Footage of Australian Raven Attacking a Wing Drone in Canberra, Australia
linkedin.com
linkedin.com
[0]https://dms.licdn.com/playlist/C5605AQHVTN_fA4rRcg/mp4-720p-...
wget -U Mozilla [url]This 'Wing' drone delivery is actually an Alphabet (Google) company, and they have "found success in Australian suburbs, recently hitting 100,000 deliveries milestone." [1]
Anyone from Australia care to tell how much it costs to deliver a (or multiple) cups of coffee using this service?
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/25/22640833/drone-delivery-g...
Run discounts of 50% on first drone orders, or even just run discounts for first few months. People have proven that they love a bit of interesting fun for a high price. Look at shared scooters, most scooter usage is for fun and "I want to try them".
Just because a company is doing transactions doesn't make it a good company. This is just money at work, money can create "businesses" that shouldn't exist. Then people get too tangled up in the fake business that it's impossible to live without, all the while never actually earning profits you'd expect from a "good, large business".
like Uber, Lyft, Snapchat, DoorDash and many recent IPOs of terrible businesses that went public to make investors rich, while being terrible, money losing operations
As someone who doesn't use these services due to how dodgy they are. I might be very biased. But I sure feel like we can do better than what this laziness achieves.
It ended up with a big payday for big oil IIRC.
Now that we are getting the socialists back in power (they was the ones behind the last attempt) they've promised to have companies buy into it too instead of just using taxes.
I consider myself fluent in Norwegian, did I still miss something?
Edit: to be clear, I don't care at all about those stupid point. For that matter dang should be free to reset them every day like he seems to do with his own.
I only care about them as an indication of whether what I said came across as wrong or something.
A more productive comment would have talked about how the Norwegian carbon tax was intended to fund research and how exactly it failed to do that and instead just created profits for oil companies.
I don't have time to fix it now, but yes, this is my point:
I'm not against taxing pollution or using tax income to fund research, only against the part where we (Norway) literally gave money to companies without demanding results.
The taxes are also paid for by the yuppies at a disproportionate rate to their income share.
See: share of income taxes as broken out by income segment, in most every developed nation.
One of the central defining characteristics of a yuppie is a well-paying job. That means paying higher, progressive tax rates in most affluent nations, including Australia.
https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/
See: what happens to California if you remove the tech yuppies pulling down $200,000 - $500,000, as well as their party buckets of equity compensation, the taxes of which the state rolls around in during the good times. California would become a formal second world disaster with no ability to fund anything. Illinois with nicer weather.
We at .com are delivering medicines to poor people in this unfortunate country that has no infrastructure. (baby crying, dog being kicked away from table with flies on the food, and sad music playing)
Disclaimer: This was done one time for advertising purposes, and is not indicative of how our whirlybirds will be used.
(Off topic, but here goes. You know those drug commercials that state if you can't afford the medications, we a Whizzerbio will help out with costs because we are there for Everyone.
This is how it worked when I looked into it. You, and your doctor have to fill out a bunch of forms.
The meds are only sent to the doctors office. So you will need to go there to pick the medication up, and I imagine setting up another appointment. I have no idea why they don't deliver to the patient, or reimburse the pharmacy. I imagine they want it delivered to the office so the pharmaceutical rep can have a real reason to talk with doc?
Only one patient per doctor are allowed to participate in this promotion. Doc has 1000 patients, but only one poor guy gets the free med.
I looked into this ten years ago, so things might have changed?
Now they are necessary for academic research in deep learning and other fields, which would not have gotten GPUs as advanced as they are without the market boost.
Of course that’s just a theory and it’s never possible to go back and see what would have happened. But it seems reasonable to me.
1. GPUs used to be much less programmable and had fixed-function graphics pipelines.
2. General purpose GPU computing was demonstrated a decade before the 2012 deep learning craze. OpenCL/CUDA was quite mature in 2012 and used by high performance computing.
3. Transistor scaling (Moore’s law) has been speeding everything up exponentially.
4. There are a lot of non-GPU solutions now.
If GPUs didn’t exist, someone still could have trained a deep model on a cluster of CPU, and then we’d end up with GPUs (or similar hardware) again. So it’s not necessarily true that gaming->GPU->deep learning implies that GPUs couldn’t be used for deep learning without gaming, because you could have had CPU->deep learning->GPU. I think this was much more of a case of the stars magically aligning than some preset goal by Nvidia/AMD.
In fact, there are plenty of cases where you had CPU->research->HW accelerator. One example (on top of gaming/rendering) is compression or parity coding, which was slow initially and then had add-on cards and/or CPU extensions.
How are people chuckling about this video when this is clear signs this will have real environmental effects and costs that if we are,"lucky" might be a taking point to politicians/CEOs in a couple of decades after irreversible damage is done
Your comment is so profoundly wrong, and yet so confidently written. You're comparing Coke, a long-shelf-life mass market product, with (often) emergency/low-latency delivery of products which would be impractical to stockpile in every remote village, even if they could affort it (e.g. certain types of medicine and consumable medical products, blood, etc.)
Coke doesn't need low-latency delivery - they can use high-bandwidth + warehousing. This isn't possible/practical for some types of products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivery_drone#Healthcare_deli...
Unless it is a AI powered blockchain drone, that would be unbeatable!
Drones are much faster than cars at getting to remote places. There are many, many villages throughout the African continent that can take several hours to get to due to lack of paved roads (you need a 4WD, and it'll be a bumpy, slow ride). Sometimes the territory is dangerous to drive though. Drones can also be used even in more developed areas when roads have been completely washed away by a flood/hurricane/landslide/etc. The industry certainly has been hyped, and it's still early days, but your claim that they're not useful is absurd.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/in-the-air-with-ziplines-medical-d...
Consider a rarely needed but life-saving antivenom that is expensive to produce, requires careful+chilled storage and is just not that abundant outright due to difficult production. A snake bite could happen anywhere, but its infeasible and potentially wasteful to have it stocked at every local facility. If a drone could be used to deploy it from a central facility to where its needed in a timely manner on-demand, that could save lives. In the developed world, roads make ground transportation a more suitable approach for this problem (in addition to everything else that makes the problem itself less frequent), but in many parts of the world the ground infrastructure is simply not there.
This is probably news to a lot of VCs who regularly make investments in hope of an eventual market.
50% markups may make it viable if it gets off the ground and becomes and ind operation but that’s not footing R&D.
Coffee wasn't on the agenda it seems.
I find it difficult to believe coffee delivery even now or "going forward" significantly subsidizes drone technology development. Even if you expand that to delivery of other frivolities.
Do you have any numbers? Or reasoning?
Drones have already long had the capability to do all this, lift and endurance, auto flying and navigation, GPS, even cameras and some autonomous visual recognition.
What drone technologies are being subsidized by coffee delivery?
> Drones have already long had the capability to do all this, lift and endurance, auto flying and navigation, GPS, even cameras and some autonomous visual recognition.
If that's the case (which it is, you're right), then why are we not already delivering medicine to remote areas with drones?
Also coffee is not being delivered to remote areas so I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Really? Are spoiled yuppies ordering coffee a significant fraction of projected drone deliveries? I doubt it.
drones are quieter than cars
> delivering coffee is not one of them
perfect item to master the skill tho
We'll get an aerial lawnmower to you real quick, just sign up on our page.
"If a fine costs less than the crime pays, then it's not a penalty, it's a cost of doing business"
Pizza delivery / grocery motorbikes used to annoy the hell out of us. But the switch to electric mopeds has been a blessing.
Credit to Getir in London for standardising electric bikes across their fleet (at least where we are).
In terms of noise pollution, yes. But it has meant some less spatially aware delivery riders flying silently around corners on pavements which is an annoying problem.
My ear-devices-pro+ record decent data and I submit that data as verifiable evidence in this matter.
People get coffee delivered by car? If that is so it is rather depressing.
Children are quieter than cars and yet I hear them from the 3rd floor because sound travels in a direct line with nothing obstructing it. You don't hear cars 3 blocks away because of all the buildings between you and the cars. You'll hear a drone 3 blocks away because the air doesn't block sound as much.
That said, part of the fun of coffee is the cafe experience; covid willing, I still go out to cafes as well. Best not to optimize all of the fun out of life.
The Australian-designed/made Breville espresso machine is a gem.
I have no idea how I lived without it.
I think the distinction is important because that points us in the direction of the type of policy we want to focus on. We shouldn't aim for laws to ban drone delivery. Instead we should have rules to limit the amount of noise you can make in residential areas.
It's perfectly legal to deconstruct scaffolding, with power tools and chucking metal poles in the back of the van at 8am on a Sunday morning for example. Right next to multiple residential block of flats with hundreds of residents.
And the number one issue if you poll residents of almost any large town is usually noise issues.
If you want to see one of the big disconnects between government and the people, it's a big one.
Saying it's already an issue that's under legislated doesn't mean we should allow it to get worse.
Picking one from a quick search: Greenwich, for example, says that "Noisy work is prohibited on Sundays and bank holidays", and explicitly mentions "Erecting and dismantling of scaffolding" in its examples of "noisy work".
(https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200205/pollution_and_...)
Presumably other authorities may have different rules, and they may or may not be effectively enforced. But in principle, at least, it's not a free-for-all.
What is the problem to which this technology is a solution for?
Whose problem is it?
What new problems might be created by solving the original problem?
Which people and what institutions will be most seriously harmed by this new technology?
What sort of people and institutions gain special economic and political power from this new technology?
What changes in language are being forced by these new technologies?
Don't forget ridiculousness. That raven knows, and we should all be thankful for birds leading the protest.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-13/inside-th...
Spoilers: that's hard to do.
That's one, another is how difficult is it to make a cup of coffee in your kitchen?
I would also be happy banning k cups fwiw.
I'm not sure how the externalities work out in this case, but it might be something to keep an eye on.
Maybe on paper silent drone deliveries are a great idea for people who can't get out of their homes but even then what we're doing is removing yet another chance for them to interact directly with another human being.
So I dunno. What actually is a positive use for drone delivery?
Adequate human interaction (modulo the ongoing pandemic) is indeed important (I think, at least for most people), but a wide swath of people probably have an overabundance of it, and wouldn't benefit from the additional interactions involved with physically going get their own coffee from some human in a coffee-vending establishment.
The positive use for drone delivery is the same for any other delivery service. The pros and cons compared to human delivery, animal delivery, wheeled robot delivery, etc. are debatable.
I'd probably use it for times I've run out of something essential I don't have at home though, if its quick enough. Tobacco after a few beers and not wanting to drive, exotic spices I can't find locally assuming the drone can fly far enough to other places, and also assuming its more environmentally friendly than getting in the car and burning petrol.
I live on the outskirts of the centre of Canberra (which, as a reminder, is the capital of Australia). The trees are teeming with birds this time of year. We have a family of Australian magpies raising their young in the tree directly opposite us. It's magnificent to watch. They'll often come and say hello and we're hoping they'll introduce the young to us one day.
Regular drone traffic would be an enormous disruption. Magpies swoop anything they see to be a threat. I already see how much effort it is to forage and feed 3 young. Spending extra time trying to ward off a drone because someone can't be arsed going for a walk and getting a coffee (or whatever) ... ridiculous.
I haven't seen a drone here but if they start to become a thing I'll join whatever movement is advocating for their banning.
These leaf blowers also don't have much of a muffler system (due to size / weight) and of course no exhaust gas recirculation or catalytic converter to further reduce emissions by-products.
They are noisy and smelly as hell, there was some going on just outside my window (not that I'd hired) recently, the operators wearing ear protection of course, but I was barely any further away. Do wish they'd use electric - can do it from a battery even these days. (And mitre saws etc. too, quite incredible.)
They do have electric leaf blowers, but those offer minutes of runtime instead of hours. So those might be suitable for a homeowner, but aren't very practical for professional lawn care use.
This confused me for a second, as the electric leaf blowers that came to my mind have 'infinite' runtime. I then realized you're referring to cordless electric leaf blowers.
A two stroke motor is considerably simpler than a four stroke, they often come in at around half the weight for an equivalent power output, and have less moving parts. This is why they are the default engine of choice for hand powered tools - almost no maintenance, very little warmup cycle, high power:weight ratio. The downside is dirty exhaust.
Modern two stroke dirt bikes have actually all started moving to fuel injection to help combat this. No premixed oil/gas, oil is injected at an optimal ratio given the load of the engine. Light cruise / idling, they run at 100:1, at heavy throttle they drop down to 50:1. Much more pleasant than something set to constantly run, via premixing, at 50:1 gas:oil.
Other note: large ocean freighters are two stroke engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA9...
To dig further, you can also differentiate between peak and sustained power; MTBF, maintenance (and dollars of maintenance) per hour of operation, volume, overall environmental effect (due to lifespan and manufacturing), etc etc.
Your point is a good one though, but I think the common use case of the word efficiency, when talking about vehicles, if fuel required to produce a given amount of work (miles, horsepower, etc).
Reading about just a little bit, this may not be the case... depending on what application you are talking about.
I would expect to be some differences between a 10-ton marine two-stroke on a ship vs. a 49cc two-stroke on a moped in terms of efficiency.
Like it or not as wages creep up relative to "things" these sorts of business models will become economically viable.
But I could be cynical.
All the stores listed appear to only show their on-premises offerings, with some saying "download the app now" for a delivery price. The fact I apparently can't place an order or even see a price on a desktop has to hurt sales.
Some speculation into the pricing reveals that they are doing deliveries well below cost and perhaps free as an investment to get their number of successful deliveries up. Google is vying to gain license to be the de-facto ubiquitous drone flight traffic control service.
There were also reports from customers in Australia where eagles would just shred the drone to pieces almost every flight. Putting big googly eyes stickers on the wings seemed to help to some degree.
Edit: Found the blog post about the eagles in Australia https://www.sensefly.com/blog/bird-drone-attacks-avoid-threa...
Surely you don't mean that they'd have an understanding what the function of a battery is, so I'm not quite sure what you mean?
Once a raven got ran over by a car near my home and sadly died. A group of ravens were "guarding" the body and not letting any human near it. They were exhibiting highly sophisticated social behaviour, it almost seemed like... a funeral?
Of course we shouldn't attempt to anthropomorphise animal behaviour, it was not a funeral but I would like to get an explanation from someone who knows about this topic. What were those ravens doing?
(Edit: it was very impressive they were doing a type of vocalisation that they don't usually perform, and they were close to the ground and near the body, not up among the trees where they usually spend most of their time).
(Edit2: the birds were not on the ground, but near the ground, on top of a low fence and on top of a couple of parked cars)
European magpies (unlike Australian magpies) are actually related to ravens (family corvidae, whereas Aussie magpies are in the family artamidae)
wow that's interesting I would love to read more about it if you have any links.
> though standing in a group on the road is maybe not the brightest idea.
They were not exactly on the road pavement but on top of lower objects e.g. a couple of nearby fences and a couple of parked cars just next to where the other raven died.
From my son's favourite YouTube channel. These are American Ravens but probably similar to the Aussie variety behaviour wise.
I wouldn’t judge ravens too harshly. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were notorious for booby-trapping bodies in order to take out first responders - so humans are clearly not impervious to making the same mistake.
It a sounds more like an occupational health and safety investigation, or am inquest.
You mean... a murder investigation?
Why not? Our behavior emerged from a primitive animal state. It's not crazy to think it can happen again.
The only mistake would be to pretend it's the definitive answer, but unless we got one, it can be one of the theories.
This is well documented in a variety of corvid species.
I think it's unfair to dismiss this as anthropomorphising. Our grief, too, has an evolutionary purpose.
> 4) Why do crows gather around their dead? Certainly one reason is that the death of a crow can offer a “teachable moment” that other crows use to learn that the place and responsible party is dangerous. You can read more about this behavior here: https://corvidresearch.blog/2015/09/26/why-crows-gather-arou...
I'm not holding this against you in any way :), but I wanted to say I'm getting tired of this "don't anthropomorphise animals" trend. Some bird species are clearly highly intelligent, and I feel that this 'opposition to anthropomorphising' is used to downplay this fact, and animal intelligence in general.
Regarding the crows funeral or vigil, I suspect this has been observed a long time ago by humans, and is the reason for the association of crows with death in some cultures.
I grew up on a farm. People who know next to nothing about animals are often quick to let me know that it's not humane for farmers to treat chickens that way or to treat sheep that other way, because "how would you like being treated like that".
Two examples of why this line of thinking is flawed: taking a sheep from standing position down to the ground, will have the effect of calming the sheep. Some types of fish that are used in aquaculture will calm down and decrease their stress levels if you turn off the lights.
If someone suddenly takes you down while you're walking down the road, or suddenly turns off the light while you are in a stressful situation, you will probably freak out. That's because you're not a sheep or a fish.
Obviously I still need _my_ morning coffee.
They're also pretty skilled at flight. A wildlife photographer snapped a few great shots with a raven landing on an eagle's back _in flight_.
See: https://iso.500px.com/the-story-behind-the-incredible-photo-...
They might even put the entire business at risk.
If they've figured out the drones drop food when attacked then they'll keep attacking, and teach others of their species to do it too.
The interesting thing isn't exact measurements of intelligence, though, but rather the fact that intelligence has developed independently. We know that we and our fellow primates are amongst the smartest animals on the planet. The thing about ravens is that they prove we're not the only ones.
> I think you're giving the humans far too much credit. Some humans, and most larval humans, are capable of doing that kind of thing. Most of them just imitate. After puberty, almost all of them just repeat their previously acquired behaviors except when imitating. Instead of reasoning, they just rehearse past memories and fictional scenarios, unable to distinguish reality from fiction. Most of them can't remember what they ate for lunch yesterday or the license plate of the car that passed two minutes ago. They engage in complex verbal behavior that's ultimately incoherent, to the point that often even severe senile dementia in a human goes undiagnosed until its victim is in a new situation where their previous mindless habits no longer apply.
I may not be any smarter than you are, and I can't solve differential equations, but at least I can remain less of an asshole, and continue making helpful contributions like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28592961, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28591650, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28467260, or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28466492 instead of sinking this place further into chimpanzee dominance games by launching baseless calumnies at strangers as you're doing.
I mean, I do hold myself above you. But it's not because I think you're even stupider than I am, which would be quite a remarkable feat. It's because you're spending your efforts to try to hurt people and I'm spending my efforts to try to help them.
This is a common enough cognitive bias that it should be expected.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability, and that people with high ability at a task underestimate their own ability.
Am I stupid to think that I am smart? Am I smart to think that I am stupid? If I think I am stupid and desire smartness can I fake it until I make it? Does the simulation of a smarter self developed to better attain smartness through faking it become real?
Tank, I need an exit!
At least, that's how I remember it. Would I even know if I were misremembering it?
I think "How do [I] signal a commitment to the falsifiability of [my] assertions and yet remain convincing?" is mostly the wrong question. Convincing someone, like a salesman, is a different activity from collaboratively exploring ideas with them, and they are not only mutually exclusive with one another, but also with the kind of self-righteous dominance discourse samhw is engaging in upthread, where the object is to persuade other onlookers to side with you against your contemptible interlocutor (in this case, me). Projecting cocaine-like irrepressible confidence is often a very effective way to convince people of things, because they assume your confidence must be well-founded, but that effect is poisonous to collaborative exploration of ideas, which involves looking for their flaws as well as their merits. It can also damage their confidence in you over time, although fraudsters like Lacan and that delusional coke freak Freud often get away with it for more than a human lifespan, by virtue of carefully crafting their theories to be nonfalsifiable.
In cases where your beliefs are based on objective evidence, you can share that evidence, as Darwin did with his studies of finches and reflections on pigeon breeding and whatnot. This turns out to be very effective at collectively progressing toward the truth even when none of the individual people involved is very smart (and none of us are) or very detached from their beliefs. Semmelweis was eventually convincing about handwashing, for example, but not about the cadaveric-particle thing.
Unfortunately, without computers, this doesn't work for procedural knowledge; every generation has to learn it from scratch by practicing, so, for example, our jokes aren't any better now than they were in Sumeria 5000 years ago. And there are a lot of cases where our knowledge has a basis that isn't objective, so we can't put it into words and numbers, with the result that people who trust us believe it, while people who distrust us don't.
Anyway, so people often misunderstand Dunning and Kruger to have found that the least competent people rated themselves as being the most competent. While that does happen sometimes, that wasn't what they found. However, sufficient levels of overconfidence in your knowledge will totally close you off to new information, as happened to samhw in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28592769, so you totally stop learning, eventually making you the least competent. As I said, though, that usually also happens to humans when they go through puberty! In my case, my overconfidence stunted my learning about all kinds of things for many years and probably still does in areas I haven't noticed yet. And probably never will, since I'm apparently totally failing at actually thinking.
The "simulation of a smarter self" thing can actually work, because often what keeps people trapped is not a lack of intelligence but various kinds of mental formations they use to avoid discomfort. Doesn't have to be a self, or smarter; "what would Jesus do?" is a Christian reminder that a mental simulation of a more morally commendable person can be a useful guide.
The bird: Drops objects into a tube filled with water to get food.
In the human realm nobody gives a damn that I know English and can use a mouse and keyboard. People are so good at these skills they don't even realize they are skills, they are so abundant they count for nothing. The bird wins because of that.
If you think they don’t, behave as if you can’t for a day.
The first was a hawk. I was going up a thermal on my own. The hawk came into the same thermal and decided it wanted to own it. It flew incredibly fast towards my plane and grabbed it from the latter quarter of the fuselage. This was a strong and fast kevlar/carbon fiber F5B competition class motorized glider, 2.4 meter wingspan.
The hawk could not destroy it but sure did with it as it wished for a few seconds. When it let go I went to full throttle and climbed straight up like a rocket (high power/weight ratio) to get away. After that I landed safely without damage.
The second case was a raven. Similar situation. It went for the tail and ripped it right off. All I could do was watch it crash.
They own the skies.
Houses dampen the sound which animals don’t have the luxury of having. All that noise could be a real problem for them
So you can sometimes hear them inside the house? That sounds possibly-OK in a sparsely populated area. But in more dense areas with lots of deliveries and people walking outside who can hear all the noise, I'm not sure this will scale well.
> Generally can’t hear them inside the house.
Dude, I think they are very loud. I'm in an office nearby a busy street and I can barely hear the traffic (no special insulation, just regular windows).
I have done speleology on things like old mines and had attacks from small birds to big ones like vultures and eagles that make their nest on the mine. I have marks on my helmet from that.
It is very interesting how small birds will pretend to have a broken leg or wing just to divert your attention from the nest.
I also have seen eagles attack friends' macaws in the open space or a group of magpies attacking an enormous eagle.
The animal world is not as peaceful as some people believe.
I get a bag a week delivered within days of roasting, and I've not tasted blind but I'm sure I can tell the difference if I've come back to one from holiday or otherwise let it go 'stale'.
I live in Australia and Korea frequently, and one has independent chains with snobby, nice, hardcore coffee (Aus) the other has a bunch of shitty chains, and Starbucks that serve absolutely mediocre coffee.
Entire family drinks coffee in instant, but most work mates drink coffee with machines and cafes. You either care or you don't, but everyone enjoys lots of coffee. It's really not that surprising, the same thing goes for baked goods and fast food. The smaller the town, the worse the quality, but the more people are happy with what they're getting.
With 460 outlets in Australia and worse coffee than Starbucks they should start pretty soon.
Drones that have payload capacity are loud, full stop. This one isn't especially loud as its payload is relatively light.
The comment I believe you're talking about mentions they can be heard from multiple houses away. That isn't quiet by any means.
Thanks for clarifying the noise issue!
Would it help if the drones where less noisy? If the birds don’t get them, the complaint from neighbors will.
https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/goodliving/posts/2017/08/m...
I'm more suprised to see the drone delivery. Didn't realise that had already started.
It will be interesting if the ravens soon determine the drone itself is no threat, but that drones carry food...
Maybe I’ve just become overly sensitive.
They're often confused, but this video is in Canberra so a Raven it is.
I can’t confidently speak further than that, but I’m under the impression the same is true in Sydney.
If taxonomists call them ravens but everyone else calls them crows, I wish the taxonomists would accept the reality that usage defines language, not encyclopædia, and give up on trying to pretend they’re ravens and not crows.
A. Duckduckgo.
(Australians are generally very selective of their coffee, we like proper Italian style coffee. Melbourne (Aus/Vic) is quite proud that we're the only place where Starbucks went bust, gave up, and left - they tried but I think there's only one Starbucks left in the whole city, thankfully.)
It’s a bit annoying I guess.
Robert : Slugs.
Evil : Slugs! HE created slugs! They can't hear. They can't speak. They can't operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic?
I have got a coffee delivered before but I usually only do it if I'm working and I can't spare the distraction-risk of walking to a store.