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

The Doorman's Fallacy in action

rozumem.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 326 posts

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#291

Post by drdexebtjl »

e28eta wrote: post #256
JsonDemWitOster wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make some good points but some are, excuse me, cringey-wrong. > physical menus are hard to update How often does a restaurant update a menu? Those that need to update frequently already solved that by having a chalk board. > physical menus are often too simple, requiring asking the server questions they've answered a dozen times before already, hurting their efficiency... How does a digital menu solve this? All o…

>> physical menus are hard to update > How often does a restaurant update a menu? Those that need to update frequently already solved that by having a chalk board. One advantage of a digital ordering system: it can track inventory and mark a dish as unavailable after N have been ordered. Some restaurants might have menu updates in the middle of service quite frequently, if they have a daily special with a fixed quant…

Or they can just get a printer.

There’s a pub near me that offers dozens of different craft beers. If you ask them for a menu, they will literally print a new, updated menu on the spot, reflecting what they have available at that exact moment.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#292

Post by SenHeng »

gorgoiler wrote: post #60

I’d not heard of this fallacy* but it makes perfect sense. Well executed human greeting is such a killer asset if you get it right. There’s a few million years of genetic programming inside us all that responds unreasonably positively to hospitality. If someone enters my home and is not drinking their desired beverage in under four minutes, I have brought shame on me and my family! I think we are all programmed to re…

The doorman of the Raffles Hotel in Singapore was so iconic that he was written into the textbooks of my time. I’ve often wondered if he’s well paid considering his significance to that institution.

https://mothership.sg/2017/11/raffles-hotel-doorman/

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#293

Post by carlosjobim »

Telaneo wrote: post #190
devindotcom wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget self check out at the grocery store. I don't mind personally (I find ways to make it worth my while..) but it's a version of the same thing. Shifting labor under the guise of convenience. Like all the other versions of this, the savings are absorbed by the company, not passed on to the consumer. It's rare that the opposite happens.

I'm not sure what labour is being shifted onto me that I wasn't already doing here. I already had to bag my groceries and swipe my card. Scanning items can be done in a single motion while bagging, so the overhead is non-existent to me. Meanwhile, self-checkout removes a bottleneck in that there are now more places to check out, meaning I have to wait less and thus spend less time shopping. So all in all, no more lab…

Or you can go to a good supermarket with plenty of cashiers and no lines instead.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#294

Post by florkbork »

michaelmrose wrote: post #145
TheGRS wrote: post #41

If anything the prompt from your phone that your meter is expiring is a huge plus against forgetting about it and getting dinged with an outrageous parking ticket. I'd much rather go through the brief stress of that reminder than a ticket any day. A parking ticket will put me in a sour mood for the rest of the day easily.

The prompt is a fix for an imaginary problem produced by senselessly aping physical limitations. A meter fed with quarters forces you to prepay a particular amount whereas a digital service which has at minimum your credit card could simply charge you the correct amount.

It also forces a spot to be freed, so that people with enough $ don't simply rent the most desirable cark parks forever.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#295

Post by Telaneo »

carlosjobim wrote: post #293
Telaneo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what labour is being shifted onto me that I wasn't already doing here. I already had to bag my groceries and swipe my card. Scanning items can be done in a single motion while bagging, so the overhead is non-existent to me. Meanwhile, self-checkout removes a bottleneck in that there are now more places to check out, meaning I have to wait less and thus spend less time shopping. So all in all, no more lab…

Or you can go to a good supermarket with plenty of cashiers and no lines instead.

I'm yet to see one. There have always been lines at supermarkets, even when I was a kid.

It's hard to pick an alternative that doesn't exist.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#296

Post by GMoromisato »

nkrisc wrote: post #251
GMoromisato wrote: post #249

Replacing humans with automation is common in wealthy societies because the cost of labor is high. That's a good thing! I don't want to live in a place where labor is cheap. I'll either be paid poorly or there will be a great imbalance of wealth. The only real solution is to create better automation.

I’d rather live in a place where waitstaff are comfortably compensated for their labor. Automating it will just lead to one kind of misery after another. Where does it end? Why do we want to go there? We can choose not to.

Would you rather be a waiter in America or Brazil?

The average waiter in America makes $40K per year, compared to $9K per year for a Brazilian water (adjusted for PPP).

Brazil does not have any of the labor-saving tech that we're complaining about because they don't need it--labor is cheap.

Let's say a restaurant in America got rid of its tech and instead hired more waiters. Would each waiter get paid more or less? Obviously, each waiter would get paid less. The restaurant still makes the same amount of money, so the same amount of money is divided among more people. Mathematically, each waiter will make less money with less tech.

So if you really want waitstaff to be well-paid, you should want more automation, not less.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#297

Post by DangitBobby »

senordevnyc wrote: post #275
DangitBobby wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pattern recognition is now a loser mindset

Using this alleged “pattern recognition” as an excuse for learned helplessness, and justifying theft from other victims of these top 0.000001% (if you believe that) is absolutely a loser mindset, yes.

You're confused. Either the world is one way or it isn't. Simply deciding it isn't might make you feel like a Chad but it doesn't make you any less of a fucking idiot. I know you think you can will meritocracy and the glorious principles of Democracy into existence and that's really cute, I'm sure it helps you get through each day, but recognizing that it's cope doesn't make you a loser.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#298

Post by gblargg »

_jackdk_ wrote: post #290
gblargg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you spend more time checking out and more time being idle waiting for it.

Not in my experience, because the self-checkouts have to be designed for untrusted users instead of trusted employees. So I spend more time reacting to "please scan item" -> "place item in bagging area" -> "unexpected item in bagging area" -> wait for employee to notice that my checkout needs an override. Whereas a manned checkout lane gives me a proper belt to put my items on and someone who can usually operate a te…

Sorry, I was including time waiting in line at a cashier checkout. If there's no line, then it's faster if you've got a lot of items.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#299

Post by aragilar »

olsondv wrote: post #187
godelski wrote: post #52

To clarify, the Doorman Fallacy is about the Doorman doing more than their job actually seems. The Doorman isn't just a greeter, but they are checking that the right people are coming in, they are going to report issues that patrons pass onto them, they check that the UPS guy is actually from UPS, they're the first to notice damage to the property, they call the police if they see a crime happening in the area, and s…

Taking the restaurant ordering app, it’s certainly better than a server. Each individual picks what they want and pays for what they got on their own bill. It removes any chance of communication error between the customer and the kitchen. Appetizers to share easily split across who wanted them. No bill splitting discussions. OP just had to use a bad implementation.

In my experience, anywhere using an app/QR code is better served by me walking up to the counter and ordering.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#300

Post by nkrisc »

gcanyon wrote: post #200

I'll be the contrarian and take the opposing position: this story -- the doorman fallacy itself, ignores the obvious counter-narrative: - physical menus are hard to update - physical menus are often too simple, requiring asking the server questions they've answered a dozen times before already, hurting their efficiency, or they are book-sized and hard to navigate. - physical menus aren't cleaned between uses, so you'…

Most of these points are never a real issue. Don't be contrarian just for the point of being contrarian. Have real contrary issues.
Post reply on HN