I was just ordering some food on Uber eats and noticed that my bill for 50 bucks of food came to $75 or something. So I decided it was wasteful and I'll drive and pick it up myself. I wasted half an hour of my life and driving at rush hour was also stressful. That wouldn't be worth it for 25 bucks but it turned out Uber somehow has a lower price than in person so that brought it down to 21 and then in the restaurant despite it being a counter place with no sitting they pressure you to tip way more than Uber app and I kind of autoclicked it, so my savings are down to like 10 bucks for 30 minutes of stressful driving and waiting in line.
I think the delivery charge is totally worth it, especially if you order multiple meals and make any amount of money at your job. You're just paying for convenience and I'm not convinced you're getting ripped off at all. Having some dude drive around town with your burger is expensive. If anything if the allegation is he is underpaid, it should be even more expensive.
Tech workers in the US are probably around 90-99 percentile wage. Take something where the quality is well known and measurable, and can be purchased for extra money. How often do you fly first class, or even pay 10-20% extra to have more legroom, early boarding or a more convenient flight times versus picking the cheapest option that you can make work?
People will demonstrably shop primarily on price no matter what... The producers respond to that.
Related, Matt Levine has recently been writing about how the AI labs are paying huge amounts of money to tech/math/AI people but these people don't actually know how to spend it. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-09-10/dal... As opposed to the typical finance worker who knows very well how to spend.
Sometimes "quality" really doesn't matter. Flying any higher than premium economy is one of those times. Will it get you to your destination any faster? Will you feel better when you get off the plane? It's like I could pay to sleep in a hotel tonight, and it'll be really nice, but I choose to sleep in my bed at home instead. There won't be any difference tomorrow.
Heh I was thinking for a while about a similar pet project but I would remove the political/mainstream news rage bait, especially the stuff that is more or less unrelated to technology. AI news are still tech news
Feel free to fork this then! https://github.com/leiDnedyA/hn-without-ai It uses an LLM to categorize posts as ai or not, so you can just use a different prompt to filter out whatever you don't want (e.g "Respond with only true or false. true if the following post content is primarily political and false otherwise)
Should we also have separate posts for every individual case when camera helped catch someone? What's the point of continuously posting what amounts to single anecdotes without any statistical context? Should we ban every technology and shut down any government program that has small amount, but rage-bait-able form of, abuse?
Why is that a scam? Nobody ever promises you any specific valuation or fraction of the company. When I joined a company relatively late but well before IPO, some funny number of shares at 12 cents or whatever each did not even enter my calculation any more than "oh and they also give me a free lottery ticket". In my case depending on when one sold after IPO they would have been in the range centered around about compensating for the salary differential I think, but nobody promises you they'd ever be worth more than Monopoly money
> Nobody ever promises you any specific valuation or fraction of the company
Would you mind asking before saying what I have been promised?
Also it feels like you have never been in a startup. The whole language of growth everywhere, the "billion-dollar startup", the "becoming a unicorn", this is all suggesting that "you're part of it and it matters to you if it becomes a unicorn". But it doesn't, really. Because you get diluted.
I was given a very large number of very low value shares. The company was about 60 people iirc and I think the hr guy said well we won't IPO soon but when we do, these shares might be worth a lot! Companies often aim for shares to be worth 10, 20, 50 dollars at IPO! Something like that. But it's obviously just vague pep talk. They also sometimes say everyone is there to make the world a better place...
It would be a scam if they promised you 0.2% of the company but then it was diluted to 0.1%. and nobody prevents you from asking i think. Otherwise it's no more a scam than a lottery ticket commercial showing the guy who won a Ferrari.
It is a scam to me because they imply "if the founders get rich, we all get rich" because "we're on the same boat". And it's not the same boat at all: the founders may get rich, the employees most likely not.
It’s strange, every startup offer either is obviously a horrible scam or comes from a place of fairness and is sold like a total scam.
I guess being honest brings about too many opportunities for people who don’t understand the finances to make (or be perceived to make ) promises they can’t keep. So you might as well just get into a race to present the most ridiculous stuff possible.
> But it doesn't, really. Because you get diluted.
At this day and age, if you don't understand dilution before you join, it's entirely on you.
This isn't a new concept - it was the case decades ago. Even when I left school over 15 years ago, the standard advice when trying to get a job with a startup was "Get a good salary and value the equity at zero."
And class A vs class B isn't even a rich vs everyone else thing. I have class A shares in an LLC, where even the (richer) founders are class B. The operating agreement is that we class A folks are "guaranteed" a fixed rate of return on our investment, and the class B folks don't get anything unless we get at least that rate of return. This is very normal in that industry.
> At this day and age, if you don't understand dilution before you join, it's entirely on you.
I don't know what to tell you. Young graduates get an offer to work at a startup, nobody tells them how it works. They are just excited, as I was. And they don't think about "what happens if the startup is successful" because they do know it probably won't be.
And when the startup is successful (happened to me) is when they realise that they got scammed. But all they can do is see their founders become rich and tell everyone why THEY deserve it because it was THEIR idea and THEY are the best.
> the standard advice when trying to get a job with a startup was "Get a good salary and value the equity at zero."
That does not say AT ALL that the founder gets rich when you get nothing. It says "be careful, most startups fail, so make sure you get a salary". Usually that salary is subpar.
Facebook has a "feeds" (or something like that) view, that is exactly your subscriptions in chronological order.
As for restricting nighttime usage and imposing daily limits, somehow my mom managed to do that (for video games) without any corporate features in the 90s, while being a single working mother. One time when I was particularly uncooperative she just went to the electrical panel and shut off the power to my room. That worked like a charm. Today, there are all kinds of parental control features instead.
However, how can you expect people to do parenting, when grown adults are apparently not even capable of basic self-regulation?
All the recent evidence (https://www.npr.org/2026/03/09/nx-s1-5736553/fast-food-scree...) is that people who are best at self-regulation don't do it by surrounding themselves with tempting things and will-powering themselves not to indulge in them, they do it by changing their environment so the tempting things aren't an option. They're changing the environment via the courts and the ballot box. The people with no self-regulation are the ones complaining about the possibility of having their dopamine toys taken away.
The first premise of the case is that it's to protect the children, so this doesn't make any sense - it's not people with self-regulation improving their own environment. Parents are the ones who are supposed to make sure their children have limits, in general, not just for social media. Social media/etc. makes it easy (or can make it easy) with parental controls.
Even construed more broadly, this makes no sense. All of these cases and the criticism hinge on harms of addiction, that pretty much by definition apply primarily to those with poor self-regulation. Those with proper self-regulation need them much less - so it's basically paternalism. Supposedly some people don't know what's best for them, they are "addicted" to watching cat videos. As, again, is obvious in this case, since the case is literally about children.
I, personally, like infinite scroll algo reels. I probably spend about 20 minutes a week on them, and if anything I'd prefer the algo to be more tailored / "addictive" cause it tends to over focus quickly and bore me. It sure sucks at addicting me. I don't want the state to interfere with what FB can or cannot do with the algo. If an adult gets addicted to reels, they are definitely not a victim.
It's very easy to look up what the govt spends money on. All of these things are rounding errors that make good rage bait. The biggest, and some of the fastest growing, outlays are medicare and social security - money transfers from everyone else to the richest demographic in human history. In case of medicare, also mostly unproductive money transfers. I think these are deeply immoral, but I guess helping grandma doesn't make for good rage bait so it's easy for both parties to get distracted by tiny line items that, fiscally, do not matter - be it DEI, ballrooms or whatever.
It's really understandable that this is posted on hacker news, where innovators from public healthcare startup hotspots like the UK and France gather to look with pity at their stagnating counterparts stuck with more private systems like the US, or even Netherlands or Switzerland if only Europe is considered.
I think the delivery charge is totally worth it, especially if you order multiple meals and make any amount of money at your job. You're just paying for convenience and I'm not convinced you're getting ripped off at all. Having some dude drive around town with your burger is expensive. If anything if the allegation is he is underpaid, it should be even more expensive.
reply