4 ms·
I disagree with this. If they can't follow the formatting requirements of the application, then "what else are they overlooking, or likely to overlook once oper
by stordoff 7y ago
I disagree with this. If they can't follow the formatting requirements of the application, then "what else are they overlooking, or likely to overlook once operating?" is a valid concern. They don't seem to indicate that it was an unknown requirement ("If the information does not have the letter A and the number 3 and then the paragraph below it, then it’s not there and you’re disqualified", [the CEO] said).
I see something of an analogy to the brown M&M's rider[1]. They don't particularly care that there are no brown M&M's, but the presence of them is a massive red flag that you have cut corners or not done your due diligence.
[1] https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9 https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9
- conistonwater 7y agoWait, this doesn't sound right. The thing about brown M&Ms was that they'd had too many safety problems, and if numerous small things in the spec were violated that meant there was a safety problem. That's the core problem they were trying to solve. If numerous small things are violated in a form, like the ones mentioned elsewhere in the thread, then that's actually pretty minor.
- jbc1 7y agoIn this analogy, the violations on the form aren't the equivalent of the safety problem, they're the equivalent of the brown m&ms.