4 ms·

Wha? I literally did the analysis in my first comment... that's where I tried to strike a balance between both parties' interests. You're the one who dismissed

Wha? I literally did the analysis in my first comment... that's where I tried to strike a balance between both parties' interests. You're the one who dismissed the whole thing with "it's India, they were going to die anyway".

renewiltord 6y ago
That's not analysis. It's just a statement of opinion. The guy in the story was going to die due to the phone not being able to dial if the following sequence occurred: * He arrived to do work on the building * He was unable to get the power shut off to the building before working * He decided to work anyway The actual worst case of anyone reasonable (yes, even in India¹) is "Oh no, I can't confirm power shut-off. I can't do this job. Oh, it's you the guy who hired me. Can you call the building super and have him shut off the power? I can talk to him on your phone if you'd like". Then you decided that this scenario somehow translates to "Should someone die because they didn't pay back $40 on your phone?" This really strains credulity. ¹ Yes, they're not working on live wires intentionally there. This isn't the '90s
- dataflow 6y ago
  It's because you're not understanding the comment. I was talking about the general case, not saying that that guy was going to die in this particular case. There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. And the trade-off is that this mechanism for ensuring a debt gets repaid explicitly puts people's lives in jeopardy. None of that is an an opinion, it's just a fact. That you somehow don't realize these really strains credulity. You're evidently not even trying to have a real discussion here so don't expect me to keep trying beyond this.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. There are vanishingly few in India where you will not have an instant substitute, since emergency calls aren't blocked. You really don't understand the market at all. Also, I am not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to get you to stop misinforming third parties so your stopping posting is a desired outcome. I am glad to hear that.

renewiltord 6y ago

That's not analysis. It's just a statement of opinion. The guy in the story was going to die due to the phone not being able to dial if the following sequence occurred: * He arrived to do work on the building * He was unable to get the power shut off to the building before working * He decided to work anyway The actual worst case of anyone reasonable (yes, even in India¹) is "Oh no, I can't confirm power shut-off. I can't do this job. Oh, it's you the guy who hired me. Can you call the building super and have him shut off the power? I can talk to him on your phone if you'd like". Then you decided that this scenario somehow translates to "Should someone die because they didn't pay back $40 on your phone?" This really strains credulity. ¹ Yes, they're not working on live wires intentionally there. This isn't the '90s

dataflow 6y ago
It's because you're not understanding the comment. I was talking about the general case, not saying that that guy was going to die in this particular case. There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. And the trade-off is that this mechanism for ensuring a debt gets repaid explicitly puts people's lives in jeopardy. None of that is an an opinion, it's just a fact. That you somehow don't realize these really strains credulity. You're evidently not even trying to have a real discussion here so don't expect me to keep trying beyond this.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  > There are tons of situations where being able to make a phone call can make the difference between life and death. There are vanishingly few in India where you will not have an instant substitute, since emergency calls aren't blocked. You really don't understand the market at all. Also, I am not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to get you to stop misinforming third parties so your stopping posting is a desired outcome. I am glad to hear that.