It appears inexpensive because raising prices is the only visibility you have into what the restaurant is paying these services for their order flows (~10-30%).
Are you sure about that? I thought the restaurant does. On DoorDash's Help page (https://help.doordash.com/merchants/s/article/How-to-Maximiz...) There's a quote: "To provide a high-quality experience for all of our customers, we set prices on DoorDash the same as our in-store prices. DoorDash even enables operators to set different pricing for delivery and pickup, but a core part of us providing high-quality customer service is accomplished through our consistent menu pricing." - Manuel Bucio, Owner, Razpachos" That seems to indicate the restaurant sets the prices.
You really think Doordash sets individual prices for each dish for the half million restaurants that it lists on its service? It is a simple platform. The restaurant sets up and manages its own menu, and Doordash takes a cut of the final sale.
Based on the fact that other platforms like GrubHub hijacked Google Places registrations for restaurants and also presented menus of non-customer restaurants in the platform, yes, I would not be surprised at all if that type of shenanigans were going on at DoorDash as well.
I was also an early adopter (batch 2) I ended up buying a m2 macbook air to replace it because the thing overheated and down clocked to 200Mhz (yes megahertz, not gigahertz) constantly and it was unusable. It sits around unused, I can't even give it away to family because I don't want to hear complaints about it being unusable. I just don't trust framework to not have issues.
There is private (non ACA) insurance you can purchase without an open enrollment period in the states. However they get around it by being able to deny you coverage for preexisting conditions.
Tesla states a lot of things, like that their second generation 2020 roadster is going to be ready next year (tm). I wouldn't put a lot of faith in anything they say, all it takes is Musk changing his mind down the line and then anything goes.
I think they mean that those should also be banned, but this ban isn't about addictive technology, it's about China owning the addictive technology and being able to exert control over it if they wanted. I also am of the opinion that this addictive technology should be regulated, including domestic.
You don’t place any blame on the people that marketed and created that diet? Or the regulators who allowed that to happen? At a certain point people’s well being and health should come before a mega corporation’s profits. The whole world would be better off if unhealthy food was more strictly regulated. Children grow up not learning healthy eating habits that last into adult hood and some never learn them.
It may take another 10-20 years but I think this will eventually happen. I agree it’s criminal to permit marketing of this stuff. It took a very long time to get to this point with cigarettes but also realize that in other countries smoking is still a normal thing particularly Europe. Right now there is still a lot of money being made on producing super addictive junk food and therefore strong lobbying.
They publish there because they aren't allowed to publish their app on the app store, which is the whole point of the legislation that precipitated this.
Adding to this in Windows 2000 days WinRar had error correcting bits you could enable and make the compressed rar file bigger. I ended up only using that when I would save something to a floppy it was so unreliable.
