It was a completely reasonable take and everyone understood what you meant.
Only on lemmy would someone try to paint an exploitative middleman like UberEats as a noble service for those unable to journey to the store.
There are actually services that do that and they don’t charge a 30% markup. That actually seems even more exploitative and you’d think the other commenter would be enraged at Uber.
Such is the price for a popular top-level comment. I suffer so that those who must always be the contrarian can satisfy their unrelenting urges. Today, it is my internet cross to bear.
I’m happy that you are physically able, that you have places within walking distance to pick the food up from, or if not that you own a vehicle and are not vision impaired or afflicted with some other ailment that would make driving impossible
The implication being that thankfully for UberEats people who aren’t physically able, don’t have places within walking distance, don’t own a vehicle, or are vision impaired or afflicted with some other ailment that makes driving impossible, they can get their food delivered.
UberEats is a cancer and honestly, everyone I’ve known who’s disabled or on a fixed income in some way couldn’t afford the insane markup.
That’s not at all what I implied or meant but thank you for assuming I’m the worst person ever for pushing back against someone being proud they can just get off their ass and pick up food.
Yes, Uber Eats is a cancer but I’ve known people to count down to the cents so their account won’t be overdrawn so that they can order one hot meal delivered. Yes I absolutely think it is in the monetization plans of all the delivery apps to take advantage of people in that situation, I was just trying to point out “get off your ass and pick it up” isn’t a viable option for everyone. Also, not everyone is the best at math or managing their money.
It was a completely reasonable take and everyone understood what you meant.
Only on lemmy would someone try to paint an exploitative middleman like UberEats as a noble service for those unable to journey to the store.
There are actually services that do that and they don’t charge a 30% markup. That actually seems even more exploitative and you’d think the other commenter would be enraged at Uber.
Such is the price for a popular top-level comment. I suffer so that those who must always be the contrarian can satisfy their unrelenting urges. Today, it is my internet cross to bear.
How exactly did I attempt to paint Uber Eats (who is absolutely an exploitative middleperson) as a “noble service?”
The implication being that thankfully for UberEats people who aren’t physically able, don’t have places within walking distance, don’t own a vehicle, or are vision impaired or afflicted with some other ailment that makes driving impossible, they can get their food delivered.
UberEats is a cancer and honestly, everyone I’ve known who’s disabled or on a fixed income in some way couldn’t afford the insane markup.
That’s not at all what I implied or meant but thank you for assuming I’m the worst person ever for pushing back against someone being proud they can just get off their ass and pick up food.
Yes, Uber Eats is a cancer but I’ve known people to count down to the cents so their account won’t be overdrawn so that they can order one hot meal delivered. Yes I absolutely think it is in the monetization plans of all the delivery apps to take advantage of people in that situation, I was just trying to point out “get off your ass and pick it up” isn’t a viable option for everyone. Also, not everyone is the best at math or managing their money.