4 ms·

It seems like HNers are quite willing to believe that Amazon factually has the "We'll pay a non-employee contractor a bonus to move without authorization onto p

It seems like HNers are quite willing to believe that Amazon factually has the "We'll pay a non-employee contractor a bonus to move without authorization onto private property to take a package they don't have any documentation for and reintroduce it into our logistics system at some arbitrary point in the future" policy. This... is an unlikely policy for Amazon to have.

munk-a 8y ago
It may be indeed, but the article gives no indication that this isn't a policy Amazon has after giving a vague indication that it might be. HNers are reading a news story as clearly as it was written. (to contrast, the other option is that HNers would make logical assumptions and making logical assumptions is quite illogical when it comes to how large corporations interact with sub-contractors)
- mikeash 8y ago
  However, the story is quite clear that this is a claim made by the accused thief, and not independently verified in any way. When an accused criminal gives a stupid-sounding justification for why he committed the crime, maybe don’t believe him.
  - tempestn 8y ago
    I would argue that the author should have made some attempt to independently verify the claim, or if unable to confirm or deny, at least include a line to that effect.
  - marcosdumay 8y ago
    When somebody (whoever may be) claims something very unlikely the confidence people have on it being true has no other way to go but up. And people react to that change by talking. It's a bad cycle where absurd stuff (like "the Earth is plane") gets normalized by people repeating their surprised reactions. But there's no reason to think we are seeing anything besides people coping with an idea they will conclude is baseless.
  - heyjudy 8y ago
    Trump and fast-food advertisers should take that same boat ride.
  - scoggs 8y ago
    The article noted that the accused thief has no prior criminal record. That probably means little to nothing. There's no proof that he's not an amazing career criminal holding down a 9-5 in order to mask his criminal activity. There's also no proof that he's never even jaywalked prior to getting in trouble for the GPS Bait Package. That said, whether he's a secret career criminal or truly a first time offender his defense doesn't really seem like some sort of elaborate explanation he thought of in case he got caught up by the police. It more seems like a vague excuse or a vague lie... But... Is it really outside of Amazon's realm to have policies that the average person / worker wouldn't agree with? Is it really outside of the public's knowledge that Amazon employees have at times commented about, posted about, and protest over working conditions or pay or break time or lunch time given or scrutiny over many other seemingly menial things that the average person wouldn't expect such a massive and profitable corporation to have enacted and enforced? This all may mean nothing. Heck, I'll admit it all means nothing, but I'd love to hear an official comment from Amazon about the policy the accused thief mentioned. I'd also love to hear from Amazon employees who would have knowledge about whether such a policy existed or not. Either from a driver or other employees higher up on the food chain like lawyers, HR, or other corporate level employees who may have had to deal with such things directly if not directly dealt with such matters.
- aaron695 8y ago
  > It may be indeed, but the article gives no indication that this isn't a policy Amazon has after giving a vague indication that it might be. > HNers are reading a news story as clearly as it was written. Does there exist a forum where people are capable of common sense then? If I want regulated crappy news I'll go to Reddit or just read the news.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  The news should be read critically, without any assumptions that quoted figures are telling the truth nor assumptions that journalists are always attentive, unconstrained, or unbiased enough to sufficiently disclaim each item of information.
- SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
  Reading and understanding are distinct from believing, without verification. We know a great deal about the press and its tenancies towards sensationalism. Market incentives certainly encourage sensationalism, for both publishers and individual journalists. It could also be that the article is not sensational at all, and Amazon has a ridiculous policy here. Until you have concrete evidence to tilt your belief one way or another, the proper disposition is skepticism towards either position.
- yspeak 8y ago
  Please read news articles with a healthy dose of skepticism regarding fact checking. It should be assumed that most news reporters do very little if any fact checking, paraphrase or make up quotes, take things out of context, and are pushing a point of view that fits a current meme or will increase clicks. Then the editor adds a headline that compounds the problem. Things have only gotten worse with the internet with competition and time pressure. If you doubt me, wait until you are in a news event that is covered and compare the news report with what actually happened.

munk-a 8y ago

It may be indeed, but the article gives no indication that this isn't a policy Amazon has after giving a vague indication that it might be. HNers are reading a news story as clearly as it was written. (to contrast, the other option is that HNers would make logical assumptions and making logical assumptions is quite illogical when it comes to how large corporations interact with sub-contractors)

mikeash 8y ago
However, the story is quite clear that this is a claim made by the accused thief, and not independently verified in any way. When an accused criminal gives a stupid-sounding justification for why he committed the crime, maybe don’t believe him.
- tempestn 8y ago
  I would argue that the author should have made some attempt to independently verify the claim, or if unable to confirm or deny, at least include a line to that effect.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  When somebody (whoever may be) claims something very unlikely the confidence people have on it being true has no other way to go but up. And people react to that change by talking. It's a bad cycle where absurd stuff (like "the Earth is plane") gets normalized by people repeating their surprised reactions. But there's no reason to think we are seeing anything besides people coping with an idea they will conclude is baseless.
- heyjudy 8y ago
  Trump and fast-food advertisers should take that same boat ride.
- scoggs 8y ago
  The article noted that the accused thief has no prior criminal record. That probably means little to nothing. There's no proof that he's not an amazing career criminal holding down a 9-5 in order to mask his criminal activity. There's also no proof that he's never even jaywalked prior to getting in trouble for the GPS Bait Package. That said, whether he's a secret career criminal or truly a first time offender his defense doesn't really seem like some sort of elaborate explanation he thought of in case he got caught up by the police. It more seems like a vague excuse or a vague lie... But... Is it really outside of Amazon's realm to have policies that the average person / worker wouldn't agree with? Is it really outside of the public's knowledge that Amazon employees have at times commented about, posted about, and protest over working conditions or pay or break time or lunch time given or scrutiny over many other seemingly menial things that the average person wouldn't expect such a massive and profitable corporation to have enacted and enforced? This all may mean nothing. Heck, I'll admit it all means nothing, but I'd love to hear an official comment from Amazon about the policy the accused thief mentioned. I'd also love to hear from Amazon employees who would have knowledge about whether such a policy existed or not. Either from a driver or other employees higher up on the food chain like lawyers, HR, or other corporate level employees who may have had to deal with such things directly if not directly dealt with such matters.
aaron695 8y ago
> It may be indeed, but the article gives no indication that this isn't a policy Amazon has after giving a vague indication that it might be. > HNers are reading a news story as clearly as it was written. Does there exist a forum where people are capable of common sense then? If I want regulated crappy news I'll go to Reddit or just read the news.
drak0n1c 8y ago
The news should be read critically, without any assumptions that quoted figures are telling the truth nor assumptions that journalists are always attentive, unconstrained, or unbiased enough to sufficiently disclaim each item of information.
SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
Reading and understanding are distinct from believing, without verification. We know a great deal about the press and its tenancies towards sensationalism. Market incentives certainly encourage sensationalism, for both publishers and individual journalists. It could also be that the article is not sensational at all, and Amazon has a ridiculous policy here. Until you have concrete evidence to tilt your belief one way or another, the proper disposition is skepticism towards either position.
yspeak 8y ago
Please read news articles with a healthy dose of skepticism regarding fact checking. It should be assumed that most news reporters do very little if any fact checking, paraphrase or make up quotes, take things out of context, and are pushing a point of view that fits a current meme or will increase clicks. Then the editor adds a headline that compounds the problem. Things have only gotten worse with the internet with competition and time pressure. If you doubt me, wait until you are in a news event that is covered and compare the news report with what actually happened.