cupboard

Pretty much, the first thing the interviewed couple mentions is that they're building an elevator in order to keep living in their home as they grow older (and assumedly become impaired due to age).

While I've almost always read bad online reviews for McDonalds in the US, I think the experience might differ a lot in other places around the world, for context on what I'm about to write and why I think many people think the price is the worst offender.

Believe it or not, I've always had a good experience at any McDonalds I went to service wise. Over on this side of the pond they're seen much more positively in general, I think. Their food is pretty good by fast food standards, and it's way more consistent quality wise than pretty much every other fast food place. In the last few years they've also turned most of their restaurants from the typical fast food restaurant decor to cozier and actually comfortable places to hang out in, which is pretty cool.

BUT, the prices just don't make much sense anymore. The price for a basic menu is currently near the price point of an actual restaurant meal. At shopping centers over here there's usually always a couple of "somewhat fast" local food restaurants - I don't know what to call them, kind of an in between between what you would call fast food and what you would expect from a "slow" fancier restaurant - and it's actually become cheaper to get a normal menu there than at McDonalds. The one big attractive of McDonalds and fast food in general used to be price - but if it's currently cheaper to get a full plate of great much better food, why would I ever go to McDonalds unless I'm really in a hurry? They seem to be counting on people still going there out of habit, but I think there's not nearly as much of a fast food culture here, so I've started noticing that McDonalds around me have much fewer attendance than they used to.

It's amazing that people criticize Windows security with .exe's and then install packages from external repositories with the security of "trust in the repository".

As with almost every case of these sorts of comparisons, these are likely separate groups of people holding separate groups of opinions.

I don't use Arch anymore, but when I did I found that the AUR was really useful to quickly install niche applications that would take ages to be approved on to an official repository. Often those would be made by the application developers themselves or members of the community. I would personally vet the packaging script myself, but I'm sure many wouldn't - and that's fine. As with most software, there's some trust involved and often you assume that if you're installing from a reputable repository it's going to be fine. If people aren't vetting the installation scripts and are installing from random repositories, that's really their problem. I'm glad the possibility existed and it's the one thing I've missed in distros I've used since then.

I also feel like it "breaking all the time" was part of the stereotype itself. I stopped using Arch because it was stable for almost 3 years and part of the point of using it in the first place was learning Linux by fixing stuff that broke - except that stuff never broke so I grew bored of it.