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

251–260 of 374 posts

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

#251

Post by mort96 »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #235
magicalhippo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with a google review lower than 3 stars At least here, the majority of 1-2 star reviews are actually complaining about third-party delivery services like Foodora[1]. Of course the fries will be soggy and the burger luke warm when you got a guy who had to pedal a bike for half an hour to deliver it for you. Like what did you expect? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodora

I expect this guy to keep it fresh for me.

I don't know if you're joking or not but in case you're not, you can't really keep fries "fresh". Regardless, the point remains that the quality of third party food delivery services shouldn't be considered when studying the quality of restaurants.

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

#254

Post by setr »

qq66 wrote: post #253

It makes logical sense. The closer a shop is to the train station, the more it pays in rent, requiring it to skimp on ingredient quality.

Presumably they’d have higher traffic to offset the rent increase. I would expect more quality damage from the fact that they effectively have guaranteed minimum traffic ala airports

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

#255

Post by Justta »

It's case old saying lost it's relevance. This is absolutely correct in developing countries which only has one main railway station or bus stand for the whole city or town. These establishments targeted one time customer who will never return in a year. Including metro is not valid or violation of the actual circumstance this saying originated. Including Mtro and even if still counting walkable distance of 100 m from the station almost covers the whole city. Doing this in Paris with more strict enforcement of food safety and quality isn't really going to validate.

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

#256

Post by maeln »

lqet wrote: post #243
JmsPae wrote: post #86

Hi there, "OP" here. First off, it's been fun to see this post spread across the interwebs since I first wrote it one caffeine-fueled day just over a week ago (first Menéame, now here) and for the heck of it, I thought I would clarify a few things; This post was (sortof) a meme. Sure, I "understood the assignment" and performed the quick "study" ("analysis" might be more fitting) for the sake of the original post ove…

Why did you include metro stations in your study? The original quote only included train stations. The metro originally largely replaced a tram network, so the metro station density in Paris is higher than for other underground systems. I think it is very hard to find kebap shops in Paris that are not within 500 m of a metro station. This kind of dilutes the significance of your study, because I never really noticed…

I would second this. In Paris, but I find it to be true in most European city, the area surrounding train station is usually not very nice. It is usually surrounded by cheap hotel for 1-night traveler, overpriced fast food (hence the initial theory) and social housing / cheap building (a lot of people don't want to live next to a train station due to the nuisance, so poor people often get stuck there).

On the other hand, metro station are pretty much anywhere, and they tend to have the opposite effect. Having a metro station close by is very practical and doesn't generate as much nuisance since it is underground and pretty well hidden.

I am almost sure the data will look very different if you only look for train station.

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

#257

Post by skrebbel »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #246

Here in Berlin there are an enormous amount of kebab places (thousands). Basically, most places are embedded in neighborhoods and have a crowd of locals that go there. The quality varies wildly as a lot of these places are obviously aimed at the money laundering business (cash only) rather than serving food. Poor hygiene, indifferent service, etc. Many of these places are completely pointless from a business point of…

Pardon my ignorance, but I always wonder how these money laundering kebab places work. We have some in my city too and they always leave me puzzled. If nobody eats there, how do they launder money? I'm probably daft/naieve but can't figure out the mechanics of money laundering when the business doesn't actually move any product.

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

#259

Post by timvdalen »

skrebbel wrote: post #257
jillesvangurp wrote: post #246

Here in Berlin there are an enormous amount of kebab places (thousands). Basically, most places are embedded in neighborhoods and have a crowd of locals that go there. The quality varies wildly as a lot of these places are obviously aimed at the money laundering business (cash only) rather than serving food. Poor hygiene, indifferent service, etc. Many of these places are completely pointless from a business point of…

Pardon my ignorance, but I always wonder how these money laundering kebab places work. We have some in my city too and they always leave me puzzled. If nobody eats there, how do they launder money? I'm probably daft/naieve but can't figure out the mechanics of money laundering when the business doesn't actually move any product.

They pretend like people _do_ eat there, that's how the dirty cash ends up in the register.

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

#260

Post by csrse »

crazygringo wrote: post #129
arccy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not always... the data is skewed by non natives, e.g. a high concentration of americans will typically result in junk food scoring too high, high scoring asian food in the west tastes nothing like what it should, for authentic tastes the scores will be quite mid

> the data is skewed by non natives That's not skew. That accurately reflects "non-native" clients, who are people too. > a high concentration of americans will typically result in junk food scoring too high You do realize that America has the highest number of Michelin-starred restaurants per capita? Way to stereotype > high scoring asian food in the west tastes nothing like what it should Are you also going to crit…

>You do realize that America has the highest number of Michelin-starred restaurants per capita? Way to stereotype

How did you find this data? A quick google says that France has about 630 Michelin restaurants and the US about 230 (and obviously fewer people live in France). It looks like Switzerland has the highest per capita with 143 for about 9 million people. The US has a lot of good eating places, but let's stick to facts.

Post reply on HN