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

“The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

jmspae.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 374 posts

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#91

Post by pocketarc »

vzaliva wrote: post #82

This is a good example where a summary produced by much-hated AI (GPT 4o) is quite useful (to people who do not want to read all details in he article): "In his study, James Pae examined the hypothesis: "The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab." Focusing on Paris, he analysed kebab shops' proximity to train and metro stations alongside their Google review ratings. His findings revealed a negligible corre…

I don't think a lot of people have a problem with AI summaries (a lot of people are using AI for exactly that). I think the 'hate' mostly comes from the fact that people tend to copy/paste whatever AI says without adding anything to the conversation.

It's the same as me running a query on Google and copy/pasting a list of 10 results. It doesn't really add anything to a conversation - anyone can go to Google and look something up.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#92

Post by zem »

seanthemon wrote: post #81
btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

My rule of thumb: if it has the name of the country, i expect the food to be at best sub-par i.e "Great Indian" (gave me wild food poisoning). Second rule of thumb: if the milkshakes are good, the food will be good - almost never fails me.

I've been to several great restaurants with "china" and "burma" in their names. also "siam" and "thai" but not actually "thailand" that I can remember.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#93

Post by 98codes »

btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

This supports the inverse square rule for seafood restaurant quality vs. being near the ocean. There are good places, but right on the water? Universally bad.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#94

Post by acaloiar »

asah wrote: post #52
btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

They are not mutually exclusive. Counter examples: - Katz's deli in NYC is incredibly famous, in a great location, and actually has kickass pastrami. The trade-off are relatively high prices and lines down the block - restaurants with exclusive relationships. - restaurants that make money another way, e.g. gambling. - family owned restaurants with legacy rent deals. - restaurants that cater to niche audiences e.g. sm…

Comments of this quality are getting frustrating.

The grand parent post clearly stated it is the poster's "rule of thumb". By definition they are aware that the rules are [likely] "not mutually exclusive". Starting with "these are not mutually exclusive", is what makes this comment so unnecessary. Don't be proud of having listed exceptions to someone's rule of thumb.

Had you started with, "I like that; these are a few exceptions I've observed to your rules that I find interesting", that would be a productive way to start a conversation.

But starting with "these are not mutually exclusive" makes you seem like an ass for having pointed at an exception to something that by definition has exceptions.

It's right in the posting guidelines [1.]

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[1.] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#95

Post by chadcmulligan »

btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

My rule for finding a good restaurant - if it doesn't look that good and/or is in an out of the way place but seems to be busy, its probably good.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#96

Post by daotoad »

macrael wrote: post #14

LOL we may need to update the title of this post, half the top level comments right now are assuming the study confirmed the hypothesis. > With a mighty Pearson's correlation of 0.091, the data indicates that this could > be true! If you ignore the fact that the correlation is so weak that calling it 'statistically > insignificant' would be quite generous.

Would it help if I were to chime in with a response about the benefits of kebab case over train case?

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#97

Post by InitialLastName »

seanthemon wrote: post #81
btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

My rule of thumb: if it has the name of the country, i expect the food to be at best sub-par i.e "Great Indian" (gave me wild food poisoning). Second rule of thumb: if the milkshakes are good, the food will be good - almost never fails me.

For a long time, the best Thai restaurant in New York State (in my, and many others', opinions) was called simply "Thai Cuisine".

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#98

Post by aqueueaqueue »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #95
btilly wrote: post #42

Many years ago I came up with a rule of thumb. Restaurants have three basic strategies, be a known quantity (chain), have a good location, or be actually good. I've found some gems by looking for the third category. Given that "near the train" is a good location, that would support this theory.

My rule for finding a good restaurant - if it doesn't look that good and/or is in an out of the way place but seems to be busy, its probably good.

My rule. Check TripAdvisor!

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#99

Post by aqueueaqueue »

macrael wrote: post #14

LOL we may need to update the title of this post, half the top level comments right now are assuming the study confirmed the hypothesis. > With a mighty Pearson's correlation of 0.091, the data indicates that this could > be true! If you ignore the fact that the correlation is so weak that calling it 'statistically > insignificant' would be quite generous.

Easy fix: just add a ? to the end.

Re: “The closer to the train station, the worse the kebab” – a “study”

#100

Post by oceliker »

Etheryte wrote: post #41
myheartisinohio wrote: post #10

The only place this isn't true is Japan.

I mean, it's not true in general if you actually read the article. > Whilst there are some minor indications that the hypothesis could be correct (eg. many of the absolute worst restaurants being some of the closest) the correlation is simply too weak.

> it's not true in general if you actually read the article.

Only if you agree with the article's methodology :)

Post reply on HN