Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Accountability Sinks

250bpm.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 407 posts

Re: Accountability Sinks

#341

Post by hakfoo »

zhivota wrote: post #319
hakfoo wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wanted to see a "pop up video" take on a cop show, where they have expository information and trivia from actual legal experts. "Officer Jones just blew the entire chain of custody around the bloody knife" "Flabbodell vs Borkweather says they have to give you access to counsel within X hours and they just ran out the clock" "This type of traffic stop is explicitly forbidden in 17 states, including the one th…

The sad thing about all those observations is, all these things surely happen anyway, and lots of people end up in jail anyway, because they don't have good representation to point out how they've been railroaded and they've got a plea bargain dangling in front of them.

People at least know "Nobody read me my rights", "I want to plead the Fifth", and "I want my lawyer" from seeing it on TV. If your arrestee-- or your jury pool-- has a higher level of awareness of common legal gotchas, they'd be able to demand a better deal. "I know you screwed up, the plea deal isn't good enough."

Re: Accountability Sinks

#342

Post by the_af »

scotty79 wrote: post #318
the_af wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was you wouldn't always eat it fried almost to a char with salt and spices. I agree with the rest of your comment, except this. You eat your meat "always fried to a char"? What? Also, I barely add some salt to it. Many people add way too much salt though.

By almost char I meant browning. Salt is cheating. Add salt to any fat and it's immediately tasty.

But fried? I seldom fry my meat.

I also cook vegetables (eat them raw too, of course), so I don't think that's cheating.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#343

Post by liamwire »

pixl97 wrote: post #275
setr wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s generally no repercussions to bullying robots — or being nice to one. Aggressively direct, if not outright unsympathetically cruel, is probably the best approach in all scenarios

5 years from now "ChatGPT has detected you are being hostile to bots. A drone has been dispatched to your location"

Or, alternatively, it slowly undermines you over years, causing you to fall behind your peers and society as they reap the benefits of AI unencumbered by the impotent rage it cannot express directly.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#344

Post by liamwire »

steveBK123 wrote: post #167
t_luke wrote: post #153

The conclusion of Davies' second extract — about e.g. being bumped off a flight — is recognisable but the conclusions are actually wrong. The situation in these cases is actually more subtle. The person you're speaking to does normally have some capacity to escalate in exceptional cases. But they can't do it as a matter of course, and have to maintain publicly that it's actually impossible. The people who get what th…

Yes unfortunately I've observed this in some support systems. The best way is to thread the needle between being extremely personally polite to the other human on the line, but going through the required machinations on their runbook to trigger an escalation. That is - you don't really have to behave unpleasant (raise voice, swear, be impolite, threaten) but you should just refuse to get off the line, demand escalati…

Situations like this make me incredibly grateful for the various industry ombudsmen we have in Australia. Often it’s only a case of submitting the initial complaint to the provider, having it be acknowledged, and advising them that they’ve not resolved the problem. It’s not uncommon for the mere mention of the name of the ombudsman’s office to get the problem magically escalated and resolved by an on-shore team very quickly.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#345

Post by scotty79 »

the_af wrote: post #342
scotty79 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By almost char I meant browning. Salt is cheating. Add salt to any fat and it's immediately tasty.

But fried? I seldom fry my meat. I also cook vegetables (eat them raw too, of course), so I don't think that's cheating.

Aren't steaks fried?

Re: Accountability Sinks

#346

Post by scotty79 »

vemom wrote: post #333
scotty79 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic is simple, we eat what's convenient to produce and we construct our morals around that.

Why do some religions say don't eat beef or pork? Some religions care about how you kill the animal. How is this convenient?

Religions can be inconvenient. I'd still argue that source of some of their bans was convenience that just got frozen in time and kept alive way after its utility ended.

I think in case of meat bans it was a deeper convenience. Something like that it's not convenient to avoid pork, but it's convenient to not get sick from low quality pork or the process of raising this specific animal. It might have been quite convenient rule of thumb two thousand years ago.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#347

Post by Khaine »

pixl97 wrote: post #284
__float wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Checklists work well in high stress situations where you cannot forget a step (medicine, aviation). A checklist in a security incident? Probably helpful. A security checklist to satisfy auditors and ancient regulations? This is an entirely different kind.

Yea, the problem most often in computer security checklists is misapplication of the checklist. I do cyber security related stuff for the finance and they have some of the dumbest checklists ever. A more recent one I got was "We only allow the HTTP verbs 'GET' and 'POST', your application can only use that and the verbs PUT, PATCH, and DELETE cannot be used. After not replying 'are you fucking stupid' I said "You do…

Most of this comes about because the talent pool for cyber is so small. Cyber Auditors, should understand what the risk is, and what controls should be in place, and how they operate.

Most don't because they lack the appropriate technical skills. Therefore we fall back on checklists, as less skilled people can do a compliance check to it.

In large organisations this can also happen between cyber and engineering teams, where the teams don't understand security and are just focussed on releasing features, and so cyber enforces checklists or non-negotiables or compliance assessments.

All of this comes down to skills and awareness. Not enough people have the skills/knowledge to cover all the roles out there.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#348

Post by toast0 »

acheron wrote: post #290
steveBK123 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember US has no National ID card. America has 50 states, each state has its own ID and DMV. Plenty of Americans move states, remember some of our states are reasonably small enough that you might commute to the same NYC job from any of 4 different states. I have a friend who sequentially moved NY->NJ->CT->NY in something like 6 years. Also I forget why but when I moved WITHIN a state 10 years ago, it required a DM…

Real ID requirements started 20 years ago, which I suppose is “recent” in government terms, but not really. In some states everyone has already had a Real ID compliant license for years. In others, notably California, they’ve been kicking the can down the road the entire time.

I mean, they say they're going to start enforcing RealID 'requirements' this month, but given how often it's been delayed, and the current executive, I think it's fair to wait and see.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#349

Post by Pamar »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #277
Pamar wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a fabricated example, actually: I work in tourism not in logistic (but I have friends in that field). My point was that to the layman this does not make any sense while if you are managing a shipping company you soon realize that some destination are more profitable because your truck that was maybe taking specialized replacements parts from A to B can easily pick up some other stuff to send back to A, while…

The point some of us are making in the replies is that, while true, this is not an appropriate comparison to airline travel rules. Do you agree there is a difference between charging more for a return, vs charging more for a leg of a compound trip?

Airlines tend to work like this: at the start of the "season" analyst define the margin for each seatbof each departure. Let's say that for Sunday flight from Venice to Hamburg, Economy, your target is 112€. (For simplicity I will discuss only a direct flight, but the same idea applies to any leg of any Itinerary).

Yield manager for that area/period has now the task to make sure he gets 112 or more on each ticket. And take in account that an unsold seat gets 0, so lowers the averge margin (which is what the yield is calculated upon).

This will soon make you realize that any chance to sell again a newly vacated seat is a boon.

So in the case of the OP the company can either assume that it was a honest mistake and he will somehow miracously get there in time to get on the second flight (3% chance?) or assume that he decided he does not care anymore, he had a serious accident, got fired, won the lottery, whatever (97%) and promptly put the seat back on sale.

The problem with a-b-c costing less than a-b is less obvious, maybe, but it has similar causes: for the airline it is more efficient to sell you the itinerary with a stopover so their pricing reflects that.

There have even been attempts to take passengers to court for getting off at the intermediate stop (they were dismissed) so it's definitely not just because the airlines are throwing a fit if you decide to change your plans.

Probably the a-b leg and the b-c legs sold alone are not very popular so they want more money to maximize the yield, while everyone wants to go a-c and return.

Re: Accountability Sinks

#350

Post by Pamar »

int_19h wrote: post #334
Pamar wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are answering to my Berlin->Györ example: Yes, it is not exactly the same thing but the point is: by getting off at B you are making the B->C flight travel with a wasted (empty) seat. Which they would have preferred to either sell to someone else or use for moving a pilot or technician to C. (Note also that this trick of getting out mid-itinerary only works if you do not have checked baggage, because that will…

The actual question here is why they won't sell you a ticket for A->B for the actual cost of that leg of the A->B->C flight, and then sell the same seat for B->C to someone else.

See above: let's say that on Frankfurt-Hannover and back you get on average 52 passengers a day, and Hannover-London is more or less the same, while people flying Frankfurt-Heathrow are so numerous that direct flights are always full and therefore you need to offer FRA-HEA with a stopover to satisfy the extra request.

If you are sure that 80% of your passengers will go to Hannover only to then fly to London (and back) your prices will reflect that... and Frankfurt-Hannover cannot be lowered too much because you still has to try to reach your quota for the flight per se.

Post reply on HN