Love this interaction with a restaurant, which I will not name to avoid bringing them to disrepute for being really good at handling this case:
I ordered a thing that I have ordered from 40 times. It contains an ingredient. This time, that ingredient was hard as a rock.
So I gave them a call, with the goal of politely apprising them that they had a bad batch.
They took my feedback, apologized, issued a refund, and then the clerk said “Wait, you’ve ordered this 30+ times. Would you characterize this as ‘not what I enjoy’ or… something else?”
“Would you permit me to perhaps say something in a fashion which might come across as brusque?”
“Please do.”
“I do not believe this batch is edible.”
“Sir please hold while I shut down the line.”
There is both the conversation happening here and a subrosa conversation, where the last sentence is both parties simultaneously realizing that they have worked adjacent to Japanese manufacturing.
*have both worked
(If I had known that at the outset and they had known that I know what an andon cord is the conversation would have been much blunter and shorter. “Heads up: order XYZ, $ITEM, production quality issue impacting safety.” “… Confirming order number…” “Yes.”)
A huge part of the magic in all ecosystems is having a shared language, mental model for counterparties that you have ever met before, and trust in good faith and competence.
“Can they trace the $ITEM given an order number?”
So in a restaurant my bet is factually no, they’re all likely mixed in one or several bins and they don’t know which bin that order number came out of, but that isn’t the point of starting with the order number.
It’s a) a shibboleth that you’re not a civilian and b) unspoken “I know you will later need to know some information here for your incident review process and without taking time away from resolution here’s the one key you need to avoid awkward questions right now.”
But for corona I’d predict better than even odds that I get a call asking for when I’d be able to receive the store manager and head of food prep (plus food safety officer if not one of those two) for an in-person apology, which is less manufacturing and more CS culture.
“That’s really a thing?”
Oh yeah; I was over at @harisenbon79’s house one day when he got the apology visit (a staple had worked its way into a restaurant dinner and, as hall staff did not handle the matter appropriately, he later called to apprise management of this).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People sometimes wonder when fraud is such a thing when it is “so obvious” to spot.
I have a transaction to report. Place your bets on whether it sounds legitimate.
A high school student opens an Amazon account in 1996 from Illinois. They use it to purchase books through 2000.
After 2000 the account goes almost entirely dormant, except sometimes buys Christmas gifts. It never purchases anything over $200.
In 2007, the account uses a new credit card with a billing address in Chicago associated with the account holder to buy a $2k laptop.
The transaction is initiated from Nagoya, Japan, on a machine that has never accessed this account before. The account has never been accessed from Nagoya at all.
The shipping address is entirely new. The name shipped to is, going by e.g. apparent ethnicity, not related.
No lie, sometimes I hear about the vibe people get from DAOs and think “This really rhymes with the first few weeks of that charity that started out of a bunch of geeks piling into Discord.”
I love people getting enthusiastic about collaborating on things over the Internet, and honestly the whole Constitution thing kind of pushed my buttons in a way Number Go Up projects generally do not, but broadly unclear to me that DAOs the form benefit the communities they serve
The job to be done here is much more interesting than the job currently being done, IMHO.
This week on Bits about Money: geeks running Internet-enabled small businesses using a combination of software development, marketing savvy, online platforms, and boutique investment firms... except they're evil.
This is a follow-up on my tweetstorm from Giving Tuesday about how charities get preferentially targeted by card testers, one link in this supply chain.
Talented geeks exist everywhere; market structures that support them do not.
I was struck by how similar some of their challenges were to the ecosystems I've been directly physically in in Ogaki and Tokyo.
Lack of mentors, social scripts for success which only allowed young people to aspire to BigCo jobs, little opportunity for skill building early.
Mark, the CEO, sent me an interesting email earlier today, about the cost structure for employing geeks in Africa while they skill them up. The subject was 509.
$509 (US) per month per employee in average fully-loaded cost of employment.
“What happens if you invest depositor’s money in a debt platform which suffers a $100M+ operational loss of which you own 50%+ in traditional finance, Patrick?”
We’ll start with the notion of “depositor.” Speaking broadly, if you accept retail money, by regulation you are almost certainly prohibited from investing in anything which has any reasonable probability of having a $100M operational loss.
But Ops losses do happen in the world.
So you have an agreement with your contra operating the platform that gave rise to the ops loss. That contract, which was negotiated by competent professionals on both sides, is extremely explicit as to which of the two of you owns the loss.