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

California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 663 posts

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#291

Post by refulgentis »

loceng wrote: post #258
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online and mobile food-ordering and delivery marketplace with the largest and most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. ” This tells me as a customer that the restaurant is a consenting partner. This is a lie. EDIT: a commentor below had issue with my use of th…

No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.

Been here 11 years, things have oddly gone off a cliff in the comments over the past 6 months - year: if you're not agreeing with the first-order conclusion, you're down-voted through the floor. sorry about that :/

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#292

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

rattray wrote: post #286
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s true that these platforms can also be free or low cost sources of new business. GrubHub et al can still mail/call/etc. them an offer to become a partner, with stickers and a “congratulations we’d love to do business with your business”.

Totally. That's what'll have to happen instead. But it's more expensive (cost to restaurant ultimately goes up) and annoying.

If it’s costs more for the restaurant to do business with GrubHub then now they have the law on their side to decline to do business with GrubHub on account of it being too expensive.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#293

Post by loceng »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #284
loceng wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're just not accepting in the statement you wrote what you claim it means is incorrect - you're now trying to double down that it's not clear but it is clear, you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely as your argument point but through extrapolation it's not necessary, assuming you're able to/have learned how to extrapolate. You really want everyone everywhere on the internet to spell out the…

> you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by ext…

You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#294

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

loceng wrote: post #293
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're just seeming to want them to spell it out completely Yes because that’s what “clear disclaimer” means, which was the ask. I’m really baffled that this line of logic, because the post I was responding to said “clear disclaimer”, when I’m pointing to something that requires second-order interpretation and therefore by definition can’t be a clear disclaimer. (I mean you yourself said that it’s understood by ext…

You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.

Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#295

Post by jimktrains2 »

listenallyall wrote: post #245
m3kw9 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable

Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.

None of those examples claim to be, or otherwise tey to make you think they are, an official outlet for those goods.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#296

Post by loceng »

refulgentis wrote: post #291
loceng wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.

Been here 11 years, things have oddly gone off a cliff in the comments over the past 6 months - year: if you're not agreeing with the first-order conclusion, you're down-voted through the floor. sorry about that :/

And any attempt to discuss the voting mechanism to require more qualitative responses instead of a quick dopamine hit for clicking a single object, one needs to tread carefully - a rule that artificially oppresses conversation on the topic - so how important of an issue it is will be skewed due to the threat of being silenced.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#297

Post by jfim »

wolco2 wrote: post #285
newman8r wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an old roommate try to sue in-n-out after getting severe food poisoning. It actually went to court - the in-n-out attorney completely destroyed him, he was outgunned. They showed receipts for thousands of people who ate there that day and that there weren't any other cases reported. Reporting food poisoning if it ever happens to you (even if minor) could be the difference between someone else being believed of…

Advice I wish I could give myself. Don't eat out if you can avoid it and if you do go in person, never order in. In secret someone who cares less about your health than anyone you know prepares hundreds of meals a day and if they don't come in because they are sick they lose money. If they don't try to hide mistakes it will cost them. If they don't save the company money by picking up food off the ground or using yes…

> using yesterdays soup as a base for today's soup

That's not necessarily a bad thing. There is such a thing as a perpetual stew [0] in which a stew is replenished with ingredients over months or even years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_stew

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#298

Post by refulgentis »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #294
loceng wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're changing the goal posts of your argument now. You claimed the statement was a lie, it wasn't - that is all I argued.

Oh, okay, I’ve edited my post to say that “this is not a clear disclaimer”.

Please try to avoid dragging interlocutors through long threads, knowing they'll be downvoted at each step - it was extremely clear from step 1 what they meant, you didn't need it clarified over several comments to reach this conclusion.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#299

Post by nirushiv »

loceng wrote: post #258
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And has a clear disclaimer that they're not affiliated with the businesses. This isn’t actually clear. GrubHub’s about page: “ Grubhub is a leading online and mobile food-ordering and delivery marketplace with the largest and most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. ” This tells me as a customer that the restaurant is a consenting partner. This is a lie. EDIT: a commentor below had issue with my use of th…

No, you're misinterpreting it - they don't claim all of the restaurants are partners, just that they have the most comprehensive network of restaurant partners. Edit: -4 downvotes so far for highlighting a person's bad logic - good start to the New Year for critical thinking on HN; I'll assume they're projecting their anger for the topic onto me, their emotion overriding their logic.

There are different types of lies. A lie of commission would be like Grubhub saying “All restaurants are our partners”. The second case (which applies here) is a lie by omission. They are withholding very important information in an intentional way.

Since we’re on the topic of food: It’s like if someone asked, “Hey did you eat the whole pizza?” and you reply “I ate my three slices”. That’s true, except you also ate the other nine slices. Lie of omission.

It’s not bad logic. It’s you failing to recognize a basic tactic used by companies and four year olds and everyone in between.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#300

Post by sammax »

listenallyall wrote: post #245
m3kw9 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my resturant didn’t sign up for a middle man, don’t force yourself in between. That seems reasonable

Careful there... Apple (or any manufacturer) could say the same thing about Ebay. Any sports team or band could say it about Stubhub. Nike could say it about StockX.

It would be the same thing if the delivery company was operating as a resale marketplace for used food ;)
Post reply on HN