5 ms·
God, I’d love to see the smartphone/no smartphone sections in restaurants.
by eloisius 2y ago
God, I’d love to see the smartphone/no smartphone sections in restaurants.
- sebzim4500 2y agoWhat would be the point of a no smartphone section in a restaurant? A concert would make sense though IMO.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> What would be the point of a no smartphone section in a restaurant? It elevates the experience. Going back to the class thing [1], cell phone on the table or cell-phone use during dining is a noticeable thing between e.g. Michelin-starred restaurants and diners. (And I’m only counting N > 1 tables.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41820633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41820633
- ruthmarx 2y ago> It elevates the experience. For who? Not for the people who might want to use one, and for the people who get annoyed seeing someone else using one, that's their problem.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> Not for the people who might want to use one A lot of the people that might want to use one would in fact have a better experience if there was zero or minimal phone use at their table.
- ruthmarx 2y agoNah. What's true for you isn't true for everyone. If I go on a date in a high end restaurant and hit it off with my date, I might want to show her something briefly or look up something, and we would both be on bored with it and having a good time. In that case, the phone is enhancing the experience, not taking away from it.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> What's true for you isn't true for everyone. That is why I said "a lot", not everyone. Your "Nah." is not true, by your own argument. > briefly There is a reason I said "or minimal". That's minimal.
- ruthmarx 2y agoThe problem with your point is your making an unwarranted assumption about most people. It's no different from insisting someone would like a variation of something they have no interest if they would only try it. Or to put it in simpler terms, you seem to think you know better than "a lot" of people.
- consteval 2y agoI mean, yes: this point is true. Usually that's how things are. It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. If they don't think about X they wouldn't even know to change it or try something else. Truly, you don't know something until you try it. If you never try it you just don't know. At least for most things, some things are obvious. Also, there's arguments about phones being addictive. That changes things a lot.
- ruthmarx 2y ago> I mean, yes: this point is true. Usually that's how things are. Strongly disagree. > It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a matter of people not considering X. You're making the same mistake the other fellow is; you're assuming the other people haven't considered x, when they likely have.
- Dylan16807 2y agoDo you think "considering" is enough to reach a correct conclusion? I'm not making the mistake of thinking they didn't consider it. I think every human is bad at considering. But it's also true that a lot of them really haven't considered it.
- bavell 2y agoThe band Tool does this - they ask for no phones and no photos during the show (except the last song)
- insane_dreamer 2y agosmartphone-free cafes are starting to pop up [0] [0] https://www.facebook.com/reel/1041312411329542 https://www.facebook.com/reel/1041312411329542
- consf 2y agoImagine walking into a restaurant and being asked, "Smartphone section or no smartphone section?"
- itronitron 2y agoI'd prefer to be asked "loud music, or no loud music?"
- consf 2y ago[dead]
- swah 2y agoWhy not ban at the door? Why not iPhone only?
- wyldfire 2y agoI'd like one for my living room. Can we just watch the show together? Otherwise we might as well be doing our own totally separate activities.
- tuna74 2y agoYou (plural!) can make your own rules in your own living room.