Comments

  • By ggm 2025-07-066:0916 reply

    For some people, paying the premium to jump the queue is the point. What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again. This is mostly Australian frequent flyers, when it was a high barrier to entry it conferred advantages and now Fly in Fly out work has commoditised club status, there is next to no boarding advantage, and no points flight availability.

    So yes. Status seeking, and differential price seeking probably is a-social as a pattern when it's weaponised against the consumer.

    That said, I hated Uber, they actually offered to underwrite people breaking the law to get foot in the door (how that didn't get them excluded as a corporate scofflaw is beyond me) and they continue to export all the profits offshore, but taxi services had become shit and now we have got used to Uber and I just don't worry about surge pricing. I got boiled slowly.

    My fellow Australians all feel a bit shit about the introduction of tipping in paywave and food service. That's unaustralian. We have legally enforced minimum wages and penalty rates. Turn that feature off.

    The European push to mandate included luggage in flight is seeing a fair bit of trolling. So there are still true believers who think needing clean underwear is weak.

    • By rr808 2025-07-0611:568 reply

      > My fellow Australians all feel a bit shit about the introduction of tipping in paywave and food service. That's unaustralian. We have legally enforced minimum wages and penalty rates. Turn that feature off.

      I think non-Americans need to take a stand against this. Refuse all tipping. Its a slippery slope - I know these guys are underpaid but if you start tipping the wages will just drop and we're all worse off.

    • By cainxinth 2025-07-0613:034 reply

      Uber and Lyft are expensive but anyone who says they are worse than what they replaced doesn’t remember well the heydays of taxis. Sure, people in big towns like NYC could always get one fairly easily, but everyone else was stuck dealing with whatever potentially shady operation they could dig out of a phonebook, and even then getting a car wasn’t guaranteed.

      Now, anyone anywhere can get a ride, often quickly. I’m not trying to excuse any predatory commercial practices directed at drivers or passengers, which are serious problems deserving of more strict regulation, but I absolutely do not want to go back to the old way.

    • By anonzzzies 2025-07-066:258 reply

      > there is next to no boarding advantage

      Especially on the discounters here in EU (especially Ryanair / Easyjet), i'm the only one in the non-priority queue, everyone else is in the priority queue. This used to of course not be the case; you paid extra and was in first. Now i'm usually in before 2/3th of the prio queue. Which is just weird.

      > about surge pricing. I got boiled slowly.

      Not sure how it is in the US (I used uber there on vacation in the past, but on vacation, I don't worry about prices too much), but here prices jump heavily during surge; often from 40->50->38 euros in a few minutes; I'll just keep an eye on the app for a few minutes and pick it at a good point. Taxis are almost always twice or sometimes (airport) 3x the price. I never take them as they are also often rude and I cannot rate them (these two are related). The last one I took was 3 weeks ago; I was 10 minute drive to the airport from some horrible 'business hotel' and I had an early flight, so I checked out, ordered an uber at 5am and waited; in front of me stopped a 'real' taxi (both are now legal and need licenses, but Taxi have Taxi on top); the driver got out to welcome his client which was not me but obviously he thought I was. We talked for a bit waiting for his real client and then he asked how much uber was; E15 I showed him. He said; cancel it and give me E15. Ok, so I got in front, the other client in the back. We arrived, and while waiting to park up, he shoved a terminal in my face with E15 on it, so I paid. We got out, he got the luggage from the other guy who asked 'how much is it'; E72,-. Cheers bro; made almost E90 for a 10 minute trip.

      Point being; hating uber (and I used to refuse to use them) is making your life very hard for very little benefit. The taxis needed a kick up the arse and they still didn't learn anything. Still need to order far upfront, their app sucks and far more expensive. Not sure how they can exist (of course I do, they don't know uber exists, how to use it or they refuse to use it). I find if you are with 2+ people, they are often cheaper than the trains which is quite mental really in a country where 'people should take the train if they can'.

    • By cortesoft 2025-07-068:035 reply

      > What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again

      Wouldn't the market purist argue that this just means the good is mispriced, and tickets should actually be what the price is with the premium added? What you really need is to just raise the prices of the tickets and the price to jump the queue?

    • By surgical_fire 2025-07-0610:142 reply

      > For some people, paying the premium to jump the queue is the point. What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again

      There's a freedom that comes with not caring and just accepting I am last in the line. I don't pay the premium and I can sit and relax in the lobby while the sheep that paid wait in line. Only when the queue is nearly depleted it is my turn.

    • By taneq 2025-07-068:541 reply

      > now Fly in Fly out work has commoditised club status, there is next to no boarding advantage

      Why would you want to be on the plane earlier than necessary? Only thing I can think of is better access to the overhead lockers, which fill up fast these days.

    • By martin-t 2025-07-0613:47

      I wonder why you called it asocial.

      Asocial people are great because they lack exactly this kind of status seeking and don't feel the need to engage in zero-sum social games. They just do what they like, which often is something actually productive or fun.

      This behavior is anti-social. It actively harms everyone else except the person (or group) doing it.

    • By ikr678 2025-07-0612:25

      Australian FF points programs ceased being about flights long ago, now they are a complex web of data harvesting and cross promotion. Why are our airlines offering homeloans, health insurance and retirement investment funds?

    • By Neil44 2025-07-068:44

      If you wanted to be generous you could say it the other way around, moving some features to premium allows people who value time and money differently to still get the bulk of the value they want out of the proposition. I don't for one minute think that's the actual conversation had in HQ but it's still valid I guess.

    • By carlosjobim 2025-07-0612:41

      > What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium

      That's simply discovering the true price of a product. We're living in a mega-inflationary period, but most people won't accept that a dollar or a euro is actually worth no more than 30 cents. So sellers are putting things which used to be included at a premium price. If people pay, then that is the price.

      It's highly annoying as a customer, but the general public won't accept that product and services they pay for cost double than they used to. At the same time the general public demands that their real estate and stock investments should be valued at triple or quadruple than what they used to.

    • By m463 2025-07-074:53

      > when everyone has wound up paying the premium

      just scale premiums in cost and number...

    • By CrulesAll 2025-07-069:24

      "how that didn't get them excluded as a corporate scofflaw is beyond me)" The essence to breaking crony capitalism. No prosecution. No change. Fines do not work. For a start, it's the shareholder that pays. Prosecute the executives with more than just a wag of the finger, and it changes behaviour.

    • By mikewarot 2025-07-0614:29

      I thought the name of Uber was all you needed to know, what kind of company names themselves after "Deutschland über alles", or Übermensch? The smug superiority was all the clue I needed.

    • By varelse 2025-07-069:11

      [dead]

    • By protocolture 2025-07-067:342 reply

      >My fellow Australians all feel a bit shit about the introduction of tipping in paywave and food service. That's unaustralian. We have legally enforced minimum wages and penalty rates. Turn that feature off.

      Eh I wouldnt speak for all of us. I like having the ability to reward contractors with some extra cash for a job well done. The issue is structurally relying on it.

      Shit, when I was 14 or so I worked as a baggage handler. And I will never forget the time we took on an overflow job from an american cruise liner at circular quay. Not only was I getting 20 bucks an hour (decent pay at the time), but I took home an extra 1100 or so completely tax free. Nothing as australian as cash in hand.

      >That said, I hated Uber, they actually offered to underwrite people breaking the law to get foot in the door

      Its always moral to break unjust laws. The taxi monopolies needed to be broken. Having those laws challenged thanks to the donation of US VC money was just a bonus.

      Actually theres still work to be done. Sydney CBD is still extremely hostile to rideshare.

    • By throw393949 2025-07-066:542 reply

      > who think needing clean underwear is weak.

      Washing clothes was discovered several thousands years ago.

      And boarding plane is much faster. I really do not want to pay for your luggage!

  • By afiodorov 2025-07-066:395 reply

    We should not underestimate the timeless human response to being manipulated: disengagement.

    This isn't theoretical, it's happening right now. The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people, the shift from public feeds to private DMs, and the "Do Not Disturb" generation are all symptoms of the same thing. People are feeling the manipulation and are choosing to opt out, one notification at a time.

    • By alganet 2025-07-067:157 reply

      > disengagement.

      That disengagement metric is valuable, I'm not gonna give it away for free anymore. I'll engage and disengage randomly, so no one knows what works.

      > The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people

      That's a market now. It doesn't mean shit. It's a "lifestyle".

      > People are feeling the manipulation

      They don't. Even manipulation awareness is a market now. I'm sure there are YouTubers who thrive on it.

      ---

      How far can you game a profiling algorithm? Can you make it think something about you that you're not? How much can one break it?

      Those are the interesting questions.

    • By praptak 2025-07-068:063 reply

      You cannot disengage from capitalism. The tricks you describe are perhaps useful to not be the slowest antelope in the herd but that doesn't mean you are fully free from being exploited.

    • By genewitch 2025-07-0610:20

      they'll just go after the elusive "disengagement dollar"

      watch?v=9h9wStdPkQY linkhead removed for language and content, but you know what to do (and probably who it is)

    • By burnt-resistor 2025-07-0620:44

      I've long since checked out (2012) from social media and apps that commodify and monetize every little aspect of life.

    • By whilenot-dev 2025-07-069:421 reply

      > We should not underestimate the timeless human response to being manipulated: disengagement.

      It's worth adding that "disengagement" does not mean "not giving a f*ck", and I worry that it isn't a good human response either.

      So what's the difference between "not giving a f*ck" and "disengagement"? I think where the former works on the individual level, the latter is supposed to work on the collective level. I'm no scholar on any social sciences, mind you, but I worry that disengagement can only lead to positive change in conjunction with the Broken windows theory[0]. Here's the bummer: A lot of us are already in said stage of disengagement.

      We somehow are in an atmosphere that makes it unpleasant for everyone and let the environment decay together, but the provoked collective change is just not happening. The dumbphone and digital detoxes are outliers. What happens instead is that the threshold for what's acceptable is systematically being lowered, and my biggest gripe is that it's done in the name of equality and inclusion while the imbalance between demographics is just growing. Tell me why?

      There was a movement after Occupy Wall street and the Arabic Spring where it got fashionable to Not Giving a F*ck[1]. It contrasted a movement of self-optimization, growth-hacking, and some data-driven lifestyle usually reserved for corporate marketing. Morphemes such as hyper/super/über got resurrected from a nostalgic sentiment of the economic boom in the 80/90s, the neoliberal free-market Accelerationism and Bitcoin certainly fit in there. While "not giving a f*ck" was a critique of the established attention-grabbing system to promote the individuality of citizens, it also got misinterpreted by political representatives and corporate operators that started to put more focus on their own career than the responsibility of their current role. They all "didn't give a f*ck" anymore in a world that got more and more connected, year after year.

      [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

      [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subtle_Art_of_Not_Giving_a...

  • By hardwaresofton 2025-07-067:544 reply

    > If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again?

    This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet another way to reallocate public cash to private companies.

    Another similar example is UBI -- its proof of an economy that is not dynamic. It's a tacit approval and recognition of the fact that "no, you probably won't be able to find a job with dignity that can support you and your family, so the government will pay to make you comfortable while you exist".

    • By tossandthrow 2025-07-068:413 reply

      > make you comfortable while you exist

      I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi.

      The way, at least I, see ubi is absolute subsistence - with a right to earn above that without affecting your subsistence.

      IMHO something along UBI is needed for a democratized market economy - and I think the Scandinavian countries are the support for this claim.

    • By PartiallyTyped 2025-07-068:002 reply

      It is an allocation to the biggest companies at any time.

      ETFs need to rebalance, increase, decrease shares of a given stock and even evict them. Buying shares on SPY exposes you to the current companies but also any companies that will join.

      If a company gets evicted, then there is massive drop in their stock pricing as most movement is mechanistic and done by ETFs.

      Well massive is relative. For example last week we saw quite the drop in pltr after it was removed from russel2000.

    • By poorcedural 2025-07-071:22

      Proof that the USA is the largest exporter of inflation. UBI can not compete with strategic inflation on a global scale.

    • By mortsnort 2025-07-0616:142 reply

      S&P 500 companies don't get any inflow of cash when their stock is purchased

HackerNews