11–20 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, indeed, fortunately if you actually read even the first line of the article you'd understand that this isn't talking about theft.
right, not theft, just the seemingly legitimate sale of items whose rightful owner is unknown. if you think this isn't used as an opportunity for fencing stolen items, you're deluding yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, indeed, fortunately if you actually read even the first line of the article you'd understand that this isn't talking about theft.
right, not theft, just the seemingly legitimate sale of items whose rightful owner is unknown. if you think this isn't used as an opportunity for fencing stolen items, you're deluding yourself.
https://archive.is/Fks7M
maybe its icloud+’s vpn relay thing
That is a very generous statement indeed.
theft == bargain There are other places to purchase cheap stolen goods, too. But they're not backed by DHS . . .
Yes, indeed, fortunately if you actually read even the first line of the article you'd understand that this isn't talking about theft.
If airlines were prepared to accept X in costs from lost luggage before, and now get paid Y, they can now accept about X+Y in lost luggage costs. Meaning more lost luggage! After the system dynamics resettle, from a certain angle this is basically stealing: customers pay the same ticket price, but are paying some percentage more in expected lost luggage.
And on top of that, this is just considering the financial cost - what is actually happening is that more travelers are being deprived of their personal belongings. These are worth more to people than insurance payouts! It's surprising, but when you zoom out this seems downright awful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
right, not theft, just the seemingly legitimate sale of items whose rightful owner is unknown. if you think this isn't used as an opportunity for fencing stolen items, you're deluding yourself.
Please don't imbue your assumptions about legitimate business models without providing proof. The guidelines here are to make the effort to maximally be charitable in our interpretations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, indeed, fortunately if you actually read even the first line of the article you'd understand that this isn't talking about theft.
I think OP is right but hasn't fully unrolled what they mean. This seems like it creates a moral hazard [1], because it reduces the penalty to airlines for losing luggage. If airlines were prepared to accept X in costs from lost luggage before, and now get paid Y, they can now accept about X+Y in lost luggage costs. Meaning more lost luggage! After the system dynamics resettle, from a certain angle this is basically…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think OP is right but hasn't fully unrolled what they mean. This seems like it creates a moral hazard [1], because it reduces the penalty to airlines for losing luggage. If airlines were prepared to accept X in costs from lost luggage before, and now get paid Y, they can now accept about X+Y in lost luggage costs. Meaning more lost luggage! After the system dynamics resettle, from a certain angle this is basically…
I mean… the grocery store can make more money by double scanning an item I purchase, or McDonald’s can skim some money by giving everyone one less pickle. At some point the service quality has to be intrinsically motivated by the company wanting to preserve their brand, right? How much could they make off stolen luggage that they’d legitimately lose more on purpose? Surely the payout they have to make of losing lugga…
McDonald's is actually a good example, they did exactly this. IMO one reason their brand has been devalued is death by a thousand cost cuts. Each cut is imperceptible and seems like a win. But over several decades the net effect is a disaster. (IIRC Fast Food Nation documented some ideas about this process)