I also felt the last part comes off as smug and also clickbait-y. Techie tries to prove that they're smarter than restaurant workers by 'breaking' their system.
That was never the intent. Seriously, I'm honestly find it hard (for which read impossible) to read it that way.
I'll re-think it.
I'm genuinely baffled, but if that's what you feel, I'm there will be others who that way too, so I'll see if I can express what I mean more clearly.
Edit: I've changed it somewhat, so the comments here are not necessarily relevant any more. Maybe it's no better ... don't know.
> It was apparent on the faces of the staff that this was most unexpected ... members of the public weren't supposed to know how the system worked ... how could I possibly have known ?!?
Implies that you know more (about the system) than the public. The problem is you are assuming you know why the waiters were shocked. You also don't need the last sentence, it's implied by the first two. Here's an alternative version:
> it seemed like the waiters were shocked. I'd wager that the general public wasn't supposed to know how the system worked
At least leave the original in place but struck out.
For reference, at the end the original read:
It was apparent on the faces of the staff that this was most unexpected ... members of the public weren't supposed to know how the system worked ... how could I possibly have known ?!?
But it was a real-life example of a finite-state machine, beautifully designed, and extremely effective.
Until I did something unexpected, of course. But they didn't seem to mind too much.
================
Edit: I wish people didn't down-vote you, I think your comment is perfectly reasonable.