Sure, but if you do that, then your following statement doesn't actually hold true.

>If people wanted to, you know, tweak it themselves, then there would be no food services of any kind, not restaurants and not take out food and not meal-in-a-box delivery services.

Turn that statement into one about a minority's preference, and suddenly you discover an underserved market that likes preparing their own food. Kind of like the poster you replied to was stating. Kind of like everyone in the thread that has a different problem than you did that this service is a solid solution for.

Edit: I won't extend this comment chain any further. Please look at the comment I critiqued. I think you've glossed over your own statement.

I didn't write the article with the headline about how this market is facing a "slow-motion trainwreck." I merely gave my opinion as to why this is an inherently difficult problem space. That's it.

It is pretty ridiculous for you to act like I think there is zero market because I wouldn't buy it. That amounts to twisting my comments in a way that makes it very hard to engage in good faith.

You did say you think there should be zero market, whether or not you intended for that to be something you said. Specifically, you said that restaurants should fill the gap served by meal-in-a-box services entirely. The interpretations in this thread have been reasonable. (No point arguing this with me; I'm looking at it from the outside, some hours later than it happened, and won't reply to this comment.)

> If you can afford a meal-in-a-box service, why would you not just go to a restaurant where the wait staff will do a decent job as a substitute for your own live-in cook previously known as The Wife?