4 ms·

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 an

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.
- tprophet 9y ago
  There is no technical issue here preventing a clear answer due to 140 character limits. These guys had my email address and could have sent a detailed response. Instead, they sent a short (but clear) one. If they actually wanted a phone interview, they could have asked for one and provided a number to call. And it's possible to send more than one tweet if they wanted to respond that way. They did link to a FAQ which isn't clear, and their Terms of Service is posted on the page as others have noted. This is what raised my eyebrows to begin with and why I started asking questions. A friend who is a tech reporter said "When they're responding like this, you know you got 'em." Given that Rory has had all morning to dispute any of the facts in my blog post, and has not done so despite being very active on Twitter, it seems clear that my reporter friend is right.

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.

tprophet 9y ago
There is no technical issue here preventing a clear answer due to 140 character limits. These guys had my email address and could have sent a detailed response. Instead, they sent a short (but clear) one. If they actually wanted a phone interview, they could have asked for one and provided a number to call. And it's possible to send more than one tweet if they wanted to respond that way. They did link to a FAQ which isn't clear, and their Terms of Service is posted on the page as others have noted. This is what raised my eyebrows to begin with and why I started asking questions. A friend who is a tech reporter said "When they're responding like this, you know you got 'em." Given that Rory has had all morning to dispute any of the facts in my blog post, and has not done so despite being very active on Twitter, it seems clear that my reporter friend is right.