5 ms·

It's not theft. Rather just regular old big company incompetence. You're dealing with broken automated systems and an out-sourced customer support agent. Wait

It's not theft. Rather just regular old big company incompetence. You're dealing with broken automated systems and an out-sourced customer support agent. Wait until LLMs arrive on the scene and further exacerbate the problem.

db48x 2y ago
It is theft too. Theft caused by incompetence and out–sourced customer support is still theft.
- lolinder 2y ago
  No. Theft requires intent. If we accept that it's incompetence and no one actually intended to apply the fee to an electric vehicle then it is not theft.
  - db48x 2y ago
    I think that a big part of Hertz’s business model is to deliberately overcharge as many of their customers as possible.
  - Repulsion9513 2y ago
    If no one intended to apply the fee to an electric vehicle, then why was the fee applied to an electric vehicle? Moreover why did it happen numerous times? And why was support not immediately like "oh crap lemme fix that"?
chipgap98 2y ago
Incompetence is not a valid justification for theft
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
While I generally agree with your premise, the problem is that when companies realize they can make more money through "old big company incompetence", at best it means they have no incentive to improve, and at worst in means they can maliciously overcharge and then just blame it on "incompetence". I really think government needs to enact laws that make companies compensate people for their time when they have to deal with bureaucratic nightmares like this. Right now companies just get to externalize the costs of their fucks ups onto everyone else.
- gravescale 2y ago
  Yes. This is why I find Hanlon's Razor annoying (" Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"), as it doesn't consider the higher order effect of what happens when the malicious are aware of the adage and willing to pretend to be incompetent. One obvious example: OneTrust cookie banners. They're nearly all misconfigured to have the "Reject Cookies" button greyed out or missing (or a link to a little minigame) and the "Accept Cookies" button prominent. Are all companies simply so incompetent? Is OneTrust (easy; no, it's correct on their own website). Or are they deliberately and maliciously breaking the law and when challenged will just do the wide-eyed "oh gosh, I'm such a silly-billy clutz with these things tee-hee"
  - xattt 2y ago
    How about the gaslighting that happens from couriers around missed deliveries (we tried but you were not home) when no damn delivery attempt was made?
  - abrichr 2y ago
    Agreed. Also worth noting that Hanlon’s razor was not originally intended to be interpreted as a philosophical idea in the same way as Occam’s: > The term ‘Hanlon’s Razor’ and its accompanying phrase originally came from an individual named Robert. J. Hanlon from Scranton, Pennsylvania as a submission for a book of jokes and aphorisms, published in 1980 by Arthur Bloch. https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlons-razor# https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlon... Hopefully we can collectively begin to put it to rest.
  - smohare 2y ago
    [dead]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Yep compensation for time must be required. Insurance companies, particularly in healthcare (Aetna especially), love subjecting customers to repeated calls with hour long wait times. They hope to just exhaust you from getting a claim honored.
maxerickson 2y ago
Okay, fraudulent billing then.
schmookeeg 2y ago
I would bet that they displayed high competence at discovering under-charge or forgot-to-charge incidents and swiftly remedied them.
Nextgrid 2y ago
Ignorance of the law isn't a valid excuse for individuals is it? So it shouldn't be for companies either.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent. If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that. If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling. Theft requires intent.
  - sobkas 2y ago
    > It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent. > If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that. > If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling. > Theft requires intent. No one will care what you say when you will get caught. https://www.good.is/lawyer-explains-the-risk-of-using-self-checkouts-at-stores https://www.good.is/lawyer-explains-the-risk-of-using-self-c...
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > In a clip uploaded on TikTok, Jernigan explains Call me old fashioned, but I'm not going to take legal advice from TikTok personalities, especially when the claim sounds like one of those scarebait articles newspapers print on a bad news day.
  - Nextgrid 2y ago
    The problem is that this opens up an obvious vulnerability - underfund the department that's supposed to ensure compliance so that you effectively end up breaking the law at scale and yet retain this plausible deniability. The only way out is to reverse the situation - companies should have even less leniency. You can't expect a single person to know the specifics of every law or to pay attention 100% of the time, but you can absolutely expect a company to be able to hire the necessary manpower to ensure near-bulletproof compliance.
Repulsion9513 2y ago
<insert "they're the same picture" meme here> Big company incompetence exists because, paradoxically, it's more profitable. The solution is making it less profitable, or better yet treating the business like you'd treat a human. Put a derogatory report on their credit and make sure they can't get any kind of credit (often even including pre-paid rent) for 7 years....

db48x 2y ago

It is theft too. Theft caused by incompetence and out–sourced customer support is still theft.

lolinder 2y ago
No. Theft requires intent. If we accept that it's incompetence and no one actually intended to apply the fee to an electric vehicle then it is not theft.
- db48x 2y ago
  I think that a big part of Hertz’s business model is to deliberately overcharge as many of their customers as possible.
- Repulsion9513 2y ago
  If no one intended to apply the fee to an electric vehicle, then why was the fee applied to an electric vehicle? Moreover why did it happen numerous times? And why was support not immediately like "oh crap lemme fix that"?

chipgap98 2y ago

Incompetence is not a valid justification for theft

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

While I generally agree with your premise, the problem is that when companies realize they can make more money through "old big company incompetence", at best it means they have no incentive to improve, and at worst in means they can maliciously overcharge and then just blame it on "incompetence". I really think government needs to enact laws that make companies compensate people for their time when they have to deal with bureaucratic nightmares like this. Right now companies just get to externalize the costs of their fucks ups onto everyone else.

gravescale 2y ago
Yes. This is why I find Hanlon's Razor annoying (" Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"), as it doesn't consider the higher order effect of what happens when the malicious are aware of the adage and willing to pretend to be incompetent. One obvious example: OneTrust cookie banners. They're nearly all misconfigured to have the "Reject Cookies" button greyed out or missing (or a link to a little minigame) and the "Accept Cookies" button prominent. Are all companies simply so incompetent? Is OneTrust (easy; no, it's correct on their own website). Or are they deliberately and maliciously breaking the law and when challenged will just do the wide-eyed "oh gosh, I'm such a silly-billy clutz with these things tee-hee"
- xattt 2y ago
  How about the gaslighting that happens from couriers around missed deliveries (we tried but you were not home) when no damn delivery attempt was made?
- abrichr 2y ago
  Agreed. Also worth noting that Hanlon’s razor was not originally intended to be interpreted as a philosophical idea in the same way as Occam’s: > The term ‘Hanlon’s Razor’ and its accompanying phrase originally came from an individual named Robert. J. Hanlon from Scranton, Pennsylvania as a submission for a book of jokes and aphorisms, published in 1980 by Arthur Bloch. https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlons-razor# https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlon... Hopefully we can collectively begin to put it to rest.
- smohare 2y ago
  [dead]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Yep compensation for time must be required. Insurance companies, particularly in healthcare (Aetna especially), love subjecting customers to repeated calls with hour long wait times. They hope to just exhaust you from getting a claim honored.

maxerickson 2y ago

Okay, fraudulent billing then.

schmookeeg 2y ago

I would bet that they displayed high competence at discovering under-charge or forgot-to-charge incidents and swiftly remedied them.

Nextgrid 2y ago

Ignorance of the law isn't a valid excuse for individuals is it? So it shouldn't be for companies either.

lolinder 2y ago
It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent. If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that. If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling. Theft requires intent.
- sobkas 2y ago
  > It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent. > If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that. > If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling. > Theft requires intent. No one will care what you say when you will get caught. https://www.good.is/lawyer-explains-the-risk-of-using-self-checkouts-at-stores https://www.good.is/lawyer-explains-the-risk-of-using-self-c...
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > In a clip uploaded on TikTok, Jernigan explains Call me old fashioned, but I'm not going to take legal advice from TikTok personalities, especially when the claim sounds like one of those scarebait articles newspapers print on a bad news day.
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  The problem is that this opens up an obvious vulnerability - underfund the department that's supposed to ensure compliance so that you effectively end up breaking the law at scale and yet retain this plausible deniability. The only way out is to reverse the situation - companies should have even less leniency. You can't expect a single person to know the specifics of every law or to pay attention 100% of the time, but you can absolutely expect a company to be able to hire the necessary manpower to ensure near-bulletproof compliance.

Repulsion9513 2y ago

<insert "they're the same picture" meme here> Big company incompetence exists because, paradoxically, it's more profitable. The solution is making it less profitable, or better yet treating the business like you'd treat a human. Put a derogatory report on their credit and make sure they can't get any kind of credit (often even including pre-paid rent) for 7 years....