I would guess that we don't know because we don't interact with it at all and this would have us interact with it. No doubt that few people would really study very hard or that this would suddenly make everyone experts, but I suppose having to deal with it a tiny bit might lead to a tiny sense of the mechanics or scale. Like when you have to sit through the airplane safety talk, my guess is most people are still just going to thrash around over seats in an emergency of maybe ask each other what to do, but I guess people now know they're supposed to wear their seatbelts or that there's a mask in the ceiling? And you also probably do get a few more citizen experts than you had before.

Still, yeah, as an experiment it doesn't seem likely to work. There is probably something to putting people a little closer to the action though.

This concept exists outside of engineering too. It's captured in the more negatively intentioned: ““The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer". In user research, it's a much better signal when people correct you than when they agree. Politeness is easy—especially under the circumstances (power dynamic of you paying them, they only half care about your work, people generally want to be nice/agreeable, etc.)—such that you should be weary of it. Similarly trying to get real project goals or real requirements or real intentions from a PM or a boss, who may well be hiding that they there isn't much vision underneath things, is the same. The problem is that as productive as it is for developing the team's thinking, it will (1) probably come off as unproductive and challenging because you're slowing "progress" and (2) saying dumb wrong things makes you seem dumb and wrong. But per the concept, even when you do have the foresight to question, you're not allowed to just ask.

I hadn’t heard of brushing, but you might also be a bystander for a different common eBay scam. Seller sells to Buyer, but ships something different to another address with the same zip code. I think eBay may have since fixed part of this, but the deal was that all the tracking info would show that the seller shipped and delivered something of the right approximate weight to the buyer (because USPS would only share/confirm info accurate to zip code level).

The thing that makes it less likely is that the buyer and seller had multiple transactions together which is uncommon for eBay. And also if the stuff you got was expensive. Maybe buyer really just put the wrong address and neither side can do much to get the item back once delivered?

I got hit with that exact scam recently as a buyer, and I can tell you eBay has not figured out how to mitigate it yet. I purchased an expensive item from the seller. He sent some token thing to a different address in my city in the same zip code and provided me (and eBay) the tracking info. Item was delivered, and all eBay knows is "item sent to zip code X was delivered" so it was marked as delivered. I submitted a dispute, which was pretty much instantly closed with "Seller provided proof of delivery." I contacted UPS who happily provided me the actual address the package was delivered to. I escalated through eBay's support channel and offered to prove that the delivery was not to my address but they didn't care or want to know the actual delivery address. Finally, after a few days, eBay got back to me with a form letter saying I would be refunded because the seller's item was "lost in the mail," which was total bullshit, but at this point I didn't care since I got my money back, but the scammer probably kept the money too, so I guess eBay is eating these costs.

I got scammed once where the seller didn't even ship anything, but just came up with a tracking number for my zip code that had already been delivered recently. Took weeks of back-and-forth with customer service to get a refund. They had listed the item in a category that doesn't have the money-back guarantee (which I had no idea was a thing)

"Better to just not think about it" feels like the majority sentiment and a lot of people's path to their own (albeit less) success. We’ve got lots of modern phrases like "don’t listen to the haters" or "you do you" or things like imposter syndrome to support it.

I'd add (not saying you said otherwise) that marketing bad ideas well isn't quite the same as good communication. I guess a funny thing is that the more naive or blind or optimistic one is, the more one might wiggle their way out of some definitions of “liar.” If they're good at lying to themselves, maybe it doesn’t count as lying to others.

Certainly, "enough" is doing a lot of work and things get blurry, but I think "good enough" is meant to capture some of that. Over building is also a problem. It isn't strictly true that building longer lived things is cheaper over time either, it obviously depends on the specific things getting compared. And if you go 100 years rather than 25 years, you'll have fewer chances to adjust and optimize for changes to the context, new technology, changing goals, or more efficient (including cost saving) methods.

Obviously, there's a way to do both poorly too. We can make expensive things that don't last. I think a large chunk of gripes about things that don't last are really about (1) not getting the upside of the tradeoff, cheaper (in both senses) more flexible solutions, and (2) just getting bad quality period.

I sorta feel there's as much fantasy on the other side. The situation as is—the concrete one we're discussing here—exists. You're voting for a version where this person doesn't complain through the methods designed for it and instead writes to the CEO or something and has things fixed that way. Or possibly just doesn't complain about being screwed at all.

The system is largely bad. That's mostly agreed by each side. I feel like what you're asking for—to treat others as humans—is right and yet only going in one direction. There's a disagreement between the company and the customer and instead of showing up the company disingenuously gives you an unrelated powerless person to speak to. The expectation is that you shouldn't count them as the company, you count them as a human—and you're supposed to do that _because_ the company underpays them and gives them no power.

This isn't a happy counterargument or anything, but (bad as it is) this is this person's job. Or rather it is the job. Their employer has customer service in order for it to buffer—in a cost efficient way—the one or many layers of people above this person from their (profitable) bad policies. It's a punching bag. And it's that because bad policy + punching bag is more profitable than good policy. It might even be the business/market. If the frustrating call leads to 50% of callers giving up (or not calling at all) and just paying something they might not owe, that's a nice net ROI. You might build a business around that, one that wouldn’t have the margins otherwise. You get the callers caving because they feel bad yelling at the unfortunate employees, meanwhile it's in the company's formal protocol to only correct it (or escalate the ticket to someone who could) after the customer has yelled long enough.

There are bad customers for sure, but we also cheat good customers out of what they’re owed until they’re “bad.” The customer can yell or eat the cost. I think I can both feel bad for the employee and not place much blame on the customer given customer service as a quasi profit center.

I don't think this is simple econ 101. Yes with more houses we should expect lower prices, but also with high prices we should expect more houses produced. All that is econ 101, but that second econ 101 prediction isn't happening. I would guess that some will chalk it up to vaguely (though not necessarily wrong) jerks/idiots blocking it. Whether it's because nimbyers want to keep their home values (what we should expect from econ) or it's broken city politics, there are lots of things going on here. It's more complicated.

Interesting: "Why Apple is the best place to buy AirPods." I've never seen them have a section for that.

It's slowly made less sense to buy directly from Apple in recent years. Not a criticism just an observation. I assumed Apple was simply okay with that and decided it was net better for them. Seems reasonable. There was a period not that long ago where you could only buy directly. And there still are some products that are seemingly only on sale at specific retailers—Homepods have for whatever reason never (rarely?) been sold on Amazon, but are at Best Buy. Often you'll see like the latest Airpods for sale cheaper on Amazon/Costco/Target/etc. immediately even before launch day. The whole Apple experience is nice in its own way and sometimes I suppose you get small but nice little dopamine hits buying directly or going to the nice stores and having someone walk you through stuff (if you need/like it) so there's reasons some people go direct. Simply saying there's less reason than before and so I'm surprised and curious as to how this little section of the website came to be.

Do they want that margin back? Do they want to fight a little bit to keep you in more parts of the chain (but I guess not to the point of restricting sales/inventory to themselves)? Is this just like one PM (measured on one KPI) fighting for a little web real estate (presumably against the PMs involved in the retail partner channels)?