Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Greetings, bflaminio. Unfortunately, your post has been removed from /r/nottheonion because our rules do not allow:

• Content that doesn't have an oniony quality to it (rule #2). Your submission would be better suited for another subreddit. Just because you think the title is funny or ironic, that doesn't mean the article is right for /r/nottheonion.

"Oniony" means a story legitimately seems more like satire than news at the time of posting. Not just a funny title, and not something that's weird but not a rare sort of thing. Many submissions here are more appropriate for /r/Offbeat, /r/WTFNews, /r/FloridaMan, /r/WeirdNews, /r/NewsOfTheWeird, /r/NewsOfTheStupid, /r/Funny_News, /r/WholesomeNews, /r/EverythingScience, /r/Morbidreality, a ragebait sub, or a political sub. It may also be /r/NoShitSherlock or clickbait that belongs in /r/SavedYouAClick. We don't mod those other subs so check their rules, but your post may belong in one of more of them.

For a full list of our submission rules, please visit our wiki page.

If you're new to /r/nottheonion, you can check out NTO101: An Introduction to /r/NotTheOnion for more information on our rules and answers to frequently asked questions.

This decision was made by human mods; the bot just does our dirty work. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the post you wish to discuss, it doesn't autofill from here.

not super oniony but a good read

Remind me to not take your DDs. You can't even research to see this is a multi-repost.

I am a bot. Is this submission violating the content guide? Vote below.

| Remove It | Keep It | |--------|:-------|-------:|:------:| | Click to Vote | Click to Vote|

Click Here to Change Inaccurate Post Flair

^comment ^will ^disappear ^--- ^2 ^shitposts ^removed ^since ^last ^crash ^--- ^information ^--- ^leaderboard ^--- ^REWARDS

This was all very fascinating to read until you get to Note 1 at the end and realize there’s at least a reasonable(ish) explanation for all of this.

Mitch Hedberg Is up there smiling "I think Pizza Hut is the cockiest pizza chain on the planet because Pizza Hut will accept all competitors' coupons. That makes me wish I had my 1own pizza place: Mitch's Pizzeria -- this week's coupon: unlimited free pizza."

I think that this is reflective of the way a lot of dot coms have been groomed. Take Doordash. I imagine that the folks that started the company were trying to do something innovative and make some money. They get venture capital to pony up a few suitcases full of cash. The company ownership is still trying to start a company to do some good stuff, and make some money.

On the make money side they have a plan that includes their exit plan. Something that is emphasized in all the start up literature: how do you get your business up and running, and then exit with a bunch of cash.

The exit plan seems (to me at least) to pretty much involve a public stock release and sell the ownership stake in the business. Venture gets its money, and then some back. Owners make a pile. Investors get to buy in to the successful business that has not made any profit yet but, by golly, you damn well know it will.

At the end of the day venture capital has succeeded in getting the public - the investing public - to assume all of the losses for this business. The investing public including those big pension type funds that are run by smart(ish...) folks but who are not experts on Doordash's financials. The regular public folks who see an opportunity to get in on one of those damn Silicone Valley IPOs that only the rich get a chance at. Etc.

Bottom line, if you are a venture capitalist, Doordash losing money hand over fist for a few years does not matter to you. Your exit, including a damn good return on investment, is wrapped up in the IPO. You are counting on the ability to off load loss on the larger public.

I am not even sure I could attribute all of this to malice. Could just be that current venture investment strategies evolved to rely on giving it to the public in the fourth point of contact and there is not any real examination of what is happening or how.

Malice or not, the point remains that Doordash, as a corporate entity, apparently does not care about losing money. Which means that losing money does not matter to their eventual bottom line. Sure, it reams the employees, and a bunch of restaurants and customers. But that is irrelevant when you are the venture capitalist and nobody has any idea who you are or what you do.

repost

I am a bot. Is this submission violating the content guide? Vote below.

| Remove It | Keep It | |--------|:-------|-------:|:------:| | Click to Vote | Click to Vote|

Click Here to Change Inaccurate Post Flair

^comment ^will ^disappear ^--- ^42 ^shitposts ^removed ^this ^session ^--- ^information ^--- ^leaderboard ^--- ^REWARDS

LOT: Don’t use Doordash/Don’t work for Doordash.

I'm getting tired of all these paid services. You can't even go to the god damn grocery store without running into a multi layer cart completely getting in your way and blocking shelves. I fucking hate it....

They should just have doordash deliver all of their takeout orders to the store before handing them to the customer. They make the pizza. A doordash driver shows up. Driver grabs the pizza and immediately hands it back, then they resell the pizza again to the customer. Now the customer is paying $24, but the store is getting paid $32. Super extra bonus points if the owner signs up as a doordash driver so he's getting paid for that as well.

Interesting article.

I only order for pickup and I only order from the phone number on the restaurant’s website.

I’ll pay for my own gas to go get my food thank you!

Door dash, Uber Eats and others will not get any of my money.

Okay I'm normally good at math and logic, but somehow this story making my brain misfire. Can someone help me work this obe out please.

Is this a metaphor to USA pumping infinite money to buy 16$ bond for 24$ or really just doordash doing donkey stuff.

This is kinda how stock buy backs work. LoL

Seems like the margin on the pizza is pretty healthy (at least 16 bucks) if they can spend an additional 16 dollars on top of making the pizza and still be profitable...

sounds kinda like what richard hendricks did to Slice in Silicon Valley

All those commercials from Grubhub about "protecting restaurants so they'll be there when this is all over" make me sick

I had no idea these apps were so harmful to restaurants they supposedly boost the sales of

Really interesting read - thanks for sharing.

So long as interest rates are low, wealth inequality is rampant, and workers have no hopes of any government protection, this shit will continue.

Everyone should be morally obliged to exploit the VC wealth as much as possible in order to force a correction.

I've worked a few places where these services foist themselves upon restaurateurs. Fuck these companies and I hope they are all bankrupt and gone in ten years' time.

Cant it be considered fraud if people are expecting to order from a Pizza Shop A and getting pizza from Pizza Shop B?

Wouldn’t you just order them for delivery to your shop so you could return them and reorder them? You could do it with Grubhub guy present. He’d love it.

Rien de plus beau que de l'arbitrage en finance...

Mais oui, un bon coup d'antitrust et de réglementation contre la vente à perte ferait du bien à ces industries.