Hi guys. The title may sound very weird, but hear me out. I just need to vent on here. I've noticed a few people on this subreddit who have shared their terrible experiences with Menulog, Uber, and other food delivery services.
Well, last night I had my own shitty experience.
It all started when I attempted to make an order through Menulog and buy some Maccas. I made the order at around 8pm. The delivery time was estimated to be between 8:25pm - 8:45pm. Immediately after the order went through, Menulog tells me that there is a driver assigned to collect my order. And I waited.
8:45pm rolls around. The order status is still pending on "Driver Assigned".
I wait for nearly an hour until my order status abruptly changed from "Driver Assigned" to "Delivered". My order never arrived. It claimed that my order was delivered at 8:29pm. At the time the order abruptly changed to "Delivered", the time was 9:40pm. Until then, I kept giving them the benefit of the doubt, thinking that either the service forgot to update the order status or maybe the driver was running behind.
So I rang my boyfriend to pick me up and go to the location to see what's going on and just get food from there. I walk in and I see at least six delivery bags just sitting at the counter and the Maccas staff just adding the bags to the counter. I found my order that was supposed to be delivered to me. Sitting on the counter along with the rest of the bags. No delivery driver in sight.
I tell one of the staff members at Maccas the situation. I compared the pickup number reference and showed her. She was able to remake my food free of charge. And after I collected my remade food and waited for my boyfriend's food to be made (as he ordered separately from me), another guy walked into the restaurant also dealing with the same issue as I was, trying to find where his order is amongst the other bags.
So I get home, eat my food at around 10:30pm.
Then at 11pm, I get a message from Menulog stating that my food is on the way...
And then, shortly afterwards, a delivery guy rocks up at my house... with the order I initially made through Menulog... three hours after said order was placed through... 2.5 hrs after it was supposed to be delivered...
Once the initial order was delivered at my house, Menulog then just casually changed my delivered time from 8:29pm to 11:06pm.
Unbelievable. This was the first time I had such an appalling experience with food delivery before. When I saw other people o
... keep reading on reddit β‘
I'll explain:
A while back I ordered some discounted finished projects from a well known maker in the space (not going to name them, don't mean to trash them, but they are popular online and make youtube videos). When they arrived I was... underwhelmed. All the "best practice" stuff they teach in videos and other creators reinforce online was ignored. "Use a stitching chisel, not a punch!" They used a punch. "Use thread appropriate for the piece! Add a groove to lower the thread profile! Lightly tap with a hammer to help set the thread!" None of that. "Here's how to get a great burnish!" Weak and inconsistent.
Again, I'm not here to trash them. In fact, seeing this stuff actually gave me a lot of confidence in my own stuff. When you learn from online sources it's so easy to go down the rabbit hole and feel like your stuff isn't presentable unless you can make it as perfect as you see on camera. It really helped me properly understand what normal, reasonably priced production standards are, and how many examples I learned from are actually higher-end and more costly techniques for boutique production
Thankfully I'm not in a desperate need, but I'd be climbing the walls if I was. They can just hang onto my hard earned cash for a few weeks, cheers.
Skimming through Rubin's Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice II I came across the following:
>Before 1904, when Zermelo published his proof that the axiom of choice implies the well-ordering theorem, the well-ordering theorem was considered as self-evident.
Which reminded me of the following from Munkres' Topology:
>[The well-ordering] theorem was proved by Zermelo in 1904, and it startled the mathematical world. There was considerable debate as to the correctness of the proof; the lack of any constructive procedure for well-ordering an arbitrary uncountable set led many to be sceptical...
Does anyone know which account is correct?
I can see that the well-ordering theorem is self-evident for countable sets (in fact, it is true by construction) but, to me, the existence of a well-ordering of an uncountable collection of uncountable sets is far from trivial.
I was flipping through Smullyan's Beginner's Guide to Mathematical Logic and came across an exercise: prove the "least number principle" (aka the well-ordering principle for the natural numbers: any nonempty set of natural numbers contains a least number) from the principle of mathematical induction. I came up with one, but suspect that my proof in some sense presupposes well-ordering. Here, I'll show you what I mean (the bolded parts are the ones I find suspect):
If a set of natural numbers has only 1 element, clearly it has a smallest number. If a set of natural numbers has only 2 elements, x and y, then since x and y are distinct natural numbers (x != y), then either x < y or y < x, so one of the two must be the smallest number of the set.
For induction, suppose that any set of natural numbers containing n elements, with n > 1, contains a smallest number. Now let S be a set of n + 1 natural numbers. S is the union of a set T containing n natural numbers, {a1, a2, ... an} and a set containing only 1 natural number, y, such that y is not an element of T. By hypothesis, T has a smallest number, call it ax. Either ax < y or y < ax. In the first case, the least number in S will be ax, and in the second, it will be y. Either way, S has a least number. So, by induction, for all n, a set of n natural numbers will contain a least number.
My problem here is--when I assume that "given two distinct natural numbers, one must be less than the other", am I simply assuming the well-ordering principle? In other words, is this assumption equivalent to the well-ordering principle?
I may have exaggerated the title a little but Iβve been on the road since early September and I canβt understand why itβs so difficult to find a quality plain white t-shirt in a store.
Almost every store you would expect to find medium sized white t-shirt is out of stock and suggest ordering online.
Any tips?
Currently in Tucson, Arizona.
The primary book that I'm reading from (Set Theory, Steve Warner) seems to imply that a well-ordered set is a strictly linearly ordered set (L, <) where every non-empty subset has a least element. The fact that example 6 proves anti-reflexivity of β on w seems to confirm this. However both Wikipedia and another book I have describes a well-ordered set as a total order with every non-empty subset as having a least element. Now I take it that a total order is a partial order where every two elements are comparable. A partial order requiring that < is reflexive on L. Isn't this in conflict with a strict linearly ordered set where < anti-reflexive on L? (Or at least, it seems L would have to be empty to satisfy both requirements.)
So how do I make sense of my book's definition? Picture:
http://imgur.com/a/9BQyTSU
Even with shipping costs, I'm able to get ammo about 25% under typical Cal prices. I can finally reliably get the ammo I need, which is the biggest advantage. The ammo shortage in Cal has gotten ridiculous...
This has happened a handful of times this past week and itβs inconvenient to have to call & call or not get any answer. It takes money and time away. Thank you
"... a fight -- you know, a fight -- like I watch in the movies -- they fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it."
