3 ms·

>I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Really? Not even a little? Guy generously loans out his expensive gear and gets it stolen, but you don't feel

>I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Really? Not even a little? Guy generously loans out his expensive gear and gets it stolen, but you don't feel even a little sorry that was the outcome? Rather, you think it was his fault because he somehow should have known better? I continue to be in awe of HN readers.

tofof 8y ago
I would feel sympathy for the guy you describe! However, that's not the author of this article: 1) Not 'generously'. He was entirely profit-driven. In the article he describes his motivation as "I could possibly corner the film camera rental market" and his initial experience as "the side business was going great — I made over $1,200". 2) Not nebulously 'somehow'. He did know better, which is why he explicitly sought further information from the company. Then, he voluntarily threw away that information after it was in his posession, and only afterward chose to risk $4500 to gain $95. No, I don't feel even a little bit sorry for him.
x0x0 8y ago
As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business transaction. If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them, who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business. So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have known that's not how the world works.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.
  - x0x0 8y ago
    I -- just spitballing numbers -- can't see how the intermediary can cover $4.5k in equipment while being paid $14.25/day. And, tbh, that should be pretty obvious.
    - danShumway 8y ago
      Well, they claim that this happens less than one in a thousand rentals[0], so statistically speaking, a one time fee of $4.50 for the entire rental period should be about enough to cover their expected risk, right? I don't buy the combination of, "this is rare so you shouldn't worry about it", and "it's too risky for us to cover you ourselves." [0]: https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/im-an-owner-how-do-i-know-my-gear-will-be-safe-on-kitsplit-is-it-insured https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/...
      - x0x0 8y ago
        No. Even assuming that the $4.50 covers renter peacing out with the equipment, you still have to cover damage, which is probably far more common. And make a profit.
        danShumway 8y ago
        Okay. Add an optional $4.50 fee in addition to the current price and make it clear to lenders that it's not covered in the default situation while explaining the risk to them. > Even assuming Is my math wrong? I think that's how expected value works -- risk * cost. And the figures I'm referencing are directly from the company, so I assume they're accurate. This all basically works out to the same point. If the expected cost over the lifetime of someone's rentals is so large that the company can't cover it, then it's crazy irresponsible for them to tell consumers not to worry about it. They can't have their cake and eat it too; either it's a trivial concern and they should cover it, or it's not a trivial concern and they should take steps to warn users. The point of an intermediary is to not get bitten by things unexpectedly; to introduce confidence to consumers who don't have experience with the subject they're entering. Part of that is either prominently warning them about substantial risks that they might not otherwise know about, or pricing your product so that you can remove those risks for them.
wpietri 8y ago
Yeah, I think of it as one of the dumb ways to be smart. Anybody can always find some way a victim could have averted the bad thing. Dramatically and jerkily pointing that out lets them perform smartness and superiority. I get that. I too have been that asshole. A lot of us here grew up being praised for being smart. We can't control IQ, of course, so it's easy learn to do things that accentuate our appearance of smartness. I've spent decades trying to unlearn those habits, but things we learn as kids run deep.

tofof 8y ago

I would feel sympathy for the guy you describe! However, that's not the author of this article: 1) Not 'generously'. He was entirely profit-driven. In the article he describes his motivation as "I could possibly corner the film camera rental market" and his initial experience as "the side business was going great — I made over $1,200". 2) Not nebulously 'somehow'. He did know better, which is why he explicitly sought further information from the company. Then, he voluntarily threw away that information after it was in his posession, and only afterward chose to risk $4500 to gain $95. No, I don't feel even a little bit sorry for him.

x0x0 8y ago

As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business transaction. If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them, who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business. So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have known that's not how the world works.

rdlecler1 8y ago
This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.
- x0x0 8y ago
  I -- just spitballing numbers -- can't see how the intermediary can cover $4.5k in equipment while being paid $14.25/day. And, tbh, that should be pretty obvious.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    Well, they claim that this happens less than one in a thousand rentals[0], so statistically speaking, a one time fee of $4.50 for the entire rental period should be about enough to cover their expected risk, right? I don't buy the combination of, "this is rare so you shouldn't worry about it", and "it's too risky for us to cover you ourselves." [0]: https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/im-an-owner-how-do-i-know-my-gear-will-be-safe-on-kitsplit-is-it-insured https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/...
    - x0x0 8y ago
      No. Even assuming that the $4.50 covers renter peacing out with the equipment, you still have to cover damage, which is probably far more common. And make a profit.
      - danShumway 8y ago
        Okay. Add an optional $4.50 fee in addition to the current price and make it clear to lenders that it's not covered in the default situation while explaining the risk to them. > Even assuming Is my math wrong? I think that's how expected value works -- risk * cost. And the figures I'm referencing are directly from the company, so I assume they're accurate. This all basically works out to the same point. If the expected cost over the lifetime of someone's rentals is so large that the company can't cover it, then it's crazy irresponsible for them to tell consumers not to worry about it. They can't have their cake and eat it too; either it's a trivial concern and they should cover it, or it's not a trivial concern and they should take steps to warn users. The point of an intermediary is to not get bitten by things unexpectedly; to introduce confidence to consumers who don't have experience with the subject they're entering. Part of that is either prominently warning them about substantial risks that they might not otherwise know about, or pricing your product so that you can remove those risks for them.

wpietri 8y ago

Yeah, I think of it as one of the dumb ways to be smart. Anybody can always find some way a victim could have averted the bad thing. Dramatically and jerkily pointing that out lets them perform smartness and superiority. I get that. I too have been that asshole. A lot of us here grew up being praised for being smart. We can't control IQ, of course, so it's easy learn to do things that accentuate our appearance of smartness. I've spent decades trying to unlearn those habits, but things we learn as kids run deep.