Of course they do. The cost of the ingredients is on the order of cents, the marginal cost of labor negligible, and the cost of the machines can be amortized over many thousands of servings.
But even if they didn't, it's a cheap way to get people to show up and potentially order other, higher margin items. If your machine is broken, you lose that funnel and your customers go elsewhere.
You don’t lose many customers - because they’re not required to light a huge “ice cream machine broke” before you get in the drive thru. And once you’re in line and ordering you’re unlikely to cancel just because the machine broke.
I’ve even had the app be wrong and let you order an ice cream when it doesn’t exist - then they lose money giving you a more expensive substitute.
We have 1 location in my area. I go maybe once a month hoping for a decent experience, but every single time they are out of key ingredients (no chicken, no beans, no chips, etc).
I really don’t understand how that can even happen at Chipotle where the entire menu consists of a grand total of (maybe) 10-15 core ingredients?
I would go way more often if they simply weren’t out or ingredients 90% of the time I go.
But he’s right about not canceling the order. I think last chipotle visit I subbed black beans for pinto, and tofu instead of chicken. The “sorry no chips today” was icing on the cake at checkout.
That’s interesting. I’ve gone to chipotle around once or twice a month for two decades now, and with the exception of their lemonades I’ve only had something unavailable maybe 3-4 times. Regional variation I guess.
Check out r/chipotle - maybe it’s an echo chamber there but it’s a major problem with mobile orders where you don't have an opportunity to sub an ingredient that’s out of stock. Depending on the store, chipotle mobile orders are a “fun” gamble - chipotle needs to fix quality standards across stores at least in my region!
Chipotle is one of the very few businesses I have ever left a google review for because the complaint seems extremely simple to fix. Just stock your store and hire enough people to prep the food!
True - it every time I’ve considered ice cream as an important part of the meal I’ve already disqualified McDonald’s (Dairy Queen or Culver’s is a step above).
Not only do I work less in the office - the quality of the work I produce is lower. I'm more stressed out about things that I no longer have the time for because I'm wasting time commuting to work when I could be taking care of chores and errands or myself.
If I ever have to waste 5 more minutes over water cooler chat about what someone did the last weekend I'm putting in my 2 weeks notice. I don't go to work to socialize and as far as I can tell that is the real reason people want to RTO. They quite literally don't know how to socialize outside of work and bugging their coworkers so want everyone to RTO so they have people to chat with who have no choice but to pretend to be listening and be courteous with them.
I actually have no idea if I would work better at the office. I work quite well at home, and it's certainly possible to slack at the office. Nobody is behind your back and there are distractions there too.
I would benefit for more interactions with my colleagues, that's certain. And I think I would have a better separation between work and life if I was working from the office.
Google has this problem in its search suggestions. They update with some delay, and humans also have a significant delay in how quickly they can react to a changing stimulus. So I tap on the wrong search suggestion. One problem is that they aren't satisfying monotonicity: the suggestion can change unexpectedly even if further inputs keep exactly matching the old suggestion.
I totally agree, in principle! But I also remember what Seattle buses were like when we still had the ride-free zone: people would just ride the bus back and forth across the zone all night, to have somewhere to sleep. To a point, making buses free makes them more accessible as transportation; but then, literal free-riders make them less accessible as transportation. I don't know what the solution is.
In King County, buses lost -a lot- of riders when COVID appeared. And that ridership hasn't rebounded yet. At non-peak times, it's maybe 1/3. (And that's at 15 minute intervals ... a -lot less- frequent that New Yorkers expect [Youtube] ). So yeah, a high tolerance for freeriders should prevail below 1/2 loads.
Also there a lot of new drivers these days ... there's more than enough for them to learn and watch ... policing should be low priority. Kids (IIRC) are free-riding anyway.
The article is extremely shallow beyond saying "Formal verification a la SPARK" should have been used, while not offering how this could actually work in the real world - I don't think the author has any experience working on any similar piece of software either.
While such techniques are available, would they be really applicable in a very dynamic environment such as with millions of PCs running various windows versions, needing continuous / real-time updates.
And yes, we of course know that QA and testing magically removes all possible failure modes/bugs.
> While such techniques are available, would they be really applicable in a very dynamic environment such as with millions of PCs running various windows versions, needing continuous / real-time updates.
I don't see much difference in complexity between the affected software and the several existing formally verified software. At the very least the parser/interpreter could very much be formally verified.
But my point is, have they tried? They don't seem to be even aware of such.
The industry doesn't want to pay what it costs to support the type of SDETs capable of doing QA on kernel drivers. Anyone that talented is going to do the math and switch to being a developer for a much bigger paycheck instead.