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

There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 263 posts

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#181

Post by paulgb »

CircleSpokes wrote: post #154
jdavis703 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of “free” parking is added to the prices the store charges. It’s better to unbundle these costs — an urban parking space can cost over $50,000 to build. That’s not cheap, and will materially impact rents and the price consumers have to pay.

Why is it better to unbundle them? I don't see why a business or person would want the extra hassle of paying for parking separately. Like paying for event parking is one thing but paying to shop at a store is beyond silly. What is next paying to use the drive through?

There's actually a whole (fairly thick) book pretty much entirely about this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking

The gist is that we use more parking than would be societally optimal because it's “free”, which really just means that non-drivers subsidize drivers. It would be like if every restaurant were expected to be all-you-can-eat: we'd societally consume more food than was optimal.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#182

Post by gaganyaan »

sircastor wrote: post #123
Waterluvian wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone can make an absolute killing by creating an entire brand of “dumb” appliances that Just Work. Make them sensible quality, modern, entirely offline.

I think privacy advocates think that there’s this massive untapped market of single-issue consumers who would gladly spend the extra money for this kind of thing. I don’t think it’s there. I’d be willing to bet appliances are already a commoditized market and the margins are already painfully thin. “Absolute killing” it would not be.

It's not just about privacy, it's also about durability and repairability.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#183

Post by yumraj »

Waterluvian wrote: post #15
unicornporn wrote: post #13

Oh, great timing. Just ended a conversation with some friends who had bought a dishwasher. The display for these new machines had been removed, so the only way to tell when the machine was really finished was to... Guess what? Download an app! I suppose I don't need to tell you all the permissions it asked for...

Someone can make an absolute killing by creating an entire brand of “dumb” appliances that Just Work. Make them sensible quality, modern, entirely offline.

The problem is a certain % of HN readers and so on will but those, even pay a premium.

But the rest of the population just wants smart appliances and Nest or other smart thermostats, Ring/other key hole cameras, Alexa/other smart devices and Facebook/Instagram/TikTok/…

So, unfortunately it’s not going to be a very successful business because the dumb masses have been brainwashed into accepting these smart devices.

I think Framework would be a good test. If they are successful it may imply that there is a large enough market, otherwise all bets are off.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#184

Post by s5300 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #119
yumraj wrote: post #20

DMV, and other gov services, in CA, as well as it seems other states, is now fully integrated with ID.me, which to me does not inspire trust. They even run a shop, https://shop.id.me/ , with store discounts and so on. So, to give all the info to such an entity is risky as hell. So, recently when I had to do something with DMV I just decided to go a little early and use the kiosks they have inside rather than use the…

I predict in 2025 - California will be the first totalitarian state enabled by Big Tech fusing with the State of CA. Basically exactly like the CCP + Tencent. Total unaminity in the population, political dissent is instantly castrated by media or Big Tech's social apps and search engines, 90% people will be voting in unison for the same candidate. 10% left are constantly being squeezed out, until we have basically No…

Tell me you haven't spent much time in California talking to Californians without telling me you haven't spent much time in California talking to Californians

North Korea, lol. Excuse me as I go get some $0.50 mouth orgasm street tacos.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#185

Post by Gravityloss »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #147
jdavis703 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of “free” parking is added to the prices the store charges. It’s better to unbundle these costs — an urban parking space can cost over $50,000 to build. That’s not cheap, and will materially impact rents and the price consumers have to pay.

The cost of the rent is also added to prices the store charges. The rent close to a metro station is far higher and often "local" stores are much more expensive as a result. You could attempt to unbundle that by charging people an entry fee too. Why not itemise the electricity bill whilst you're at it, etc. It's penny pinching and adds friction. I've been to Trader Joe's, if you're going there you're not at all price…

Hmm, I guess I don't understand why people who don't park should pay for parking?

Sure, charging an entry fee might make sense if people were hanging out in say a cafe, without buying anything, it was really full and the rent was really high. I've heard that such places exist.

Over here, paying for parking has gotten really easy in the last five years, I think two apps, both work great: Easypark for streets and parking lots, and Moovit for malls. Moovit works automatically with license plate cameras in mall garages and charges you those minimal amounts. Moovit is a completely automatic thing, once you've installed the app, added your credit card and license plate, you never have to touch it again.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#186

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #140
jandrese wrote: post #76

One of my local shopping complexes had their landlord add tolls to the previously free parking. It was all done via an incredibly shitty app that required you to set up an account and link a credit card to pay. It was slow, hard to use, and crashed a couple of times on me while I was trying to set up the account forcing me to start from scratch. They also had kiosks, but they were not working. I used to go to that sh…

Yeah, I've never really understand this. If I go to a shop and "the landlord" charges me a fee, or fines me, the effect is exactly the same as if the business were responsible. Imagine if the landlord whacked up a turnstile and imposed a $1 fee for everyone entering the building. Same effect. Tons of people would refuse to go on principle, myself included.

[deleted]

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#187

Post by Ma8ee »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #177
Eelongate wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it better to unbundle them? Better... for who? I don't know if it's better for either business or society, but it's better for me because I walk to the grocery store and never take my car. If the price of parking is unbundled from the price of food, then I don't have to pay for something I'm not using.

If it's walkable then the car drivers are paying more than they should because rent is bundled in to the prices. There's no free lunch either way here.

That argument doesn't make sense. The car drivers choose themselves to drive to this particular store where you have to pay a premium for the store's location. If they feel punished by having to pay more for a centrally located store even though they have a car and could drive to a less centrally located store, then by all means, they should do that.

It's somewhat amazing how entitled many car drivers feel to be able to use up space and not having to pay rent for it.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#188

Post by dlsa »

Business should be fully aware that they are judged on the entire experience.

So, TJ's are fully responsible for the parking arrangement experience even though, as they say, they are just tenants and its their landlords who are imposing this. Those facts don't make up for the bad experience.

Its still TJ's fault and at that location they have bad parking. Its now up to them to fix their bad parking situation. If they can.

Others have pointed out the landlord could put in a turnstile and charge $1 per entry. Indirect methods, eg tracking apps, are the equivalent. Refer to the parking situation.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#189

Post by Eelongate »

throwaway55421 wrote: post #177
Eelongate wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it better to unbundle them? Better... for who? I don't know if it's better for either business or society, but it's better for me because I walk to the grocery store and never take my car. If the price of parking is unbundled from the price of food, then I don't have to pay for something I'm not using.

If it's walkable then the car drivers are paying more than they should because rent is bundled in to the prices. There's no free lunch either way here.

If it's walkable, the car drivers have made their choice and can pay for it. If they don't like the price, they can walk instead. Or, use their cars to drive a few more miles to a grocery store with more agreeable parking. There are more than a dozen Trader Joe's in LA, surely one of them has agreeable parking terms. And that's not counting all the other grocery stores in town.

You should look up the specific Trader Joe's the article is talking about on google maps. It's smack in the middle of Hollywood, within walking distance of numerous businesses and tourist attractions. Expecting free parking in that neighborhood is completely unreasonable.

Re: There may be a steep privacy cost if you park here

#190

Post by tannedNerd »

dang wrote: post #174
rPlayer6554 wrote: post #11

> But let’s clear up something right away: Trader Joe’s says it has nothing to do with this. > “This isn’t a TJ’s thing,” said Tara Miller, a Trader Joe’s spokesperson. “It’s being implemented by the landlord I feel like the headline is misleading and shouldn't mention Trader Joe's if it isn't Trader Joe's direct fault.

Ok, we've de-Joed the title above.

I feel likes that’s not exactly fair and quite a bit of editorial censorship considering it was the original article title. Almost to the point I would ask if any of the HN admins have stock positions in Trader Joe’s…

Trader Joe’s is subjecting their customers to this and should be held responsible if if it was through their landlord. They still are an accomplice to this data harvesting by the fact they have a business relationship with the company doing this.

Did you guys remove Facebook from the Cambridge Analytics scandal post? After “they” weren’t the ones doing right?

Post reply on HN