Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 272 posts

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#161

Post by fortran77 »

dbmueller wrote: post #101
fortran77 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity has been linked to climate change in many studies. Here's a summary of one typical example: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/another-reason-to-combat-t... People in developed countries eating more food than they need is very wasteful, not just in food production, but the extra fuel needed to transport these people, the extra material needed to clothe these people, etc. Anybody who's overweight or obese can't…

> Anybody who's overweight or obese can't be credible if they act concerned about climate change and won't do something as simple (and without cost) as eating less food. For one, I don't think it's "as simple", and for two, the pattern "if you don't do X, you're not serious/credible/honest/worthy" is unhelpful.

Would you be skeptical to what a billionaire CEO would have to say about Income Inequality? Or what a dairy farmer would say about Oat Milk?

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#162

Post by madsbuch »

Scaevolus wrote: post #143
xenocyon wrote: post #132

The danger for consumers is assuming this is a zero-sum and that the converse economic goal applies to you (i.e. assuming that the consumer benefits by eating a lot or focusing on meat). I conjecture that after factoring in the economics of health and quality of life, the economic optimum for a typical buffet consumer is the same as for any other eater: to eat sparingly and in a balanced manner.

Buffets feel like an unbounded solution to optimizing for calories per dollar, which is a ridiculous thing to focus on as an overweight engineer!

Well, no? As stated in the article, the truffles and oysters were hidden. This is assumingly because people optimise for most expensive dishes.

If one would optimise for calories, she'd just take the cake and fatty meats (which are also usually cheaper meats).

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#163

Post by superkuh »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #48
CPLX wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may come as a shock but software is the exception. The vast majority of the business world operates this way. The fun part comes when you realize that absent monopoly conditions this is the natural stable state of a mature market, and think about what the future of software might look like, and what the current public policy fights are about.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052515/what-average... This article claims that banks make 24%, and they are hardly a monopoly. It also claims the overall average is 8.5%.

There are less than 5000 commercial banks in the united states and it is very rare a new one is approved. They've been consolidating and the total number declining for decades. Banking isn't a monopoly but it is a very limited, exclusive, club for those with lots of assets.

After all, if you're a bank you can create new money supply out of thin air by lending out money you don't have (fractional reserve). A money printing machine is a very valuable business. Every other service a bank provides is just icing on top of this.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#164

Post by [deleted] »

ip26 wrote: post #159
lalaland1125 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quote from the Brian himself illustrating how he is able to "publish" so much junk research. > P-hacking shouldn’t be confused with deep data dives – with figuring out why our results don’t look as perfect as we want. With field studies, hypotheses usually don’t “come out” on the first data run. But instead of dropping the study, a person contributes more to science by figuring out when the hypo worked and when it…

Really? Suppose you just ran a twenty year, many million dollar field study, the hypothesis was not confirmed, you just throw everything out & that's that?

[deleted]

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#165

Post by leetcrew »

ckdarby wrote: post #153
ValentineC wrote: post #127

I organise some tech conferences. We tend to hold our speakers dinner at an upmarket all-you-can-eat buffet, mainly because we have a mix of adventurous and not-so-adventurous eaters. We try to let our speakers and guests have an opportunity to try our local cuisine, but I'm starting to think that buffets aren't that great for doing so. Travellers new to a country/region wouldn't know what to take, unless there's a l…

Really? I figure most people just take a little bit of everything the first round to figure out what they liked and then come back for more.

yeah, I find buffets are ideal for sampling lots of unfamiliar foods. I'm a lot more willing to try a small portion of something new than to actually order it as an entree.

now as far as value for your money goes, you probably don't come out ahead at an all-you-can eat buffet unless you bring a solid appetite with you. it's possible in GP's case that the cuisine of the restaurant itself is just too unfamiliar. the pickier attendees might not find anything they like. it's also possible that they don't want to be seen gorging themselves at a professional event where they are meeting a lot of people for the first time.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#167

Post by lalaland1125 »

ip26 wrote: post #159
lalaland1125 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quote from the Brian himself illustrating how he is able to "publish" so much junk research. > P-hacking shouldn’t be confused with deep data dives – with figuring out why our results don’t look as perfect as we want. With field studies, hypotheses usually don’t “come out” on the first data run. But instead of dropping the study, a person contributes more to science by figuring out when the hypo worked and when it…

Really? Suppose you just ran a twenty year, many million dollar field study, the hypothesis was not confirmed, you just throw everything out & that's that?

No, you publish a negative result, which in many ways can be more or just as informative as a positive finding. See for instance https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1906848.

It's totally fair to do subgroup analysis, etc to try to better understand the data, but you have to keep in mind that you can't claim statistical significance on those without very careful control over researcher degrees of freedom and other related issues.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#168

Post by diffeomorphism »

anticensor wrote: post #67

The simple trick is you need to price it such that any combination will always cover the costs of the most expensive meal. -Don't just downvote, explain why it won't work.

That price is obviously too high. Congratulations, you have no customers now.

Re: The economics of all-you-can-eat buffets

#170

Post by mcguire »

Jommi wrote: post #56

I'm still at awe of the Sushi Buffet thing that you can see all around in Helsinki, Finland. So far I have not seen anything like it, anywhere else in the world. Usually the price you pay is 10€ for an unrestricted and no time limit access to eating sushi. And the sushi is incredibly okay! It's nothing compared to stuff you find Tokyo ofcourse, but the price for quality is literally unbeatable. And all this is happen…

There's a good one in north Atlanta whose name I cannot remember. But it's much more than 10€.
Post reply on HN