4 ms·

Besides the quite unnecessary personal attack on the founders ("One is a hardcore gamer, the other is a former backup dancer for Gucci Mane, and the third loves

Besides the quite unnecessary personal attack on the founders ("One is a hardcore gamer, the other is a former backup dancer for Gucci Mane, and the third loves beer more than you do. I’m not making this up–this is what they say about themselves on their Web page") I feel the writer did nothing to back up his claim. The "clear as mud" answer from the founder "same as all OBCs" was a really weird thing to leave up to interpretation of the reader. Nowhere did the writer enlighten me about the actual rights of an On Board Courier. I found this article really lacking in substance, sorry.

spraak 9y ago
Those aren't personal attacks, the author points out a sentence later that they're from the company's own page.
- erikrothoff 9y ago
  I'm questioning the reasoning for the sarcastic remarks. They add nothing but vitriol to the discussion that should at most be a discussion about the laws surrounding the service.
  - mratzloff 9y ago
    Well, if you feel like it's perfectly fine for founders to promote their gaming and beer hobbies instead of experience with a very serious industry with literal life or death consequences for couriers in some countries, where the company explicitly rejects any legal liability in their terms of service and has no 24/7 support available, by all means: use their service.
smsm42 9y ago
I feel that answering any questions which could very well have legal consequences on Twitter is not a very smart idea. Legal questions are rarely well-answered in 140 chars, even if you're allowed to use emojis.
- mjevans 9y ago
  A proper reply might be to request an email or physical address to send the actual answer to, or to link to a webpage with the results.
- briandear 9y ago
  “Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?” There isn’t much need for anything beyond 3 characters: “Yes” or “No” If you asked FedEx that question, there isn’t a legal department response needed. It’s a simple “Yes.” Also, that question – the public has a right to a clear answer. “Do your cars have seatbelts?” “Does your food contain salt?” These are examples of questions that don’t have gray areas worthy of “legalese.” If legalese is required that means the expected answer isn’t the same as the actual answer.
  - erikrothoff 9y ago
    It's assuming there first of all is a simple yes/no answer to the question. An extreme example: Is it legal to shoot a person? Yes or no? Give me a yes or no answer! The answer is "sometimes, maybe, no and yes". I think it's weird that all of a sudden everyone knows enough about Common Carrier rules or OBC's to know what the implications of either a "yes" or a "no" in that case would be. I personally have no idea. And after reading the article I still don't. Does the writer know? I couldn't see anything passed the sarcasm that would convince me either way. I would expect more substance in an article on the front page of Hacker news.
    - gus_massa 9y ago
      If the answer "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" were "yes" it may have some caveats like: "Yes, but the protection cover only he items send by AirMule, not the personal items in the other bag. Also adding any item to the AirMule bag voids all the protection." [Just in case this is not clear, this is a fake quote.] [Also, check it with your lawyer.] I guess you can reduce it to 140 characters and get a proper lawyer to write it. If the answer "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" were "no", the extension is: "No, totally no, 0%, zero, nada, zip!" [fake quote] Their answers to "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" is something like: "They will get a seat in the plane and can use the bathroom." [Also, fake quote.] They are not replaying the question, only stating something unrelated.
woof 9y ago
Your "personal attack" is text from https://www.airmule.com/about/ https://www.airmule.com/about/ under "Meet the Cofounders". Makes you confident about Airmule?
- erikrothoff 9y ago
  It's an about page. Not a resume. I don't understand what that has to do with their qualifications. It's just a random snide remark that has nothing to do with legality of the service.
  - sorokod 9y ago
    Not random and not snide. It is the way the company founders describe themselves.
celticninja 9y ago
I think the lack of substance is due to the lack of substance in the answers provided by the company. If I was a potential user of the service and I received these responses I doubt I would feel comfortable in accepting the offer.
- erikrothoff 9y ago
  The article by the author would be a great place to add some substance, no?
  - celticninja 9y ago
    I agree but the substance can only come from the company, ie fuller answers
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    Are you suggesting the blogger should flesh out Airmule's policy? It seems for something that is the core of their business model, Airmule should have a policy written and ready to reference.
    - tprophet 9y ago
      They do - their ToS. And it appears to put all liability on the passenger. They haven't substantively addressed reasonable and fair questions around this.
trumpisyourdad 9y ago
lol you're a dipshit

spraak 9y ago

Those aren't personal attacks, the author points out a sentence later that they're from the company's own page.

erikrothoff 9y ago
I'm questioning the reasoning for the sarcastic remarks. They add nothing but vitriol to the discussion that should at most be a discussion about the laws surrounding the service.
- mratzloff 9y ago
  Well, if you feel like it's perfectly fine for founders to promote their gaming and beer hobbies instead of experience with a very serious industry with literal life or death consequences for couriers in some countries, where the company explicitly rejects any legal liability in their terms of service and has no 24/7 support available, by all means: use their service.

smsm42 9y ago

I feel that answering any questions which could very well have legal consequences on Twitter is not a very smart idea. Legal questions are rarely well-answered in 140 chars, even if you're allowed to use emojis.

mjevans 9y ago
A proper reply might be to request an email or physical address to send the actual answer to, or to link to a webpage with the results.
briandear 9y ago
“Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?” There isn’t much need for anything beyond 3 characters: “Yes” or “No” If you asked FedEx that question, there isn’t a legal department response needed. It’s a simple “Yes.” Also, that question – the public has a right to a clear answer. “Do your cars have seatbelts?” “Does your food contain salt?” These are examples of questions that don’t have gray areas worthy of “legalese.” If legalese is required that means the expected answer isn’t the same as the actual answer.
- erikrothoff 9y ago
  It's assuming there first of all is a simple yes/no answer to the question. An extreme example: Is it legal to shoot a person? Yes or no? Give me a yes or no answer! The answer is "sometimes, maybe, no and yes". I think it's weird that all of a sudden everyone knows enough about Common Carrier rules or OBC's to know what the implications of either a "yes" or a "no" in that case would be. I personally have no idea. And after reading the article I still don't. Does the writer know? I couldn't see anything passed the sarcasm that would convince me either way. I would expect more substance in an article on the front page of Hacker news.
  - gus_massa 9y ago
    If the answer "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" were "yes" it may have some caveats like: "Yes, but the protection cover only he items send by AirMule, not the personal items in the other bag. Also adding any item to the AirMule bag voids all the protection." [Just in case this is not clear, this is a fake quote.] [Also, check it with your lawyer.] I guess you can reduce it to 140 characters and get a proper lawyer to write it. If the answer "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" were "no", the extension is: "No, totally no, 0%, zero, nada, zip!" [fake quote] Their answers to "Are couriers covered by Common Cartier rules?" is something like: "They will get a seat in the plane and can use the bathroom." [Also, fake quote.] They are not replaying the question, only stating something unrelated.

woof 9y ago

Your "personal attack" is text from https://www.airmule.com/about/ https://www.airmule.com/about/ under "Meet the Cofounders". Makes you confident about Airmule?

erikrothoff 9y ago
It's an about page. Not a resume. I don't understand what that has to do with their qualifications. It's just a random snide remark that has nothing to do with legality of the service.
- sorokod 9y ago
  Not random and not snide. It is the way the company founders describe themselves.

celticninja 9y ago

I think the lack of substance is due to the lack of substance in the answers provided by the company. If I was a potential user of the service and I received these responses I doubt I would feel comfortable in accepting the offer.

erikrothoff 9y ago
The article by the author would be a great place to add some substance, no?
- celticninja 9y ago
  I agree but the substance can only come from the company, ie fuller answers
- chillwaves 9y ago
  Are you suggesting the blogger should flesh out Airmule's policy? It seems for something that is the core of their business model, Airmule should have a policy written and ready to reference.
  - tprophet 9y ago
    They do - their ToS. And it appears to put all liability on the passenger. They haven't substantively addressed reasonable and fair questions around this.

trumpisyourdad 9y ago

lol you're a dipshit