I'm in the US, if these apps are going to depend on customers tipping for their drivers to get a reasonable wage, then tipping/delivery fee should be required. If people aren't willing to pay the drivers for their labor, they shouldn't place the order.
Lots of people get paid a normal wage to do subpar work. Why should delivery drivers be any different? If those jobs actually pay a decent wage, then better quality employees will be interested in doing them and the lower tier workers will get pushed out. It should naturally drive up the quality.
Won’t happen. It’s the perfect way to underpay people. You can overpromise and underdeliver without breaking the law. When your workers get upset about poor pay, they’ll mostly direct their ire at your customers rather than at you.
I would be happier to do it if there was transparency about how much of the delivery costs the restaurant is covering. Delivery services benefit both producers and consumers. I'm not willing to be on the hook for the whole thing.
Because as a matter of fact, restuarants have been employing (paying wages) to emplyees who's role is to deliver food. They charge a delivery fee which they have rationalized will cover this "cost", and then have historically fell on the consumer to actually pay the driver.
if delivery where NOT offered by these traditional restaurants, they would have gone out of business. Typical market force at work here, nothing new; needing to modify service to increasee value proposition.
Now, Food delivery apps came in and promised restuaranteurs that they could remove the pesky delivery drivers, but still keep those sweet seeet delivery-meal profits. That is of course, until all these apps just sucked money from both the restaurants AND the drivers.
So, Why should the restautant cover the cost of delivery? Because, they provide a historical good and service, which they outsourced, and now everyone loses. They would make more money if they went back to handling employment of drivers. It's way easier for me to pay a 2 dollar deliveyr fee and 5 dollar tip when I know that there isn't another an arbitraty app in the middle collecting my money.
edit: to explain my ramble, I haven't had food delivered since like college because it's so confusing/a money grab. To order delivery from the pizza place I've gone to since I was a kid, I need to download an app and pay twice as much? And they make less? Why?
They generally do, in these apps: they also pay a fee to the delivery company for each order they get (~15% for Uber eats), and they pay it because they get more business if they're available for delivery, especially on the centralised apps, and it's cheaper than having their own delivery drivers.
(A lot of restaurants will offer a discount if you order from them directly instead, to try to incentivize repeat customers to avoid the middleman, or just straight-up have lower pricing on that menu)
> Researchers cannot yet say why healthy eating and food satisfaction have been on the decline, but enjoying your food is key to other aspects of good, happy living, Dugan said.
I mean, I'm not an expert, but maybe it has something to do with everything affordable being over-processed garbage.
I live here and we are definitely looking toward impending water shortages, and no one care at all. Nestle is in the process of building a 200 acre coffee creamer factory. The major flower delivery services grow their flowers here. We have tons of cotton and alfalfa fields. There are 100s of golf courses and in the wealthier areas everyone has a lush green lawn.
They sold land rights to the Saudis who then siphoned off the water (now revoked said rights).
"[The Saudis] used sprinklers to grow alfalfa in La Paz County and exports it to feed dairy cattle in Saudi Arabia. The company did not pay for the water it used under the old agreement."
Water rights in the western US are mercenary. There's a healthy market in prior appropriation rights.
Just because people don't like what the water is used for doesn't mean the water isn't priced appropriately. You'll still get farmers growing thirsty / pricey crops in the desert if it covers the cost of irrigation.
in capitalism, prices are literally how rationing happens. the theory is that it distributes the resources to those who can make them most productive. here, theoretically the water will be used more productively by chipmakers than by farmers, so the chipmakers will be able to out-bid the farmers and the water will be allocated to them. this is the "invisible hand" of the free market.
We aren't talking about drinking-water quantities of water here but about irrigation quantities. Poor people in Arizona are not in danger of dying from thirst. Think Milagro Beanfield War, not Dune. Poor people in Phoenix get their water from the water utility, which gives you 3740+ gallons of potable water per month for US$4.64: https://www.phoenix.gov/waterservicessite/Documents/Rates_Ef...
That works out to 0.032¢ per liter. A quarter (25¢) will buy you 760 liters of water, enough to survive for three months. That's about 1000× lower than a price at which even Phoenix's homeless might start dying of thirst due to the cost of water. (Homeless people don't pay the water utility, but they get water from people who do.)
Poor people in the country get their water from wells, which cost money to drill but basically nothing to pump more water from.
Rationing might be a reasonable thing to do to keep the aquifer from being depleted, but it would be likely to hit poor people much harder than rich people, because poor people don't have the political influence to prevent the enactment of regulations that would hurt them badly, such as a requirement for an environmental review before drilling a new drinking-water well.
Rationing could cause poor people to die from lack of access to water. Markets won't, unless you're talking about something like a Mars colony.
A bunch of entities have perpetual promises for specific amounts of water, and sometimes the promises are too big and can't be fulfilled, or a city needs some water and can't get it allocated, or stuff like that. So, shortages.
Add in some market mechanics and that problem disappears. The only entities left without water are the ones unwilling to pay a small fraction of a cent.
If you're trying to water a cornfield big enough to feed your family, a fraction of a cent per liter might still be too much, though (and again we would predict that rationing measures would favor politically powerful agribusinesses and perhaps the Indian reservations over most small farmers). But it's not about dying of thirst.
A fifth of an acre of higher-water corn will provide more than 10k calories per day for a year. So about 5 acre inches, about half a million liters, if the price spikes up to 0.1 cents per liter that's $500 of water.
I'm not particularly concerned with the viability of people farming their own food but that seems plenty cheap.
Even desalinated water would be under a thousand dollars, and we could 10x the water supply at that point.
> and again we would predict that rationing measures would favor politically powerful agribusinesses and perhaps the Indian reservations over most small farmers
If the system allocates free water which can then be easily resold, the end result is basically the same as everyone paying but some entities get free money. Anyone expecting to buy their water should be no worse off.
+1
Regicide is a great game, difficult to master, but when playing with the same people often you learn how to play and work off each other in subtle ways.
Yeah. To be honest, I kind of setup this blog as a joke when the dot zip gTLD came up, as an inside joke with a few fellow security people who (rightfully) are against the ever expanding list of TLDs we have to deal with.
Because of the risk of auto-linkification, I'm of the opinion that browsers should put the entire dot-zip domain into the this-is-dangerous realm with big scary warnings if anyone follows a link. (Or at least any file downloads.)
Because I'm an idiot who likes hosting stuff on bad gTLDs, here's the markdown content of the actual post for you and everyone behind some corporate firewall that blocks dot zip:
Of course, as stated in the article, such email links are harder to phish than passwords, can't lead to a breach of passwords, and protect the site itself against users who might reuse passwords previously compromised.
The article even covers some of my annoyances with this system, but throws out this sentence:
Easier than what? Easier than a long password, without a password manager? Easier than a passkey? Easier than an OTP sent to the same email address?
This sentence reads to me as one written by someone mostly working and _living_ from a single laptop and mobile device. The second part of the sentence, calling for more sites to do this is why I am writing this.
For any scenario with a minimal amount of complexity, like users with multiple computers, and you're looking at a scenario where the site's unwillingness to deal with other login methods shoves friction on the end-user.
### What makes them tragic:
1. Multiple devices. Who doesn't use at least a few computers weekly? I don't have my email on my gaming PC, nor do I have it on my work laptops.
1. Slower. From 2 seconds slower to minutes slower, depending on SMTP delays as well as how awkward it is to get the link to the right browser.
1. Anti-mobile. As mentioned by 404 in their own article, this breaks the ability to use in-app browsers, which is quite annoying especially for RSS reader type apps. It makes interacting with any local link in the RSS feed extremely annoying.
1. Indirect security downsides. Pushing people to access personal email on work devices (or vice-versa) isn't exactly a win for security.
Another annoying _passwordless_ system is to email or SMS an OTP the end user can type in.
While this sucks, it at least allows you to easily log in in situations where you don't have a clear and easy copy/paste path from the email client to the browser you want to log in to.
[Stratechery](https://stratechery.com/), powered by [Passport](https://passport.online), uses this type of scheme (click link OR type in OTP), which is still shifting annoyances onto end-users to free developers from implementing passkeys, but at least has a bit more of an appreciation for end-users.
If you insist on using magic/tragic links by default, at least consider offering a robust alternative, such as [passkeys](https://fidoalliance.org/passkeys/), especially if your audience is technical and privacy-focused.
I worked at Nordstrom for 8 years, first in customer service, then in IT, then in engineering. I think this is a good move. The Nordstrom family cared a lot about the brand and the customers, the shareholders didn't. Things were really going downhill when I left. I hope they can get the boat righted.
No need for imagination, this is the number 1 scam right now. They make fake investment sites and apps. They encourage the mark to invest some small, safe amount, and let them profit and even withdraw some of their earnings. Once the mark trusts them, they start investing more and seeing their investment growing in the app, which encourages more investing. But, once they go to withdraw a larger amount, there are suddenly all sorts of hurdles and "fees." In reality, there was never any investment happening.
reply