3 ms·

Which is completely different than a digit falling off a window, right?

by 51lver 8y ago

dumbfounder 8y ago
No, it isn't. It's still a mistake. A programmer could have dropped a digit just as easily as a person failed to properly tape a digit to a window.
- mikeash 8y ago
  When you go to buy that car where the digit fell off the price, the sales person will tell you that the erroneous price is wrong, and tell you the correct one. If for some reason the sales person does not do this and goes through with the sale at the erroneous price, sucks to be them. They had their chance to correct it and they failed to do so. This is the same situation, except instead of a sales person, it’s a computer. It seems to me that this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming the customer. If you don’t want software bugs resulting in sales at absurd prices, maybe you should have a human review each order to make sure the numbers are sensible.
  - shawnz 8y ago
    > this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming the customer In either the digital or analog cases of your example, the end result is that the customer ends up paying the intended price. The only difference is that with the digital case, they might find out about it slightly later. How is this a "newly found error" in that case and how is it "blaming the customer"? It sounds to me like the potential for error has always been there and nothing about the assignment of blame has changed whatsoever between the two examples.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      That’s not the end result at all. There are three possibilities: 1. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer pays the corrected price. 2. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer changes their mind. 3. The error is not corrected before the sale and the customer pays the erroneous price. Companies are trying to change a 3 into a 1 by blaming computers and saying the error should have been clear to the customer, when in fact it’s their own fault for not noticing the error before completing the transaction.
      - mmt 8y ago
        To be fair, they may also be trying to change a 3 into a 2 (or providing that option), but "trying" is the key word. There are enough high-value and/or physically large items that aren't cars (e.g. HDTVs, furniture) where undoing the transaction can be a huge imposition, even not considering that the merchandise is now no longer brand new and the customer must duplicate effort in the purchase process.

Which is completely different than a digit falling off a window, right?

by 51lver 8y ago

Which is completely different than a digit falling off a window, right?

No, it isn't. It's still a mistake. A programmer could have dropped a digit just as easily as a person failed to properly tape a digit to a window.

mikeash 8y ago
When you go to buy that car where the digit fell off the price, the sales person will tell you that the erroneous price is wrong, and tell you the correct one. If for some reason the sales person does not do this and goes through with the sale at the erroneous price, sucks to be them. They had their chance to correct it and they failed to do so. This is the same situation, except instead of a sales person, it’s a computer. It seems to me that this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming the customer. If you don’t want software bugs resulting in sales at absurd prices, maybe you should have a human review each order to make sure the numbers are sensible.
- shawnz 8y ago
  > this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming the customer In either the digital or analog cases of your example, the end result is that the customer ends up paying the intended price. The only difference is that with the digital case, they might find out about it slightly later. How is this a "newly found error" in that case and how is it "blaming the customer"? It sounds to me like the potential for error has always been there and nothing about the assignment of blame has changed whatsoever between the two examples.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    That’s not the end result at all. There are three possibilities: 1. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer pays the corrected price. 2. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer changes their mind. 3. The error is not corrected before the sale and the customer pays the erroneous price. Companies are trying to change a 3 into a 1 by blaming computers and saying the error should have been clear to the customer, when in fact it’s their own fault for not noticing the error before completing the transaction.
    - mmt 8y ago
      To be fair, they may also be trying to change a 3 into a 2 (or providing that option), but "trying" is the key word. There are enough high-value and/or physically large items that aren't cars (e.g. HDTVs, furniture) where undoing the transaction can be a huge imposition, even not considering that the merchandise is now no longer brand new and the customer must duplicate effort in the purchase process.