I have never been to a BK that has their burgers pre-made. They have enough variety on their menu and adjustments on orders that it surely can't be worth anticipating things like that. Assembling a burger takes less than a minute once everything is cooked.
The average subway worker probably wouldn't know who their suppliers are, but I doubt it's a secret. They likely use the same regional suppliers other restaurants do. The manager could probably tell you.
I am sure it happens but it is illegal for restaurant owners or managers to take even a portion of servers' tips.
I've had this argument with people on lemmy many times. People recognize tipping is a bad system, and use that as an excuse to abandon the people who are unfortunately dependent on it. As if the system will change by stiffing the workers with essentially no power.
"How to Make Friends and Influence People" is a classic that has a lot of examples. I listened to the audiobook
It is much easier to increase output for crops than livestock. The reason meat is so cheap in the US is that the government uses taxes to subsidize it, and producers torture their animals to cut costs.
BK has the impossible whopper at most of their locations, which is an innovation vegans/vegetarians appreciate. McDonald's barely attempted with plant-based options. They even use beef in their fries.
IIRC the person who coined the term said the same thing. It wasn't actually a paradox, it was just meant to illustrate that tolerance is not absolute and so you cannot tolerate people who will not tolerate others themselves.
What is boring is very subjective, so there is no authoritative source of truth on it. What one person finds boring another may be obsessed with. But if we are deciding democratically, millions of people choosing to watch something gives a lot of credibility to the idea that it's interesting.
Convincing the allies to be sympathetic to Germany after WWI would be really hard. While the US had Wilson trying to establish cooperation with the League of Nations, he had to compromise with others who wanted more punitive measures. France had long-standing ire with them over Alsace-Lorraine and wanted them permanently crippled, since their shared border made them a looming threat in the future. They also suffered a lot of damage and needed aid themselves. Britain's attitude was kind of in between. Plenty of people guessed the treaty could lead to another war in the future, but many were too angry to really care. So we got stuff like the war guilt clause.
A professor in college told me Hitler went from about the normal amount of racist to turbo racist after having some chemicals leak into his brain near the end of WWI. So Hitler's racism might have been a symptom of actual brain damage. Either way, racism and conspiracies don't tend to come from a rational position so it is very hard to pull someone out of them with reason.
I doubt Israel would exist without Hitler but there would still likely be some conflict in the region. Britain made the Balfour Declaration before WWI had even ended and the collapse of the Ottomans Empire that controlled the region left it unstable and in British control. They would have supported the jewish minority in the region even without the Holocaust available to help them justify creating a new state.
They would be better off not judging people for any selected difficulty then.