Group 1 - The core point of the article highlights a significant subsidy war initiated by Chinese internet platforms, leading to a record high of 220 million food delivery orders in a single day [1][2] - This surge in orders reflects a shift towards a "cyber lazy economy," where consumers increasingly rely on platforms for decision-making and convenience [3][10] - The article discusses the emergence of a "trust" in platform scheduling systems, indicating a trend towards outsourcing time and life management to these platforms [12] Group 2 - Alibaba recognizes this trend and uses tea as a key product to attract users during the promotional event, aiming to change consumer perceptions about ordering food through its platform [13][14] - The article notes that on July 5, various categories such as grains, frozen foods, and household items saw over 100% year-on-year growth in orders, similar to the "Double 11" shopping festival [14] - However, it points out that Alibaba lacks a scalable front warehouse for instant retail, relying heavily on outsourcing delivery to Ele.me, which exposes structural weaknesses [15][16] Group 3 - The article suggests that Alibaba's strategy is akin to a gamble, aiming to capture user mindset through subsidies before fully developing its capabilities [17][18] - The concept of "Super Saturday" is introduced, with aspirations to create a consumer holiday similar to "Double 11," transforming collective emotional experiences into shopping events [19][21] - It discusses how the natural connection between culture and consumption is being reversed, with platforms creating artificial shopping holidays that prioritize transactions over cultural significance [21][28] Group 4 - The potential implications of "Super Saturday" include a restructured consumer lifestyle, where weekends may become dominated by algorithm-driven purchasing peaks rather than personal choice [25][26] - The article warns that this shift indicates a future where platforms dictate consumer demand rather than merely fulfilling it, leading to standardized collective consumption [27] - It concludes with a cautionary note about the trade-offs of convenience, questioning whether the efficiency gained is worth the loss of personal autonomy in daily life [29]