61–70 of 212 posts
Only 5%? That gives me hope for humanity.
There have been any number of leaders that have been horrible people and yet the average normal people excuse their behaviors, and some even buy into their behaviors.
I know people who are convinced that 50% of people are horrible people, their tolerance stops at "anything left of the median".
My tolerance is the opposite, and I can work with even quite problematic people successfully, so I would estimate that just 1% of people make that unnecessarily difficult.
The old adage: 'The customer is always right' which means a business should always have the best interests of customers at heart and always assume good faith, has turned on its head. Now customers have weaponized that old adage and presume an air of ugly hubris and are mean spirited because hey, 'The customer is always right'. Eh no, sometimes the customer is an asshole.
> which means a business should always have the best interests of customers at heart and always assume good faith I thought it meant, at least originally, that a customer's choice to shop, or not, at your store needs to be treated as your failure to attract the customer, not the customer's failure for making the "wrong" choice.
[flagged]
And for trying to prop up OP's 5% stat.
Many laws, company policies, etc exist to prevent those 5% from causing damage to the rest of the population. So 95% of people have to live with restrictions and bureaucracy that merely exists for those small group.
"Live with" is a weird framing, isn't it? If we accept the claim for a moment, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the restrictions exist to give the 95% the best chance at a reasonable, unmolested life?
The hard part is, when something causes damage, it's easy to make a rule, but harder to see that the rule will cost more than the damage.
Many laws, company policies, etc exist to prevent those 5% from causing damage to the rest of the population. So 95% of people have to live with restrictions and bureaucracy that merely exists for those small group.
"Live with" is a weird framing, isn't it? If we accept the claim for a moment, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the restrictions exist to give the 95% the best chance at a reasonable, unmolested life?
A higher level optimality can be achieved wherever truly nasty people can be pre-screened out of situations
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s way less than that. We just got back from a ~1600 mile round-trip to visit family plus a week’s worth of incidental driving around town to buy groceries and visit other family nearby. On the highway segments, most cars were just trundling along between 2 and 20 mph over the limit, generally keeping reasonably to themselves. When an obstacle appeared on the roadside (stopped motorist, police, other), peop…
Maybe aggressive drivers don't drive aggressively all the time making you mistankenly assume they are good drivers?
> My experience serving/bartending in restaurants was the same... As an example: one time a lady threw a huge fit about a 2-3 inch smooth brown hair being in her meal when her server was a blond girl and the entire kitchen staff were 35+ year-old Mexicans/ African Americans with completely shaved heads. Now I'm not saying this woman brought the hair into the restaurant and planted it in her meal... but I know for a fact it couldn't have been from any of our staff in the restaurant, so you can make your own decision.
My take is that there's less shitty people and more shitty Bayesians :)
The old adage: 'The customer is always right' which means a business should always have the best interests of customers at heart and always assume good faith, has turned on its head. Now customers have weaponized that old adage and presume an air of ugly hubris and are mean spirited because hey, 'The customer is always right'. Eh no, sometimes the customer is an asshole.
If customers keep asking for green shirts with red polka dots, you sell green shirts with red polka dots, even if you don’t like them.