Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mosura's commentslogin

Went for dinner with a Parisian friend of mine. He spent a good amount of it complaining that Paris is unrecognizable from his youth. Too many Americans, everywhere!

I never knew "Parisian" was how to refer to "one from Paris"

Learn something new every day.

To be clear, I just didn't think anyone would refer to someone from Paris specifically (rather than, "French").

I mean, a lot of places you would add "-ite" but I'm guessing that would be a less-than-ideal suffix for this particular city lol


As someone who knows a lot of New Yorkers and Texans, it's definitely curious that people would refer to themselves as from a city versus from the country itself.

Yikes. There are lot of black people in Paris, but they're not necessarily American. In fact, most of them are from African French colonies.

WTF? How do you get from Americans to black people?

I think this is what they meant by "Paris is unrecognizable from his youth".

Try reading what it says and not what you imagine it to say.

There is a trend here of people imagining what you say and then criticizing you for it.

Sounds like they just put them in the wrong places.

> Fenyo added that Kroger’s decision to locate the Ocado centers outside of cities turned out to be a key flaw.

> “Ultimately those were hard places to make this model work,” said Fenyo. “You didn’t have enough people ordering, and you had a fair amount of distance to drive to get the orders to them. And so ultimately, these large centers were just not processing enough orders to pay for all that technology investment you had to make.”


But I think in the cities Kroger grocery stores serve as the fulfilment centers, so they don't need robotic ones.

There's probably still room for automation, but it might have to be different than warehouse automation.


It depends on your business model.

If a basket of groceries brought online costs $15 more than the in-store prices, then you can pick in-store profitably, very easy. That's the instacart model.

But if a basket of groceries brought online costs about the same as buying in-store? With the retailer bearing the costs of picking, packing and delivery instead of the customer?

Well then you need something more efficient than a store.


Even $15 more isn’t enough on account of delivery time, transpo costs, driver time, picking items, and bagging. Current model is for drivers to subsidize by being tricked into taking unprofitable orders.

If Kroger operates the same was as Ocado does in the UK, then the drivers are paid by the hour, with the company providing the van and fuel.

Agree a lot of modern delivery businesses involve "self-employed" drivers getting paid a pittance and using their own vehicle and fuel, though.


From what I've seen, for grocery the model is they'll give you the least desirable or near expired stock that the walk-in customers won't grab. So they're basically saving spoilage. This happens so reliably I'm absolutely convinced this is how they 'pay' for it without raising prices.

I've also noticed this with hardware stores like Lowes. If I place a pickup order they more often than not will pawn off on me their broken, returned, or even used and damaged stock. Items like building wrap will have soil and rips on it, concrete mix will be spoiled from moisture, lumber will be all the most warped pieces (if you don't order a whole pallet, expect every last piece of fractional pallet will be knotted to hell, split, twisted, and badly warped), plumbing valves will be open package and leaky, etc etc. It's like clockwork, even if the stock sitting on the shelf doesn't have these problems. Due to this there are some stores I will never do a pickup/delivery order from.


Here in the UK it's common for online grocery sites to say "fresh for at least X days" on every item, so bread will usually say 5 days, eggs 7 days etc etc. Doesn't matter if I select collection(so someone is picking those items for me at the store) or delivery(so they come from a larger warehouse). They stick to that promise.

An example of my experiences: you’ll get the apple with the bruise and maybe some damage instead of the nice one you’d pick out if you’re shopping for yourself.

That's my experience, too. Also the dented tin and the miniature mango. And, if the order is arriving at 10pm, the salad best before midnight.

A counter-example - with a weekly shopping list way too long (family of 4), its hard for the husband to pick up all items as fresh as possible and do all necessary checks on each of them. Or in other words - even people themselves do make same mistake, I certainly do.

People will forgive themselves for saving money, but will not forgive others at the delivery service for charging extra.

There is no delivery service that's cheaper and good enough, or dirt cheap and expected to be awful, but those are large profitable retail operations. The only sector offered is more expensive, which annoys people if they occasionally get a below average item while also paying a lot more.

Delivery is for people who buy tenderloin not ground chuck and they get MAD when their tenderloin isn't perfect.


And how about charging more in store than online?

On two separate occasions, I stopped by Walmart recently and spent $0.50 extra and $1.50 extra by walking in, going to the aisle, and picking up the item myself.

The Walmart app even tells you that the price on the app is only for online orders. But I didn’t want to wait for an unknown amount of time for a Walmart employee to bring it out to my car (been more than 10 to 15min a few times).

So basically, I pay extra to avoid that volatility in time to run that errand, and I do more work for it.


Yep. Wal-Mart has been that way for years now.

I rarely shop at Wal-Mart. There's only a few things that I buy there.

One of those things is motor oil: Their online pricing for 5 quarts of full-synthetic whatever is usually impossible to beat.

The only catch is that you have to go to the store, park outside, and wait for someone to bring it out. Going inside the store to buy it in person often costs several dollars more (and those dollars count towards the next cheeseburger).

It seems completely asinine for it to be this way, and I feel completely silly waiting outside for someone to bring me a single jug of motor oil and hand it to me through my car window, but it's very clear that they don't want me in the store.

And I'm cheap. So I play their game and let them do it for me.

(It's usually very fast for me, so there's that.)


I'm not sure they want us in the store anymore.

And I'm glad to stay outside.


And how about charging more in store than online?

I find your Wal-Mart anecdote interesting, because the chain supermarket that I use is the exact opposite.

I buy the same items from the same store every two weeks (then supplement at neighborhood stores). Sometimes I shop in-store, and sometimes I get delivery. But the two-week shopping list is so unchanging that I even use the shopping list on the delivery web site when I'm walking through the aisles.

Because of this, I notice that the supermarket charges more for products being delivered than those retrieved in-store. Sometimes it's enough that I'll text my wife a picture of the price tag in the store, followed by a screenshot from the store's delivery web site.

Recently from memory, a 12-pack of ginger ale was about $3 more for delivery than in the store. But I'd say overall, probably 80% of the items I buy regularly are cheaper in the store.

These days, I only get things delivered if I have other significant obligations that warrant paying a 10% delivery markup, plus the delivery fee, plus a tip.

I think the price discrepancy between in-store and delivery is the reason that so many supermarkets I've been to recently (and also Macy's) have zero cell phone service under their roofs.


Using a retail store for fulfillment means orders are accepted for items that are out of stock. the ordering system doesn't have reliable inventory info. Then the customer gets a partial shipment. This is the curse of Safeway grocery ordering.

Kroger placed one of the sites in Orlando to also service Tampa and Jacksonville when they have 0 regular stores in the entire state. They were trying to use it to expand into the area, but I never saw very much in terms of advertising or promotions to drive demand but it could have also been that the robots were so bad that they couldn't attempt to market and push volume.

I lived in Jacksonville for most of my life, and near the end of my tenure I started noticing the Kroger trucks. They were coming all the way from Orlando? That's like a two hour drive for cold groceries, feels expensive.

(i do recall the chatter that this was their way to compete with publix, although I don't know anyone who actually used it.)


I idly wonder if what would actually make sense here is a hybrid model that combines a gigantic fulfillment center with tens of thousands of products located "far" from people, with a large physical footprint and near to road/rail arteries, but with a mid-bandwidth, high-granularity, low-latency physical link to "near" places.

For example, imagine you had an upscaled pneumatic tube system (don't get hung up on the exact implementation, it could be a small gauge train system or conveyer belt: whatever floats your Factorio-addled boat) with a diameter around, say, half a metre to a metre, packed goods into canisters and shot into town where they pop out at local distribution centres for pickup or last-mile delivery.

This is where I thought the Boring Company might be going back before it was obvious it was an anti-public transit gambit.

Possibly the curse of rail systems applies where the maintenance of the track (tube) costs so much that it's cheaper to fly (done delivery) or drive all the way on public roads (current solution). The advantage over rail is that the land footprint is very small: the tract is about a metre wide and can be buried if needed. Perhaps it's just not really different enough to trucking it all into town using semi trailers, which would still be required for large items and especially construction materials.

Then again, even if this hare-brained system were to work, this assumes we actually want to continue to reduce most human commercial interactions to gigantic, remote, anonymous capital-intensive megasystems producing pods that pop out of the ground into robotic vending stations.


This is pretty much exactly what Ocado already do, at least in the UK.

They have 4 CFCs and 15-20 "spokes".


Buried anything is just horrendously expensive. Partly because of other things that are already buried.

Sure, but "we're going to cut the costs of horizontal drilling to a tiny fraction" was the Boring Company's original stated goal. And not all of it does need to be underground.

Even if it was a good idea (which I doubt, it's just a idle thought), I don't think there's a practical way to retrofit such a system in existing cities due to the costs, planning and presumably private funding for a non-public network, because the public road system exists, needs to continue to exist for large items and can be used for virtually free in comparison. So if/when the depot-to-neighbourhood leg is automated, it's much more likely we'll see drone vehicles on the road or occasionally in the air instead of dedicated pipeline-like delivery systems.

Even without the pipeline, you can conceive of self-diving heavy vehicles pulling up next to local delivery hubs and disgorging thousands of shipping pods into a robotic receiver. From there they either get picked up, droned, Starship'ed, cycled, whatever to the eventual front door. It's still possible just having then self-drive right to the door would turn out cheaper.

Sounds very sterile as an experience, but really it's only an optimisation of the small, but highly distributed, remaining segment of inefficiency in the existing global machine that already converts raw materials to a widget or food and gets it to within 100 miles of your house.


> Sure, but "we're going to cut the costs of horizontal drilling to a tiny fraction" was the Boring Company's original stated goal.

Sounds like the sort of idea a con man would pitch. Oh wait...


To be fair, he did do that for kilos to orbit via reusable rocket, so there was a moment when everyone went "hmm maybe there is a TBM equivalent of the Falcon 9".

But presumably it turned out that actually Herrenknecht and Hitachi aren't stupid, whereas, say, Boeing had been leaving opportunity for radical cost reduction on the table.


There existed a well known path for reducing costs to orbit, and the market was non-competitive and highly non-optimized for decades. One single company made a single experiment in that path, and it was somewhere on the middle between success and failure.

That's not the case for drilling. The Boring Company has no clear proposition about how they would reduce their costs.


They literally went too far…

Yeah, because arguably the main advantage of Ocado's warehouse is that it's extremely dense: you can pack a lot of storage in a very small area and still access it reasonably efficiently. But this only matters if space is at a premium, like near towns and cities (and for low-margin deliveries, you want your drivers to not have to go very far to your customers).

“Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway”

In the AI analogy, never underestimate the productivity of a human when dealing with a giant pile of groceries. You can throw all the AI and robots you can at something but sometimes a $20 an hour human picking from stacks of goods and produce simply destroys it in raw economics


That’s not really what the article implies, at all.

The reality is DTP outside of pro sectors (i.e. these days InDesign) was rendered worthless by how ubiquitous the tooling was.

In any sector where the barriers to entry are destroyed you either have to go really big or go home.


A lot of this seems to be related to death of the amateur and semi-pro DTP industries:

1. Printers stopped catering to semi-pros and became more binary between "home" and "enterprise" solutions, with very little crossover and with "home" products trying to be as "good enough" dumb as possible (and also in many cases nearly as hostile to semi-pro usage as possible because so many "home" printers became loss leaders for ink cartridge subscriptions).

2. A lot of DTP moved to web publishing. Who needs printed invites when you have "evites"? Who needs printed greeting cards when you have "ecards" and now Facebook walls and group messaging stickers/gifs/memes? Etc.

I have fond memories of the home DTP creative scene in the 1990s. Partly because my mother was deep into it and very creative with it. It is interesting how much has changed between that era (when Publisher was one of several nearly ubiquitous home tools alongside Print Shop) to today (where Print Shop is a dead brand for many years and Publisher has been zombie-like or comatose in the same span, and now scheduled for death).


Aww yeah Print Shop! Dot Matrix cards ftw!

No-one will pay for it, but the presence of Publisher, as a tool that people know and use, in the Office Suite, would probably be a substantial feature for many people.

And for publisher there probably isn’t the same network effect as for Word/Excel/Powerpoint.

> And for publisher there probably isn’t the same network effect as for Word/Excel/Powerpoint.

There isn't because any serious print shop will laugh you out the door if you come to them with a Publisher file.

Publisher is fine for home/office printing, and you will probably get away with it at your local corner shop that does digital printing on a Xerox box in the back of the shop.

But if you're sending stuff off to the big-boys you will suddenly find yourself needing to adhere to artwork preflight settings, colour profiles, PDF and TAC specs.

Not only will the printer give you validation settings files you can load into Acrobat and Indesign, but if there are issues, the printer's preflight team will be more willing (and able !) to help you if you are using industry-standard tools.


> There isn't because any serious print shop will laugh you out the door if you come to them with a Publisher file.

You say this like customers don't show up with a PowerPoint file.


I'm pretty sure they not only show up with a PowerPoint file, but one with missing/nonembedded fonts, web images, perhaps even a video in there somewhere. At least that's been my experience with people sending me stuff to print.

When I did IT work for my university, I was in charge of a big plotter printer that the science students used to print posters with summaries of their research for conferences. The only format I ever got was PowerPoint. Based on the number of search results for "powerpoint research poster template", it looks like this PowerPoint is still the format of choice.

I never really thought about it, but it is kind of odd that the same community that loves using LaTeX for document formatting and typesetting research papers is also using PowerPoint as a desktop publishing substitute.


Which is funny because here in Seattle there is starting to be a resurgence of DTP to some degree. But it's very underground and, being already in a tech hub, likely very niche from a macroeconomics viewpoint.

Sorry but what does this mean? I can't quite parse it. What tooling was ubiquitous?

They probably meant Publisher, which was a part of every more expensive MS Office deal. It was simple to use and much more suitable than Word for simple design jobs (business cards, leaflets, stationary, etc) and with which the "average" MS Office user could now do what was once the domain of DTP "professionals".

I did not mean this.

So please tell us what you did mean.

I am perfectly happy with the original statement.

Taken literally, your statement said that [non-pro] DTP died because it had good tooling. I don't know what tooling for DTP is, but it seems unlikely so good that it would kill the software it supports, so your comment seems like nonsense. Why bother posting it if you're perfectly happy with that?

The real truth is more boring: DTP didn't die at all, it just merged as a category of software with word processors because computers got powerful enough to run programs with a union of their features. Whether the programs in this new combined category got called one thing or the other mainly depended on their history: Word and InDesign today have a lot more in common with each other than either does with programs from the early 1990s that are nominally in their respective categories. Whatever you were saying, it didn't seem to be that, so it was wrong anyway! But I asked nicely because I was curious if there was some substance there.


No, we don’t mind. Go ahead.

Yeah these days if it isn’t ops to bring in revenue it is seen as cost.

The most obvious thing would be Intel making security processor modules. Get the supply chain for those onshore, from the US point of view.

Doesn’t require the absolute latest processes.


I think this is a very astute comment.

It reminded me that for a while all SIM everywhere seemed to come from one european chip plant, although now I say it I wonder if they were just the assembly & packaging and fabrication was offshore?

In both cases (tpm and sim) the cynic would say it's only deciding which economy owns the back-door.


It was Gemplus. The backstory about how CIA and NSA got control over it is fascinating.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemalto#Gemplus>



You are probably referring to NXP (formerly Philips) and Infineon (formerly Siemens), both of which have produced crypto processors, smartcards (including SIMs) and other secure elements for a really long time. Infineon is/was actually a really common supplier for the little 20-pin TPM/LPC modules.

Yes i think you're right. The nexus of sim, smart card and tpm seems strong. I e used thales and Luna (now also thales) HSM which are in hypothesis glamorous, but ultimately remarkably pedestrian secure devices. I wonder if they include logic from these companies. Supply chain behind FIPS120 class stuff would be an interesting story.

What, in your mind, is a "security processor module"? As far as I'm aware, there is no such entity in Apple systems; security functionality is on the same die as the CPU/GPU. (Which is a good thing; it means that communications between the CPU and that security processor cannot easily be intercepted or interfered with.)

There is a "secure element" which contains eSIM and NFC and is a separate chip. I believe NXP makes them but don't know. But there's plenty of other chips like power management.

I always heard of the T2 chip.

T2 is no longer a thing since the Apple Silicon chips. Apple moved their support chips into the main SoC.

Those were binned Apple A series chips.

They used some of parts of it like the secure enclave, SSD controller, biometrics and hardware disk encryption.

Now days, those components are all already built into the M series chips.


Those don't exist in ARM Macs.

If TSMC is compromised, getting the security processor made in the US won't help.

The CPU enforces the security boundary between web pages, apps, the OS, the hypervisor and so on. If you control that, you control everything.


Apple has more than enough resources to sample check chip deliveries for being manipulated.

And scientists.

For some reason european science was full of old school Mac users.


Much of the early part of the Human Genome Project was done using gel based DNA sequencing machines that were controlled by Classic Macs.

The rest of our shop was Solaris on SPARC/x86 and we had our own custom tool chain that crunched the data, but the sequencer itself was run by a Mac.

From 1999 or so forward the next generation of machines were Windows.


> Truth be told, I do have a suspicion that some folks (possibly - some folks close to Avie or other former NeXT seniors post-acquisition) have noticed that with dynamic loading, hard drive speed, and ubiquitous dynamic dispatch of ObjC OSX would just be extremely, extremely slow. So they probably conjured a scheme to show fancy animations to people and wooing everyone with visual effects to conceal that a bit. Looney town theory, I know, but I do wonder. Rhapsody was also perceptually very slow, and probably not for animations.

Done exactly this myself to conceal ugly inconsistent lags - I don’t think it is that uncommon an idea.


From what I have heard of how much Airbus pay people . . “Much” is the wrong word.

Is some major new solar activity imminently expected that explains the urgency?

This is the “Microsoft will dominate the Internet” stage.

The truth is the LLM boom has opened the first major crack in Google as the front page of the web (the biggest since Facebook), in the same way the web in the long run made Windows so irrelevant Microsoft seemingly don’t care about it at all.


Exactly, ChatGPT pretty much ate away ad volume & retention if th already garbage search results weren't enough. Don't even get me started on Android & Android TV as an ecosystem.

That's not the story that GOOGs quarterly earning reports tell(ad revenue up 12% YoY)

most likely because they got more aggressive with campaign against adblock in chrome and more ads in youtube.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: