4 ms·

These people built a business that provided a lot of value and a bunch of bureaucrats killed it because they didn’t like the thought of something being in a fri

by wycs 8y ago

These people built a business that provided a lot of value and a bunch of bureaucrats killed it because they didn’t like the thought of something being in a fridge for less than 48 hours. This is the message of these regulations: don’t try to do anything in the real world. Solve only ephemeral, virtual problems. This guy is working on a travel information app now. He has gotten the message.

kencausey 8y ago
I hear you but it sounds like the concern was that no one onsite with the refrigerators could be considered responsible for monitoring for possible tampering with the food.
- vezycash 8y ago
  That's what tamper proof seals are for aren't they? Cameras in fridge + CCTV could also have worked. Fridge/unattended issue is a solved one. Japan has vending machines for food. I think their biggest mistake was turning down the dragon funding. They would have avoided most issues especially the one that led to their shutdown. With food vending machines, better pricing, and new location deals, this might work out. E.g. A vending machine in an office building. I bet they would do well in silicon valley or any other location with high startup density.
digitaltrees 8y ago
So anyone should be allowed to open a business and experiment with possibly dangerous practices, some of which we know injured or killed people in the past, because then more people would want to start businesses? Seems like the exact pattern we want to discourage. I bet these founders opened this business as a corporation rather than in their individual capacities — meaning they were shield personally from the liability and consequences of their actions. Limited liability is a privilege extended to encourage risk taking, but it comes with a set of responsibilities to limit risky behavior to within norms we have, as a society, learned are beyond what we are willing to tolerate let alone encourage; these limits or responsibilities are called regulations. By all means question the necessity of the specific regulation; their efficacy in avoiding the harm of food poisoning, but do so with fact based scientific methods. Don’t merely throw out any regulation unless you want to go back to a state of nature where anything goes.
decker 8y ago
> Our pricing was way too low. So low that we basically made no profit over the 2 and half years we ran Chowdy. So low that we didn’t have any resources in reserve to help us deal with unexpected emergencies. Yeah, absolutely nothing about the business model had anything to do with it going under...

by wycs 8y ago

kencausey 8y ago

I hear you but it sounds like the concern was that no one onsite with the refrigerators could be considered responsible for monitoring for possible tampering with the food.

vezycash 8y ago
That's what tamper proof seals are for aren't they? Cameras in fridge + CCTV could also have worked. Fridge/unattended issue is a solved one. Japan has vending machines for food. I think their biggest mistake was turning down the dragon funding. They would have avoided most issues especially the one that led to their shutdown. With food vending machines, better pricing, and new location deals, this might work out. E.g. A vending machine in an office building. I bet they would do well in silicon valley or any other location with high startup density.

digitaltrees 8y ago

So anyone should be allowed to open a business and experiment with possibly dangerous practices, some of which we know injured or killed people in the past, because then more people would want to start businesses? Seems like the exact pattern we want to discourage. I bet these founders opened this business as a corporation rather than in their individual capacities — meaning they were shield personally from the liability and consequences of their actions. Limited liability is a privilege extended to encourage risk taking, but it comes with a set of responsibilities to limit risky behavior to within norms we have, as a society, learned are beyond what we are willing to tolerate let alone encourage; these limits or responsibilities are called regulations. By all means question the necessity of the specific regulation; their efficacy in avoiding the harm of food poisoning, but do so with fact based scientific methods. Don’t merely throw out any regulation unless you want to go back to a state of nature where anything goes.

decker 8y ago

> Our pricing was way too low. So low that we basically made no profit over the 2 and half years we ran Chowdy. So low that we didn’t have any resources in reserve to help us deal with unexpected emergencies. Yeah, absolutely nothing about the business model had anything to do with it going under...