It seems sometimes that we may care more about the idea of charity, and how good it makes us feel about ourselves, than about what impact it has (if any at all).
Well, in this case, there was impact. With the ground.
Some aspiring do-gooder in San Francisco decided to distribute burgers to the homeless and hungry, which would be great if they weren't delivered via drone.
We use the term "delivered" rather loosely here.
There's a fair number of things worth critiquing about this stunt:
1) Why McDonald's burgers? Don't the homeless have enough to deal with without adding indigestion to the mix?
2) Why not simply distribute the food by hand? Are the homeless untouchable? Is homelessness contagious?
3) How does a drone determine who's homeless? Are we just targeting people who look like vagrants? And how is that supposed to not end poorly?
4) Why not just donate some money to a reputable institution that knows what it's doing?
5) Isn't such charity a bit too public and self-congratulatory for comfort?
6) Isn't drone technology a whole lot more convoluted than, we don't know, building a house?
But then there are a few things worth appreciating, too. For one, the recipients themselves seem pleased.
What's more, drone delivery could circumvent the bias some people have against homeless shelters and soup kitchens. There are some deeply ungrateful people in the world who don't want their communities "invaded" by the disadvantaged. But drones can take food to where the hungry are, instead of forcing them to gather where they are so often unwanted and mistreated.
Nonetheless, it's hard to not associate the stunt with a certain Mr. Burns gaffe. Observe the following Simpsons clip for evidence:
At the very least, we've come away from this with the phrase "whopper dropper" in our lexicon.