“An AirBnB for home-cooked meals” around the world gets $870K in funding

@slybevel drops mic


I did wonder if this was you…


“There is an art to the business of making sandwiches which it is given to few ever to find the time to explore in depth. It is a simple task, but the opportunities for satisfaction are many and profound.”

-Adams, of course.


Disagreeing with the idea of telling adults that they can’t exchange money for food is “being a jerk?” I don’t get it. Maybe restricting the actions of consenting adults is being a jerk? Who knows?

Why not? “For their own good?” That’s what conservatives have been saying to justify authoritarianism since forever. “For profit” doesn’t equal “bad.” There are lots of “for profit” ventures that are beneficial to everyone involved. Being reflexively suspicious of profit is no different than being reflexively suspicious of government.

Just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean it should be. Lots of things involving consenting adults are illegal. Doesn’t mean they’re wrong. I used to teach in a special ed school without an elevator to the second floor classrooms. Should the school have been shut down?

I think it’s substantive to suggest that adults don’t appreciate being told what they can and cannot do “for their own good,” especially in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that the activity in question is harmful to anyone. Of course, if you have any evidence that this activity has harmed people, I’m more than willing to reconsider my opinion.

1 Like

I spent three years trying to make a Nova lox from scratch. I failed. But I learned a valuable lesson–cured nasturtium pods are tastier than capers any day of the week.


I am not being condescending. Seriously, I am not.

And I want to cook for people. But I couldn’t get them up the front stairs, let alone let them be able to have a shit.

1 Like

I believe that telling consenting adults that they can’t exchange goods and services (especially when using the phrase “for their own good”) because people with disabilities can’t also enjoy those goods and services is being condescending, not to mention illogical.

Your link does nothing to provide evidence that the activity in question is harmful. Again, by your logic, the school I taught at should not have been allowed to operate.

The goal of increasing access to public spaces for disabled individuals is good. Prohibiting private activities because disabled people cannot access those activities is profoundly misguided, and really, highly illiberal.

1 Like

Two things.

I think education has a different standard than restaurants.

Second, I simply disagree with your assessment of what regs should be applied to restaurants. Prohibiting private businesses because they are are inaccessible is in my opinion necessary.


If you want to see Evidence That Is Harmful, see congressional testimony. I can probably link it, but come on.


I expect to hear next about a trendy new mobile phone app that connects you with strangers who will let you walk into their kitchens and eat food out of their refrigerators.


Prairie Home Companion this week quipped that the average fisherman spent $1500 dollars a year on their hobby, but could purchase 100lbs. of bluefin tuna for the same cost of bringing home a couple of pathetic walleye filets per year.

I am not one of those, but I can confirm that I spend much more on the hobby than what I could spend on actual fish meat. Gladly. =)

1 Like

Isn’t there already a service just like this in the US? I swear I heard an interview with one of the hosts on some NPR-ish show about the “sharing” economy.

I believe that telling consenting adults that they can’t exchange goods and services (especially when using the phrase “for their own good”) because people with disabilities can’t also enjoy those goods and services is being condescending, not to mention illogical.

Oh for God’s sake grow up. You sound like a child. We live in a society where not everyone can be happy with all the rules. We do our best to accommodate as many people and the most important issues that we are able to, regardless of folks like yourself that cross their arms and stamp their feet and pout out overly-broad platitudes with a pigeon on their bottom lip. Now go pay your taxes.


This is confusing. Are you saying that education is so necessary that some schools should be allowed to be inaccessible to the disabled, but eating out is not as necessary, so people whose livelihoods depend on restaurants that aren’t completely accessible to all disabled people should be out of work?

We must agree to disagree, then. In my opinion, prohibiting people from working and running businesses because they are financially limited in the way they can make their facilities accessible to all disabled people is neither compassionate, nor liberal. And it does less than nothing to improve the lives of disabled people.

That said, my initial post was pretty snarky. It could have been better.

This argument is no different in quality or essence than, “America: Love It Or Leave It!” You’ve made no argument for the usefulness of the rule in question. You’ve only provided a condescending affirmation of authoritarianism.

Of course, “not everyone can be happy with all the rules.” How is this an intelligent argument in support of the specific rule we’re talking about?

I appreciate the civil reply.

Point one: yes, that is what I mean.
Point two: we both agree to disagree.

But I can’t leave well enough alone, can I. It does the Exact Opposite of your premise. Accessibility improves lives. And to run a business–and this has been hashed out by both liberals and conservatives – must meet a minimum standard.

And I support that minimum standard.


Quick story.

I am not permanently disabled. I did find myself in SFO, after an intercontinental flight disturbingly unable to walk.

There were no wheelchairs, no nothing. So what did I do? I fucking crawled through the airport till I could find posts or objects to lean on.

Even at our most regulated areas, you can be denied basic dignity (I’m sure people laughed as they saw me squirm for oh, half a mile). So I am really not interested in dismantling the gains we have made.

I’m out.


I’m sorry that you had that terrible experience. But you have, in no way whatsoever, explained how putting hard-working individuals out of work because of their financial inability to serve all people with disabilities is a “gain.”

Lots of things have been “hashed out by both liberals and conservatives.” All kinds of authoritarian laws and restrictions and wars have been “hashed out by both liberals and conservatives.” It just doesn’t follow that the conclusions of politicians are the last word on creating fair and equitable solutions to complex societal problems.

The “minimum standards” of politicians are too frequently arbitrary and baseless and, ultimately, illogical and unfair.

I am seriously not going to Google “why is the ada important” for you.


That comment is a tad harsh. The ada was passed in 1990 under ghwbush, with bipartisan support. It has elevated the rights of disabled citizens closer to that of non disabled citizens. And frankly from a libertarian point of view it increases your sales funnel.


So you can’t go to somebody’s house as a friend then donate to help defray the cost of the food? LOL you must be a lawyer or something.