I don't think it's comparable to Amazon's mark-up. The alternative to Amazon is walmart.com, ebay.com, etc., all of which can be directly compared. Instacart provides a delivery service. It's comparable to Uber Eats or Eat24. I agree with the others that it seems shady to provide a delivery service but obfuscate how much you're charging for delivery.
I know Uber Eats bans restaurants from marking up orders placed through them. You can look at your phone and decide exactly how much extra the delivery costs and then decide if it's worth it to not have to go pick up the food yourself. I've never used instacart but if you're telling me that the price of the service is a secret from me I have a problem would that and would not use it. I don't want to pay $50 to have someone pick up my groceries. But I'd gladly pay $10 on certain days. But I have to know beforehand. I'm not going to sit around and hope Instacart doesn't screw me over today.
Right... but what about a potential doctor vs. a potential social worker? A poor student that tries to become a doctor is far riskier than a rich student trying to be a doctor. I believe that's the issue here...
The utility is that it's a trust-less transfer of value between two parties. Essentially, it's like being able to send cash, anonymously if you chose, to someone else, without an intermediary, in a way that everyone can see and nobody can challenge the legitimacy of.
It seems to me a lot of it is tied up in speculative investment. But there are some vendors who accept it and some countries (eg: Japan) where it's more popular and widely accepted.
In my experience, it's difficult to go through because it's so comprehensive and thorough, and I guess it has to be because it has to assume the lowest common denominator audience. Personally I'd like a shorter guide that assumes you know a few languages (C#, ObjC, JS, Java) and skips a bunch of the tedium of how programming languages work in general and gets right to what's different about Swift. It may seem like it does that, but look at their page about control flow[1] and tell me it's not an unreasonably long-winded way of explaining switch, for, for-in, while, break, continue, and if.
I agree but Swift is a new enough language that I'm not sure such a resource exists yet. When I learned Swift I just skimmed through the parts that weren't interesting and that worked for me. It was a good overview of the language.
As an aside, the book, Advanced Swift, by the objc folks is fantastic but assumes you already know Swift. It's not what you're looking for, but something to move onto after you grasp the basics.
I'm not an expert on this but I think the point was market cap is the value of all outstanding shares. Tesla raised money through venture capital while GM raised money by going to the bank and getting a loan.
Think about buying a $1M rental property. One guy gets 9 friends together and they each put up $100k for 10% of the house. The house/business is worth $1m. The market cap is $1m.
Another guy wants to buy a $1m rental property but he goes to the bank and gets a $900k mortgage. The house is worth $1m but the market cap is only $100k.
Since tesla and GM raised money very differently their market caps are not comparable.
The house's market value is the same as its market cap. It would still be $1m in both cases. How it was raised is irrelevant; you won't find a buyer for less or more than $1m if that is its market price.
GM and Tesla are both public market stocks. Regardless of how they raised previous capital, the market is valuing Tesla higher.
"The house's market value is the same as its market cap."
That's because houses are quoted in total, not just the equity piece. Stocks are only the equity. (They could quote just the equity piece of houses. In that case it would be unhelpful to compare prices without checking the debt.)
I think TDD helps or doesn't help depending on the circumstances. The problem is the people who claim there's One True Way.
For instance, if you were working on a big app and there was a bug, writing a failing test for that bug and then looking into the fix is very helpful. But if you're starting a new project from scratch with loose requirements, or worse yet, building a prototype, starting with tests would be a waste of time at best.
> if you were working on a big app and there was a bug, writing a failing test for that bug and then looking into the fix is very helpful.
Well, first of all, that's not TDD. TDD is Test-Driven Development. In your scenario, you wrote the test after the code in question. In TDD, the whole point is to write the test before the code in question.
So the value in your scenario is only insofar as the test is a useful way to quickly exercise the code in question. For example, if we have some sort of customer-facing website and there is a bug in how they save their user profile, it will be easier to test fixes to the problem if we don't have to go through the full flow of logging into the site, navigating to the profile, making edits, and clicking save all the time. But having an XUnit-style framework for running that test is not necessary for that.
>> if you were working on a big app and there was a bug, writing a failing test for that bug and then looking into the fix is very helpful.
> Well, first of all, that's not TDD. TDD is Test-Driven Development. In your scenario, you wrote the test after the code in question. In TDD, the whole point is to write the test before the code in question
It's a regression test, which is definitely TDD. The code in question is the fix for the bug, the test verifies that the bug is fixed and will remain fixed.
Well, that's exactly this case. You would write a test to replicate/prove the bug and then - afterwards write the code to fix the bug, no? So you would write tests first.
This definition of TDD either supposes that it is possible to write software with zero bugs using TDD, or that your project ceases to be TDD as soon as a bug is discovered, or any other change is required. I propose this definition is not very useful.
If you are writing something from scratch yes. But if you inherited a codebase written by somebody else who didn't to TDD so there are no tests, you can still use TDD for refactoring.
So any new changes/bugfixes you will make to this legacy codebase, first you will write a test and then make change. That's pretty standard. Many legacy codebases will have no tests and people who wrote the code will have left long time ago.
It's adopting test driven development during maintenance of an existing system. It's exactly TDD (identify need, write failing test, code to pass test.) TDD is a discipline that can be adopted at any time, not an SDLC that can only sensibly be adopted at the initiation of a project.
It's TDD. Just because the whole app wasn't developed with TDD doesn't mean you can't test drive a bug fix.
There's a bug, you write a test, "this bug shouldn't exist", that test currently fails, then you write just enough code to fix the test, then refactor. That's TDD.
Exactly what I was thinking. The test ends up being written firs this case, before you write/edit the code to fix the bug. So it falls under strict definition of TDD.
selection?.organization?.owner is an optional value, meaning it might be nil/null. That "if let" basically says if it's not nil to assign its value to "person" and execute the block. Then inside the block you can treat "person" as a non-optional, known value.
I know Uber Eats bans restaurants from marking up orders placed through them. You can look at your phone and decide exactly how much extra the delivery costs and then decide if it's worth it to not have to go pick up the food yourself. I've never used instacart but if you're telling me that the price of the service is a secret from me I have a problem would that and would not use it. I don't want to pay $50 to have someone pick up my groceries. But I'd gladly pay $10 on certain days. But I have to know beforehand. I'm not going to sit around and hope Instacart doesn't screw me over today.