3 ms·

>> The User is the Tester If you can afford to make the user the tester, you should. There is no moral hazard, only an economic one. If you have 5 million cust

>> The User is the Tester If you can afford to make the user the tester, you should. There is no moral hazard, only an economic one. If you have 5 million customers paying $1 / year, make the user do the testing via canary deployments, metrics, etc. If you have 5 customers each paying $1M / year, be sure to test it yourself. The problem seems to be that people forget which regime they are operating in.

chefandy 2y ago
> There is no moral hazard, only an economic one. Er... No? If you take someone's money in exchange for goods and services, you have a moral duty to give them what you said you would. Not a broken version of it– what they bought. If you explicitly state they're getting an unstable product, then sure. If you actually do your best within reason and your service is broken, shit happens. Nobody is perfect, but you made a good faith effort to deliver on your promise. But if you don't, and deliberately don't bother checking if it actually works while happily pocketing people's cash, that's unambiguously negligent. Ripping off small groups of customers is no morally different than ripping off all of your customers— it's the same immorality at a smaller scale so you're more likely to get away with it.
- osigurdson 2y ago
  Is your argument than an amount of money approaching zero in the limit is morally distinct from zero - triggering a step change in behavior?
  - solatic 2y ago
    The point is that you confused moral hazard with economic hazard in claiming that there was an economic hazard but not a moral hazard. When you have 5 million users paying $1/each, then pissing off a hundred of them makes very little difference to your bottom line, i.e. low economic hazard. But morally, because you sold them a product for $1/each, you owe them warranty of fitness, therefore the low economic hazard, i.e. the low economic consequences, introduces high moral hazard. When the situation is flipped, with 5 customers paying $1 million each, your high economic hazard in the risk of losing a customer aligns your moral incentives to do correctly by them, and you therefore have a low moral hazard. I largely agree with you, except that you flipped the terms.
  - sadops 2y ago
    I think you know what they're arguing. It couldn't be clearer.
    - osigurdson 2y ago
      I'd like them to be clear about their own thinking. Something occurs in their mind once money is exchanged. If time is exchanged (i.e. advertising), on the other hand, no such pact is created. Why? Isn't money essentially a proxy for time?
      - mcmcmc 2y ago
        Absolutely not. Quit the bad faith arguments please
  - chefandy 2y ago
    I should have known better then to take that bait. I'm not interested in pedantic philosophical debate about theoretical obligations skewed by imaginary prices that don't reflect real world business scenarios. In fact, I'm opting out of this entirely. Have a good night.

chefandy 2y ago

> There is no moral hazard, only an economic one. Er... No? If you take someone's money in exchange for goods and services, you have a moral duty to give them what you said you would. Not a broken version of it– what they bought. If you explicitly state they're getting an unstable product, then sure. If you actually do your best within reason and your service is broken, shit happens. Nobody is perfect, but you made a good faith effort to deliver on your promise. But if you don't, and deliberately don't bother checking if it actually works while happily pocketing people's cash, that's unambiguously negligent. Ripping off small groups of customers is no morally different than ripping off all of your customers— it's the same immorality at a smaller scale so you're more likely to get away with it.

osigurdson 2y ago
Is your argument than an amount of money approaching zero in the limit is morally distinct from zero - triggering a step change in behavior?
- solatic 2y ago
  The point is that you confused moral hazard with economic hazard in claiming that there was an economic hazard but not a moral hazard. When you have 5 million users paying $1/each, then pissing off a hundred of them makes very little difference to your bottom line, i.e. low economic hazard. But morally, because you sold them a product for $1/each, you owe them warranty of fitness, therefore the low economic hazard, i.e. the low economic consequences, introduces high moral hazard. When the situation is flipped, with 5 customers paying $1 million each, your high economic hazard in the risk of losing a customer aligns your moral incentives to do correctly by them, and you therefore have a low moral hazard. I largely agree with you, except that you flipped the terms.
- sadops 2y ago
  I think you know what they're arguing. It couldn't be clearer.
  - osigurdson 2y ago
    I'd like them to be clear about their own thinking. Something occurs in their mind once money is exchanged. If time is exchanged (i.e. advertising), on the other hand, no such pact is created. Why? Isn't money essentially a proxy for time?
    - mcmcmc 2y ago
      Absolutely not. Quit the bad faith arguments please
- chefandy 2y ago
  I should have known better then to take that bait. I'm not interested in pedantic philosophical debate about theoretical obligations skewed by imaginary prices that don't reflect real world business scenarios. In fact, I'm opting out of this entirely. Have a good night.