected.
I've had transactions flagged for (intentionally) leaving large tips before. These large tips were justified for various reasons, such as comped meals.
Could be the specific credit card company I use?
A 50% tip can get your credit card flagged as potentially fraudulent activity.
And tipping culture has creeped in both magnitude (i.e. 15% used to be standard, but now it's the low end) and scope (e.g. tips prompts at fucking fast food places)
US is an accomplice, so of course they can't admit to Israel violating international law.
The question would probably come down to "valid criticism" vs "harassment". 1A does get into some thorny issues about when protected free speech crosses a line. I would expect that something that is objectively true (i.e. factual) would have more leeway than a subjective opinion.