Extrapolating from DoorDash scale to ‘your favorite local restaurant’ scale is inappropriate. Fraud at an exponentially higher scale deserves a similarly exponential increase in mistrust. Yes, bad actors individually exist, but when megacorporations scale up bad actors to national and international levels, it’s appropriate for mistrust to scale up accordingly. I have not been able to determine which of the restaurants I frequent are bad actors in this regard, but I have absolutely been able to determine that DoorDash is an unrepentant bad actor, as many consecutive “we fucked you over and paid pennies on the dollar to do so” settlements have confirmed. So changing my behavior to avoid a corrupt megacorp does not automatically correlate with contradiction and hypocrisy in my local behaviors.
> Fraud at an exponentially higher scale deserves a similarly exponential increase in mistrust.
It was never determined to be fraud. Keep in mind that what they were accused of was never actually tested in courts.
Also keep in mind that this practice is explicitly enshrined in the laws of many states for restaurant workers. If the worker got a tip, the restaurant owner was allowed to pay below minimum wage for that hour to that worker (as long as wage + tip met the federal minimum wage).
Which is why I was asking. If you're in one of those (many) states, chances are high that most restaurants are doing what people find so despicable of Doordash. So yes, it is "at scale".
Ok, so let's imagine that it's common that mom and pop stores cheat employees by adjusting timesheets. Let's say we also find that Walmart was doing this as official policy accross all their stores.
Are we supposed to just say "welp, that's ok Walmart, keep doing it, because we can't stop every other mom and pop store in the nation from potentially doing this."
This. The three conversational branches in reply to the question posed are “yes”, “no”, and “TIL”; none of those three branches ends up in a conversation that excuses DoorDash, nor in one that promotes increased tolerance of DoorDash. If anyone feels otherwise, then present the case for why we should tolerate Doordash’s behavior, rather than asking one-sentence leading questions and then arguing about the indirection layer of the leading question.
In this instance, for constructed example, one might present a straightforward claim that we should not direct moral outrage towards DoorDash for those behaviors they voluntarily paid money an apology for. I’m certain that’s not the correct phrasing of the argument intended, but since that claim hasn’t been made yet to us, of course my constructed example is wrong! That’s why it’s so essential to present one’s views as sentences, rather than through leading questions.
Above, no claim is presented for why discussing local restaurant behaviors has any bearing on how we interpret, moralize, and respond to the behavior of the faceless megacorp DoorDash. Without that connection having been drawn, this is a functionally irrelevant tangent into businesses not comparable to DoorDash in either scale or function.
> The three conversational branches in reply to the question posed are “yes”, “no”, and “TIL”; none of those three branches ends up in a conversation that excuses DoorDash, nor in one that promotes increased tolerance of DoorDash.
Nothing related to any of my comments was meant to excuse DoorDash. What gave people that idea? It was meant for people to question their views on tipping to begin with.
My issue is with rhetorical methods such as that, yes, but let’s not cross the line into mocking the people using those methods. Rhetoric is often taught in morally-neutral terms in the schools underpinning tech — especially at Stanford, the big one next door to YC/HN in Palo Alto! — and the seeming insult of that comparison (I’ve never seen Columbo) will make people less likely to reconsider their rhetorical choices. Whether they want to be heard more successfully or (as I hope) they realize that rhetorical methods are morally-charged in real-world communities or they’re asocial like me and this offers a method-hack for social interaction efficiency, it’s the method that matters here, not the person behind it.
(One benefit of being nameblind at HN’s community size is that it’s easy for me to treat everyone the same, because I lack any recognition for whether I’ve spoken with someone previously or not. I acknowledge it’s not that easy for other people, but certainly it has the upside of forcing this ‘method, not person’ approach I describe into every interaction I have here :)
You may be treating everyone equally in your mind, but prose like the above reads as pretentious to most people, so I don't think your approach is particularly persuasive.
Additionally, when I make comments like the above, I don't think the person I'm responding to is actually persuadable. It's not some sort of good faith socratic debate.
> I don't think the person I'm responding to is actually persuadable.
Yeah, that tends to be the case, but an attempt to persuade that goes nowhere counts more towards bans for such behaviors than insult and dismissal — so long as they're not a VC, anyways. The alternative is the Bystander Effect and that seems somehow worse.
> Are we supposed to just say "welp, that's ok Walmart, keep doing it, because we can't stop every other mom and pop store in the nation from potentially doing this."
No, you're supposed to say "Let's stop everyone from doing this" and stop making it legal for mom and pop stores from doing it.
And this has strayed from my original comment. I'm not asking about legality. The person I responded to found it so terrible he refused to use them. I'm merely suggesting they keep the same moral high ground when they go to eat at a restaurant.
You don't seem to understand what DoorDash did wasn't legal. They violated NY's minimum rate law which has provisions specific to gig economy delivery services.
No. I’ve heard similar stories from baristas at small coffee shops. Any tips through the tap to pay systems get split between the processor, business owner and then the staff. This should be illegal. People should be ashamed
Should people not be ashamed for not tipping the chef in the back...?
Tipping is problematic no matter how you look at it. Rather than getting outraged, how about focusing on discontinuing this pointless practice? I've yet to find a single pro-tipping person who is consistent in their views on tipping. They'll happily support one tipping practice in one scenario, and be against the exact same practice in a different sphere.
BTW, what Doordash was accused of was not tip sharing, but using it to pay less than minimum wage. Which is standard practice for restaurants in the majority of states. That's why I was asking.
I’m against tipping in any scenario. I don’t think tipping for good service should be the norm. You don’t deserve a tip because you brought my food out correctly and timely, you don’t deserve a tip for delivering my appliances without damaging my walls, you don’t deserve a tip for ringing the register with a smile, all of that is what you’re supposed to do.
If the entire economic model hinges on the majority of people tipping variable amounts then the model seems broken. Charge proportionately more and don’t rely tips, everyone will have a better experience.
Agree that paying below minimum wage is bullshit. The small print does though state that if tips don't make up the difference between their wage and minimum wage, the restaurant owner is on the hook to make up that difference.
Regardless, every tip is a savings to the business owner.
> The small print does though state that if tips don't make up the difference between their wage and minimum wage, the restaurant owner is on the hook to make up that difference.
DoorDash was following this exact same fine print.
The free version of LeetCode is more than enough to prepare for standard interviews.
Only mentioning this because I’ve seen some people stall their interview prep because they wanted to delay a LeetCode purchase until they felt they had enough time to prepare. You can get started right away with the free version.
Paid version is actually worth it (in ROI terms) but you can wait until later to buy it.
I haven't job hunted in five years or so, but leetcode was omnipresent in my local market. I got some offers without leetcode but those jobs paid about half as much as the ones that required leetcoding.
I resisted getting one out of principle till I realised this. Landed a job at FANG ~7 years ago after doing so and that $30 subscription has probably paid for itself 20,000x over at this point.
I currently work at a FAANG and applied through the normal site. I didn't apply for years until I attended a Google event and a recruiter just told me to apply on the website.
Wordpress was an amazing piece of software. They could have a future in the AI era which has a similar issue in standardizing content managing platforms, but what a fumble. And over something with such a small moat as a hosting platform for businesses.
Wordpress dropped the ball on hosting. Their offering was mediocre and barely used by businesses. They were more focused on adding features to the core product than a Business friendly hosting solution. WPEngine isn't even that amazing. It's common sense features that most people running Wordpress wouldn't do at a high premium(regular backups, forced updates, etc.). If he put 10-20% of the effort into offering plain solutions for businesses they wouldn't be in the position they're in
The 13 is the last generation of the mini and I still have mine. Good to know I'm not missing anything. Battery capacity isn't even below 80% so I can't replace it under Applecare yet.
You need a better harness. LLMs are significantly better at this than humans. Add it as a step in your LLM process and your documentation will always be up to date.
It encodes context it needs into doc comments and regular comments that make them in insufferable to read and so verbose because the comments contain info on other parts of the code base (that might have changed since that comment was written) but were useful to the model for its implementation. I have so far found no way to stop claude from doing this. It will sometimes do it with hand holding but the moment a task takes a slightly large amount of context its back to the word barf.
This is certainly a problem with out-of-the-box usage. But easily overcome.
Spend time updating your harness. This is not a hard problem to solve and there are many helpful guides out there.
We basically took our documented (human) SDLC process and applied it to the relevant harness hooks. Since our SDLC docs talked about what good comments looked like and what to avoid, we basically had the direction for the tools. Opus 5 did throw us a loop and increase the verbosity and decrease usefulness of the text, but refining our documentation cleared that hurdle within about a day.
Large businesses who choose enterprise solutions over cheaper indie/open-source solutions for similar reasons (dedicated support, sticky products designed for their industry, less regulatory concerns, etc.)
Do they not measure returns on their investments? It's not like Anthropic is the only enterprise out there, any other offering is significantly cheaper. Like I said, I do not believe there are agentic pipelines out there built on their flagship models, if there are then they are eating the costs and not profitable or they have found some serious market that makes no sense to me.
reply