That’s a very one dimensional view. Bureaucracy exists to standardize control and improve consistency.

Think of a group of friends who go out for dinner. When the group grows, you generally need to set rules to avoid folks stuffing on tips or itemizing their bill to save a buck.

It's a cynical view but certainly not 1-dimensional. Money for tips isn't an issue here.

In this case, the friends at the table receive their bill from the top bureaucrat rather than directly. The bureaucrat tells them what they owe. It's more than what the bill calls for, but if they don't like it, they can go to another table where there is another top bureaucrat running the same scheme (more or less).

Out of topic, but what does "stuffing on tips" mean? (not a native and google didn't help.

Sorry it was intended to be "stiffing".

Usually when a group grows to a certain size, somebody will decide that rather than chipping in $30, because they "just had a salad", they'll toss in $12.95 for the salad, skip tax and tip and disappear.

Interesting. I can understand that they don't feel obliged to pay the tip, but how do they justify not paying the tax?

Are prices in US restaurants given net, instead of gross?

At least prices in Canada are net, tax is added when paying.

Interesting. In Poland, and most EU places I've been to, the prices in restaurants and stores are almost universally gross, to make it easier for the buyer to know how much they'll pay.

Yeah, I got surprised a few time when I was there to study. Also the "mandatory" tipping was unusual, compared to Europe

Wait, what? We don't have mandatory tipping in Poland; it's always discretionary.

I was not clear, sorry. I was still talking about Canada, where it is expected to add 30% of the price as tip.

It's probably a typo for "stiffing", i.e. not paying the tips at all, or paying too little.

I think how it goes is you collect the money. The other diners include tips and tend to round up. You take their tips and use it to pay your own bill. The waiter/restaurant lose their tips, your friends lose face and are tricked out of they're generosity, you get food for no money.

On a side note, he wouldn't be a friend for very long if I knew the tool didn't tip.

This is a powerful insight, thank you.

I am fascinated by the way "fitness landscapes" manifest in companies OUTSIDE the financial fitness of the company's trade. People often act like trade fitness is the only realm where we compete in capitalism, but there are so many more.

Moat fitness for a company doesn't benefit their trade at all. Customers don't benefit when you kill a competitor, but you do.

Similarly PowerPoint doesn't benefit the customer or the business. It's a tool for employee theater, using it makes employees appear less fit to be fired.

And I like your point that unaccountability fitness is also an existential competition for executives.

I wish there were a big list of these for me to ponder.

Wow...I've heard PowerPoint called many things in my 30 years in corporate trenches, but never something as poetic as "a tool for employee theater"

In my mind/experience structuring a short PowerPoint deck, the much-dreaded bullet points included, is a clarifying exercise for both presenter and audience if done right. Properly done it’s pretty much an outline for an essay.

Power Point? What have PPT ever done to you?

Difference what powerpoint allows you to do and what you can do with a static PDF on the projector. The extra that powerpoint offers you is virtually useless; a bunch of flash with little substance. Hardly any justification for its existence.

This becomes more stark when you compare powerpoint with another part of Microsoft Office: Excel. Excel is actually amazing software. Innumerable small businesses are basically run through Excel. Excel is truly user empowering software that lets lay-people exploit the power of their computer to solve real problem.

Compared to Excel, powerpoint is just sad. In theory it keeps people in the audience of any presentation awake, but in reality it fails at even that. Excel empowers users to solve problems, while powerpoint is little more than an emotional crutch for people who are nervous in front of crowds.

Excel is amazing software. It can do so many things.

The problem with PP is not PP, but that most people do not know how to give a presentation.

The problem with powerpoint is it doesn't give people leverage, which is to say it doesn't make poor presenters better at presenting. I've never even seen evidence of it making good presenters better at presenting.

No offense to PowerPoint fans! I've observed people making pointless presentations to shore up their brand as employees, not to facilitate trade.

It has other uses but... Have you not seen what I describe? That would be a useful data point for me if true.

Not really but I guess that's dependent on company culture. You work at a stack rank place?

Where I work Power Point is mainly used to make presentations that are easy to read on a projector screen (as it should be used).

On many places it seems to be used as a general document writer application ... so what we emotionaly associate with Power Point might differ alot.

Actually I think this memory of mine comes mostly from Academia about a decade ago! Not really in the workplace.

I've seen it a couple different ways. When a supervisor asks a subordinate to produce a powerpoint that the supervisor will edit/present to higher-ups, it generally looks as you describe. When a team leader produces a set of slides for their team, it's not so transparently theatric.