While you pay a markup on the application, UberEats and others keeps 25/30% of the price based on the marked up price. If you make the calculation they usually have to cut into the kitchen margin while the price for the customer stays more expensive.
That's mixing up different concerns. If they make an unauthorized site for a restaurant, with no agreements, then the restaurant is getting full menu price.
While the unauthorized sites potentially deliver poor customer service and (the appearance of) higher prices, potentially driving away customers? Who do you know that comparison shops all the different ways to order from the same restaurant?
Price shouldn't be the only thing the restaurants care about.
These stories are horrible, but that doesn't prove restaurants lose money on Doordash. One of my clients bootstraps online ordering for restaurants. About 80% of those restaurants request to be on Doordash, and have been on there for many years. I assume they're not all dumbasses losing money on every order.
Doesn't excuse Doordash taking advantage of anyone.
Not every restaurant can handle the deferred payout either. Their business is based on receiving payment at the time of service. The restaurant model operates on razor thin margins, and they don’t buy their food on net 30 terms, but they have to absorb costs as if they do.
There are other issues, but this setup looks a lot like paying the mafia due to the imbalance of power.
Sure but you're blurting generic talking points that don't address the evidence of Doordash hosting millions of restaurants obviously profitably for the restaurants
Unless something has changed over the last couple years, restaurants opt in to being available on those apps. Uber Eats and the others are generally integrated into the restaurant's point of sales system.
That would explain why they sell less or cheaper food, which appear too high on the app due to the markup they have to add to the price to handle the fees. This would be an alternate explanation to why things seem inflated. Even with inflated ingredients prices, it actually still doesn’t add up how the volume dropped so much such that each unit would need to cost that much more (I’m arguing it can’t just be the ingredient prices being high). The fees adding to the perceptual inflation make sense.
It’s more expensive volume or less cheaper volume they can make due to higher ingredient prices PLUS the fees they have to add to cover the delivery service cut. That’s how you get a $20 burger for delivery.
This all gets worse when the prices become sticky at the retail place itself (app prices enter the real world). These delivery service are a serious agitator, true disrupter.
Ok, but if they're doing it without the restaurant's buy in, then they're presumably just acting as a middleman and ordering from the restaurant themselves, at which point I'm not sure how they're stiffing the restaurant 20-30%. If I were running a restaurant and Doordash kept calling me trying to submit an order for cheaper than the food costs I would simply decline to take their business...?
Doordash puts up a listing for a restaurant and siphons off take-out traffic. Once Doordash gets a critical mass they can turn around and "negotiate" with the restaurant.
If I were a restaurateur and caught a glimpse of a Doordash driver in my finest establishment, the first thing I would do is put together a simple online order form and start advertising it in every order. If you just disappear from the app one day, your customers trying to reorder would probably go somewhere else – but if they know they can order on your site instead, they probably will (if your food is good enough and your ordering experience is top-notch, or vice versa).
And now you have hordes of angry customers who can't understand why you have a Doordash listing (that you didn't create and don't want) but won't fulfill orders.
If I were a restaurateur and caught a glimpse of a Doordash driver in my
finest establishment, the first thing I would do is put together a simple
online order form and start advertising it in every order.
Whether it's not wanting to give Doordash a cut, not wanting to sell food that doesn't travel well for delivery, not wanting to crowd out local customers, not wanting Doordash to hijack their brand, not wanting Doordash to crowd out their own in-house delivery, or whatever actual restaurant owners litigated these forced listings because they didn't want to be listed on Doordash.
Yeah, like the restaurant can say “no” to giving a discount, they can say “no” to people wanting their food to get delivered now. It’s just that now it’ll be a bad business decision probably.
Everything is possible. And every choice has its own set of tradeoffs. But no, there’s no time machine to the pre-Doordash world now.
If restaurants didn't put themselves on the platform, wouldn't that mean the restaurant is getting full price? Its equivalent of paying someone to call in your order and picking it up. What are the negatives?
This is all, of course very fuzzy, but "I will spend 30 dollars on food tonight" can turn into "I call the restaurant and order 30 dollars of takeout" vs "I use door dash to get 30 dollars of food from that restaurant", and in the latter the restaurant sees less sales. But if I'm already like "I will have food from this place I like" and it's not on doordash or w/e, I might still be motivated enough to head over there!
There's a lot of dynamic variables here (including of course the "the person doesn't order from the restaurant"), but the few times I've used those delivery apps I end up ordering very little food for a lot of money.
While I won't go as far as to say that Dominos & co. are trying to run delivery entirely at cost, it is not clear to me that delivery from a shop directly vs delivery with a middle layer (having to pay lots of engineers fancy salaries mind you..) is an equivalent operation.
Remember, delivery apps take the costs and then their cut. That cut theoretically has some pressure from markets or whatever, but ... well.....
That's my understanding. Uber takes 25%, but by default that's offset by increasing the on-app price 25% relative to the in-store price, and the owner has to explicitly opt out of that behavior. So at the end of the day, they should be getting the same amount as in store orders unless they opted out of the markup, right?
That calculation doesn’t work. If an item costs $10, and Uber marks it up 25% then Uber lists it at $12.50. When Uber takes 25% of the marked up price, they’re taking $3.125 and the restaurant is getting less than $10.
To people interested in archiving this, it's still in the 7 days time history in BigQuery Public Dataset:
For instance:
SELECT
country
FROM
`bigquery-public-data.google_political_ads.geo_spend`
FOR SYSTEM_TIME AS OF TIMESTAMP_SUB(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP(), INTERVAL 6 DAY)
GROUP BY country;
I dumped the all active tables (advertiser_declared_stats, advertiser_geo_spend, advertiser_stats, advertiser_weekly_spend, geo_spend, creative_stats) in CSV format. I'd prefer if someone did an archive where they are confident in the integrity of the dumped data but at least that version exists.
BigQuery supports a sort of "time travel" / point-in-time querying. By default and for those datasets it's enabled for 7 days which means you can query data as it was up-to 7 days ago.
3. For each table under google_political_ads, run the following query: SELECT * FROM `bigquery-public-data.google_political_ads.<TABLE>` FOR SYSTEM_TIME AS OF TIMESTAMP_SUB(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP(), INTERVAL 6 DAY) GROUP BY country;
3. Export as CSV in GCS
Another procedure that is probably better but requires BigTable is:
What a snarky comment. As said just one comment under (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45413138), I made my own backup. But as someone who's not actively using BigQuery, I'm not confident in the data integrity so I'd prefer if someone confident in their abilities could make an archive as well.
I'm guessing you'd want to separate age verification from identity verification. A hash of your name is as good as your name since you don't change name and you provide both to certain providers, or it can be bruteforced.
Some actually promote ideas and defend ideals, individual "success" doesn't always correlates with fulfilment. For instance, working for a non-profit, providing help and food to people who need it, helping associations live or creating a company that maximize doing good instead of profit.
Please don’t downvote this advice into oblivion. As a person who owns MacBooks all his life, I do want something more open now, and honestly, I have no idea what else I can buy. Any polite input into this conversation is actually valuable.
Would make sense if this thread was about laptop purchasing choices.
Surely, there are other places on the internet where NGO's are politely criticized for getting kids the wrong free laptops - those likely contain valuable advice on what brand of computer you can buy
Not available in Bangladesh. There’s every reason to believe that this person weighed the pros and cons of everything available locally before deciding on the Apple product.
Framework 12 is well aligned with this use case. Hackable, durable/utilitarian design, lower priced, aimed for youth and education markets (has a bit of the EeePC spirit). Well, those were the initial design goals of the concept, but then they sort of made a more general purpose laptop that everyone at the company fell in love with, which led to it actually going to production.
12" is on the smaller side, but it's also a 2in1 that can be used in a desk setup as an extra monitor. I'd ship them a cheap lightning portable monitor, simple keyboard+mouse pack, and for $100 more they have a durable portable laptop and a simple two monitor desk setup for dev.
Sounds untrustworthy. Bangladesh's standard of living is roughly on par with India's, so cheap Chinese laptops should be fairly common there, and repairs for such laptops should be pretty available.
So, instead of one MacBook, you could buy about 10 laptops for 10 Bangladeshi kids, and developing on them would be about as comfortable as on a MacBook.
Why don't you start a non-profit that gives laptop to kids so you can decide over the kind of machine to procure. These constant opinions on other peoples decisions where you have no insight to the whys is very ego-centric in a i-know-best kind of way.
About… the teenage boy’s… “bs” about his preferences? About his supporters recognizing his free labor, wanting to reward it, asking him to make a choice for himself and him making it?
This case was different from hackclub’s usual donations. Someone spotted OXY2DEV, a prolific Neovim plugin dev, coding on his phone and shared it with the community. People rallied to raise money specifically for him, and hackclub stepped in to facilitate. The drive ended with a small surplus, and since the funds were raised only for him, they let him decide how to use it. Smart choice because in South Asia chasing service centers is such a hassle and Apple’s service process is a dream in comparison.
I can't talk for the entire region, but what I saw across my travels is quite the opposite. You enter a repair shop the owner typically knows how to solder and will fix about any laptop and mobile phone. Back home in Europe is where repairs are overpriced or deemed "impossible". I can't recall more than once in south east asia the words "you better off buying a new one", oh so common in the "west".
I agree the critic sounds misplaced though, he wanted a Macbook. However not because all the other models are complicated to fix in his land.
Which is why most apps with sync have two sets of credentials: one to login on the platform and one master password for encryption. That helps in those scenarios.
Manufacturers can prevent you from unlocking bootloader. Whether they are Apple or not. Samsung used to have a hard fuse that broke when you unlocked, it seems they now forbid it entirely.
Apps developers can decide to require Play Integrity so your Android fork cannot be used to run their apps.
Google can decide to not support or explicitly exclude your custom fork. Due to Play Integrity used on their own products, you cannot run Wallet on most forks where Google is not running as root.
Google can decide to delay or not publish source code so your Android fork cannot be maintained anymore.
Manufacturers, Google and developers can alter that deal at any point in time. Recently:
Those "annoyances" are only one of the attacks made, and not all of them can be easily defended against without having the manpower to actually maintain your own hardware and software stack.
Disclosing that you used AI three days after making the PR, after 4 people had already commented on your code, doesn't sit right with me. That's the kind of thing that should be disclosed in the original PR message. Especially so if you are not confident in the generated code
I graduated literally 3 months ago so that's my skill level.
I also have no idea what the social norms are for AI. I posted the comment after a friend on Discord said I should disclose my use of AI.
The underlying purpose of the PR is ironically because Cline and Copilot keep trying to use `int` when modern C++ coding standards suggest `size_t` (or something similar).
reply