This trope with CERN/EU created the WWW is just chauvinism. That contribution to the internet is just infinitesimal small. Just stop repeating it as it was the cornerstone of today’s world.
Is just one little stone in a gigantic castle made in the united states. I’m European, and I think is just silly to look who “invented” each thing, trying to feel patriotic about that. Every invention is based on other inventions, research, ideas and necessities around the world. Trying to put flags on it, is just stupid.
>> Is the castle made in the US? Why cut it off at precisely that point?
Because I was talking about this “internet was invented in CERN”, which is just not a little bit true
About the rest: So what?! Thanks Thanks Europe and Europeans!! We just killed 6 Mio. Judes and burned people in the middle ages… but wait. We invented the Web!!! And we can forget everything that came from Asia and middle East also. All is our merit!!! Again, my point is it is stupid to say some country invented X.
What kind of cheap chauvinism is that? Please give me a break. Many things where invented everywhere in the world, and I could not care less, because that will not make me better or worse because of being part of a country which borders were defined not 100 years ago.
The starting point of this thread in HN is about starting to develop some kind of digital independence, because frankly, the EU may have GDPR, but in everything else is much worse and stuck like 5 decades ago.
“The GoFundMe CEO hopes younger donors, who are often more values-driven, digitally native, and community-oriented, will push giving higher and faster.”
I can’t believe it. THIS is what he hopes for? He is not stating he hopes his country can get out of this mess? Or researching what his company can do? He’s just looking after his cut.
Just... wow... Thanks for the link. He did indeed! 2021 "The situation is nothing short of a national emergency. Congress should treat it as such... " And it only got worse. I'm guessing he gave up...
your framing of the question needlessly removes other possibilities.. a benefit of independent companies in an economy is that some can be machiavellian bean-counters, others can be born-again bleeding hearts, and they can make business decisions from either point of view, or many others.
The communication strategy should be to publicly hope for a thriving economy so people aren’t relying on the services for groceries but he is proud and thankful that GoFundme is there to help out in these difficult times…
We're not going to solve food insecurity when one major political party thinks it's kind of a problem but not big enough to actually do something about, and the other major political party is doing whatever they can policy-wise to increase food insecurity.
Not writing disingenuous feelgood bullshit, pretending that I work for some kind of greater good, while actually I'm pushing my own company, and trying to shift burden onto the "young digital natives". For a start.
inefficiency? It's part of the experience. I'm not in a restaurant or café to drink as fast as possible. I'm there to socialize as well. Waiting a bit is not a bottleneck, but a feature. (If I wanted speed, I'd take the drive-through).
There are plenty of comments disagreeing with you, but I'm fully in agreement.
As for the arguments that QR codes are somehow a time-saver, they can be a real time waster. Find phone (not glued to my eyeballs), scan QR, swerve option to install app, wait for enormously bloated website to render badly, get frustrated trying to find what I want, get up to find a staff member to order something but with X instead of Y please if that's possible, can I pay with cash, etc etc etc.
Clearly, everyone's needs and experiences are different. If you like QR codes in cafes, fine, but we should recognise that they represent something other than supposed 'convenience'. They are there to gather data, and to allow cafes to hire fewer staff. They represent the creeping invasion of privacy in every possible aspect of life. The fact that cafes may want to hire fewer staff masks the issue that an increasing number need to in order to survive. Small business margins are squeezed by unreasonable costs and shrinking profit margins, and these pressures are instinctively passed down to the customer -- you and me. Rather than mindlessly capitulate to this and encourage the one-way downward spiral, I really would hope for communities such as HN to see opportunities to 'disrupt upwards'. How can businesses resist exorbitant rents? Why are our lives so hectic that talking to a waiter is seen as too slow? Why do we give away data without being an eyelid?
These menu websites obviously track the living hell out of you and now they can tie restaurant food preferences to everything else they have already gathered.
A waiter recording your order is at a completely different, much smaller scale. Additionally, the waiter is an anonymizing wall between the system that records my order and me and will only correlate orders across multiple visits to the same restaurant. Not potentially across single visits to multiple, geographically highly separated, restaurants.
The waiter inputs your order to their point-of-sale system, which can do similar things as an online menu. If you pay with credit card, it's tied to your identity and will be used for targeting ads.
They may record what I order (although the cafes and restaurants I go to use pen and paper or just plain-old human memory) but that's it. Even if they enter my order into some system for analytics or what have you, there's no cookies, no tracking, no transparent pixels, etc.
Look, all these micro-arguments about the micro-invasions of privacy are 'bread and circuses' [0]. We've entirely lost sight of what it means to be a private citizen just going about our own lives without every nanosecond being tracked, without every damn interaction being an opportunity for someone to skim a cent. Any micro-invasion can be 'justified': it's more convenient, I don't care about a restaurant chain knowing what I've ordered, I don't want to talk to other people, etc. But they all add up.
Societies are increasingly unhappy, anxious, overweight, polarised. The gap between ultra-rich and regular citizens is widening. It all adds up.
Yeah.. old man, cloud. Whatever. The overall evidence is stark and obvious, it just hides in the tiny details.
Might be nice to have but its also expensive in a low margin business. Maybe waiters get paid like crap enough for it to not matter in the US but other parts of the world have labour laws to abide to making it the biggest expenditure (and thus the one to save on by cutting out staff and replacing it with an app)
Low-margin businesses have you order by the counter and then the food is either delivered, or you pick it up yourself.
The app isn't there to improve on this. The app is there to maaaybe cut a little bit of hassle with replacing paper menus, but mostly promises to improve the business analytics site and creates many marketing opportunities, including but not limited to screwing with (er, personalizing) recommendations, creating incentive structures, and better tracking thanks to tricking the user into giving the vendor their phone number and bunch of other data.
And, whatever else on top it is, one thing the app is not is an improvement in convenience or experience to the user.
Have to disagree with this. At a group meet-up where everyone arrives at different times and wants their order to come shortly after they do, a digital system is so much better. These type of meetups are quite common as a parent.
> where everyone arrives at different times and wants their order to come shortly after they do
Good god man!
At a social meal, we eat together; children included as this is how they learn to socialise. One would be a little concerned and puzzled if arriving for a meal, one finds others have already eaten.
As another commenter said, this is probably partly down to cultural expectations. The ideal would be to sit and eat together. In reality, one family might get held by up to an hour because their baby napped later than normal; another family is half an hour late because of traffic; another family had an nightmare nappy blowout situation and has to go back home for new clothes etc... . Being relaxed about arrival times is less stressful all round. The children will still socialise with each other in the overlapping times they are together.
>children included as this is how they learn to socialise
Ummm... When was the last time you were out in public? I hate to break it to you but this doesn't happen, ever; if I see a kid in a restaurant they are pretty much always watching iPads. If they aren't watching an iPad they certainly aren't learning to socialize, because iPad-less kids in restaurants are almost always allowed to misbehave and be disruptive or even destructive.
Spoken clearly by someone who lacks experience with having children.
Look, it works pretty simple. Witching hour is right before dinner time. Kids are grumpy / hangry (hungry + angry). On top of that, young children have a short attention span and patience. Children certainly can socialize (after toddler age), but while sitting still at a restaurant table? Not for long. A tablet or smartphone is a tool to keep them distracted during waiting. Heck, playing is learning too, so it is IMO a learning tool.
That said, I can recommend a family restaurant.
For example, on vacation to Texel we went to this one [1]. I have not even seen the indoor playground (only outdoor) as the two times we were here the weather was great. Tons of children playing, the picture you see of the outdoor playground is not even 20% of the whole playground. It is quite large, with a special area for toddlers.
Moreover, we went to a family friendly bungalow park with activities for children, and the restaurant on the park (we didn't go to it this year but previous year) has an adjacent playground. If you're on a more tight budget, the same exists for camping.
Do children socialize on playgrounds? Toddlers kind of don't. They're still in their own world, at best they play 'parallel'. After toddler age? Absolutely. They form new bonds, become friends, they play together. They also get into conflict with each other, which forces them to learn conflict solving skills. They practice motor skills and build muscles. But I couldn't leave them completely alone, so I stayed in the vicinity. Hence, I did not socialize (which, as autistic as I am, I do not mind :P).
On top of that, I remember going to McDonald's as kid in the late 80s (it was one of the first McD's in my country) and they had a playground with balls in it. Also great fun. For the record: I did have a Nintendo game watch and Game Boy back then. But in the McD's such wasn't necessary.
And finally, to all those people who claim they want to socialize with strangers they visually meet. Yeah, that is why people sat on banks reading newspapers, why walkman and discman existed long ago already, why the hairdresser has magazines, why trains have a silent area where you can read a book, etc. Let's face it: not everyone is an extrovert.
Here's a hint: Eating at a restaurant is not like eating in a school canteen. And it's not about stilling your hunger. You can eat in any order and pace that you prefer. So if people arrive at different times, you can share some starters while waiting for the other people to arrive. Then jump into some main courses when everybody is ready.
You're not supposed to arrive hungry to a restaurant, then you are doing it wrong. It's not about filling your belly.
> you can share some starters while waiting for the other people to arrive. Then jump into some main courses when everybody is ready
True, and that does sometimes happen, depending on the situation. But still, this is much easier to do when you don't have to flag down the waiter everytime you want to order.
> You're not supposed to arrive hungry to a restaurant
Not if it's fine dining and I have low expectations about portion sizes. If I'm going to a "fast casual" restaurant like Nandos then I will arrive ready to eat. I dunno, maybe you're not classing that as a "restaurant" ?
P.S. "you are doing it wrong" is kinda moralistic! I respect that some people still prefer to speak to human beings when getting service, but cultural processes are always changing and adapting to new technology.
Yes, I'm a bit moralistic about this, you're right. I think eating at a restaurant is a skill that a lot of modern people are not taught. It's not about eating, it is about socializing – unless you're going alone. Portion sizes have nothing to do with it, because you can order more food until you are satisfied.
Or, if money is tight and you really don't want to order more than your main meal, you can always have a bite at home before going out.
It's also possible to train your resistance to hunger, so that you can stand being hungry for 12 hours easy (let's hope service is not that slow). The way to train is to skip your meals during a day and wait until you become extremely hungry. Then just don't eat and after a couple of hours it passes. Do this three times on different occasions and after that you are trained for the rest of your life, and will never again become frustrated or desperate because of hunger.
Ok cool that it works for you, but many don't have the time and patience to wait for the waitresses. Especially when I'm with kids I just love to go to these places where I can just directly order stuff to the table using my mobile. The extra stress of waving and communicating to the waiter is gone.
I think that works out if you are alone, if you are with other people, the waiter will probably interrupt the socialization you are doing with the people you are with, causing stress even for the waiter.
Also we should recognize that the waiter is often looked down at, it is not a very nice job, and as a human being, having a poor experience with some customers will probably pass on to other customers, etc...
I'd go as far as having a job with "wait" in the name, and having to wait, calmy and happily or else you don't get your tip, is not so far from slavery.
Having a waiter come over for ordering causes stress? The whole point of going out for drinks or food is not having to prepare it yourself and having someone else do the dishes. Depending on the venue getting waited on is a feature, not an inconvenience.
If interacting with the people facilitating that is stressful I would recommend finding a bench near a vending machine, having someone else in your party handle the interaction, or, not going out.
Is this just an issue in countries where waiters depend on tips for their income?
The food is still prepared to restaurant standard and brought out by waiters. The dishes are still done by someone else. You just skip the awkward, inefficient, and disruptive step of the waiter coming up to your table (or worse, having to flag them down) to order, order more drinks, ask for the bill, pay for the bill, etc...
Absolutely disagree with this description of the job a waiter does.
A waiter orchestrates and coordinates the experience for the diners they are looking after.
They slow down orders to stop the kitchen getting overwhelmed.
They upsell on the menu in a way that is helpful and informative.
They understand the dietary requirements of guests.
They hold complex orders in their head and drop the right plate to the right person.
They know the flow of a table and engage or back off as appropriate.
Don't undervalue a role that can make a night out magical or a simple coffee memorable.
Slow and mostly self-serving service is a FEATURE? Sounds like stockholm syndrome to me. Its easy to socialize with a decently fast waiter. Bootlenecks are just that, a reason to avoid the restaurant.
Ugh yeah that would be another prime candidate. I guess what I'm getting at though is how to help people want to have families. Whether they a family is even possible is the question you're bringing up, which is a good one as well.
The argument is often made you can get the ‘better’ product if you pay for a ‘product-as-a-service subscription. Even for simple hardware like say a washing machine. Sure you can get the cheap one, but I’ll break almost immediately after the warranty expires and it will use so much more water and energy… or you could get the efficient one that won’t break down, because the company selling those wont have to worry about their quarterly sales.
The argument has been proven false many times however. SiriusXM provides an ever worsening product with more and more sponsored stations showing up to replace their diminishing licensed library, Adobe continues to introduce bugs to their software because there's no incentive to fix anything if people are so deep into the ecosystem and have no way of going back to a more stable version, and Nest provides no local storage options for video because it denies them access to the data and doesn't allow them to put a barrier between you and the video files. Increasingly subscriptions are there so a company can do something once and coast for months or years afterwards. It continues the tradition of trying to get as much money for as little effort as possible.
There's Volkswagen, that had diesel engines that could detect when they were being tested and changed the performance to improve results. These engines emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed.
And there's there's this. This is INSANE if you ask me. It's modifying a diesel engine where the sole purpose is to emit an excessive amount of black smoke. It's a form of 'f*ck you anti-environmentalism.
Their way of detecting testing? They put the GPS coordinates of the testing centers in the car's computers, and the car would change to emissions complaint mode when it was in the area of the testing centers.
In non Clown World, everyone responsible for it would be in jail and the company shut down.
There’s no meaningful sense in which the Federal Government could be considered to have a negative net worth.. they have a ‘stake’ in the collective value of the largest and most vibrant economy on earth. People’s conception of the Federal ‘balance sheet’ as limited to the dollars in bank accounts explains why they are continually surprised that $30+ trillion in debt is shrugged off by the market and every knowledgeable economist.
> If you have a negative net worth (more debt than assets) you're generally not considered a wealthy person.
That's only true if your debt and assets are both small. If you have $200 million in assets and $500 million in debt, you will be considered a wealthy person. You would only stop being wealthy if your stuff got taken away.
On the other hand, their worth is often calculated from stocks that are valued at a price they can't actually sell any significant amount. Stocks in companies that themselves might have never turned a profit...
