7 ms·

> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. I don't th

> The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available. I don't think it's impartial: the implication here is that the same technology is not available to the renter, so Hertz can easily claim damage that was already present at checkout that an ordinary customer picture can't refute. That asymmetry seems bad to me.

tekla 1y ago
That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away. Is basic ass covering weird?
- woodruffw 1y ago
  > Is basic ass covering weird? The point was that basic ass covering isn't good enough; my visual scan and phone photos aren't going to match what a machine designed to find defects can do. (I think everyone does - or at least should do - what you do. I certainly do.)
  - tekla 1y ago
    I would need examples of the defects that this machine would find that a) would matter enough to bother with and b) not be something a human could bring up arbitrarily too if they happened to not like me.
    - esseph 1y ago
      In theory if the success rate is high enough, it will find more than most humans will. Edit: And as another poster said, this means they get to double dip by depreciating the asset and charging the customer for that wear.
    - woodruffw 1y ago
      This is a lot more complicated than assuming that a machine will find things more consistently than a ~minimum wage employee, especially if the latter isn't motivated to screw you. (It's also far from the original point, which is purely about symmetry.)
- BoorishBears 1y ago
  Unless you carry a dent repair light in a darkened room, you're not matching their level of detail fwiw If you put most people's cars under those lights you'd be shocked at how much damage you'd find.

tekla 1y ago

That's weird, because when I rent a car, I take photos and videos and I make sure to have a attendant write down the damage on the rental paper before I drive away. Is basic ass covering weird?

woodruffw 1y ago
> Is basic ass covering weird? The point was that basic ass covering isn't good enough; my visual scan and phone photos aren't going to match what a machine designed to find defects can do. (I think everyone does - or at least should do - what you do. I certainly do.)
- tekla 1y ago
  I would need examples of the defects that this machine would find that a) would matter enough to bother with and b) not be something a human could bring up arbitrarily too if they happened to not like me.
  - esseph 1y ago
    In theory if the success rate is high enough, it will find more than most humans will. Edit: And as another poster said, this means they get to double dip by depreciating the asset and charging the customer for that wear.
  - woodruffw 1y ago
    This is a lot more complicated than assuming that a machine will find things more consistently than a ~minimum wage employee, especially if the latter isn't motivated to screw you. (It's also far from the original point, which is purely about symmetry.)
BoorishBears 1y ago
Unless you carry a dent repair light in a darkened room, you're not matching their level of detail fwiw If you put most people's cars under those lights you'd be shocked at how much damage you'd find.