This article doesn't land for me. The author complains about having to scan the code in sequence, but overlooks the fact that a waiter/waitress/till can only serve one person at time. And as you say, multiple people can scan a QR code, _and_ it would be trivial to print more.
Maybe I missed the point, but the aside about parking metres seems irrelevant. Just makes me think this is an anti-technology rant.
And again, the gripe about splitting up the bill. Not only is that a problem with existing systems, it's a problem that is solved by QR codes (if implemented correctly).
> What the article misses is that money is saved for the company by moving the work to the customer / end user.
It doesn't miss it. The whole framing of the article is the Dooman Fallacy - an organisation trying to save money by shifting [apparently] menial work to the customer ends up losing more than they save.
OP makes an app for his own needs and his own phone and decides to share it for free, at considerable cost ($100/yr), and your response is to ask him to remake it for you, from scratch (in another language), for an OS that OP doesn't use? Holy shit
Until you click the "accept" button, you haven't agreed to accept any cookies, so if you instead click through to settings, it shows you the current state: cookies off. I think the toggles could be a bit clearer, but I don't really have a problem with it.
Having worked at AI (a long time ago), I can assure you this isn't some mastermind plot to sneak a couple of cookies onto the computers of the one or two people who click through to settings.