4 ms·

I was reading with great interest until I came to the heading about "disruption" at DC. Defending "ask later" practices is neither disruptive in the proper sens

I was reading with great interest until I came to the heading about "disruption" at DC. Defending "ask later" practices is neither disruptive in the proper sense, nor particularly ethical. The reporting here attempts to paint a picture of a slow, outdated USPS (and they surely are, to some extent) by way of obviously false comments ("digital is a fad"? Really? I'm supposed to believe someone at the USPS actually said this, in context? Let's critique the USPS, but let's not fabricate silly positions.) Too bad, really, it sounds like a great idea and excellent technology, but marred by a shameful ideology.

michaelt 12y ago
"digital is a fad"? Really? I'm supposed to believe someone at the USPS actually said this, in context? I agree it's unbelievably that anyone would say digital is a fad, but digitisation of physical postal mail might be a fad; it'll last as a market only as long as recipients want their letters digitally, but senders insist on sending physical mail. Haven't all the senders caught up already? All my bills etc are electronic these days, and very few people send letters in the age of e-mail. Amazon purchases I don't want digitised. Maybe christmas and birthday cards?
- XorNot 12y ago
  This sounds much more likely, and would as you say, be a completely accurate statement. Mail that can be digitized will eventually be digitized by its senders, whereas stuff that can't, well, that isn't changing. I know in Australia the bulk of the mail I receive these days is ebay orders from overseas - my bills are digital, my statements are digital. The physical things that go in regular envelopes tend are stuff like new credit cards or registered mail like my passport of things. So yeah, it does seem like an implicitly shrinking space.
forgottenpass 12y ago
There was so much praise thrown at "disruption" in this article I could barly finish it. I'm not going to make some statement about "news writers" in general, but I'm suprised that this one latched onto such a transparently gross talking-point. It's public face is delivering end users better interactions with the world around them, typcially through technology. An obviously laudable goal, but one that doesn't require disruption nor does disruption neccisarily provide.

michaelt 12y ago

"digital is a fad"? Really? I'm supposed to believe someone at the USPS actually said this, in context? I agree it's unbelievably that anyone would say digital is a fad, but digitisation of physical postal mail might be a fad; it'll last as a market only as long as recipients want their letters digitally, but senders insist on sending physical mail. Haven't all the senders caught up already? All my bills etc are electronic these days, and very few people send letters in the age of e-mail. Amazon purchases I don't want digitised. Maybe christmas and birthday cards?

XorNot 12y ago
This sounds much more likely, and would as you say, be a completely accurate statement. Mail that can be digitized will eventually be digitized by its senders, whereas stuff that can't, well, that isn't changing. I know in Australia the bulk of the mail I receive these days is ebay orders from overseas - my bills are digital, my statements are digital. The physical things that go in regular envelopes tend are stuff like new credit cards or registered mail like my passport of things. So yeah, it does seem like an implicitly shrinking space.

forgottenpass 12y ago

There was so much praise thrown at "disruption" in this article I could barly finish it. I'm not going to make some statement about "news writers" in general, but I'm suprised that this one latched onto such a transparently gross talking-point. It's public face is delivering end users better interactions with the world around them, typcially through technology. An obviously laudable goal, but one that doesn't require disruption nor does disruption neccisarily provide.