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

Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

podcast.play.date

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#61

Post by gambiting »

michaelt wrote: post #60
gambiting wrote: post #13

The thing that surprised me the most about it is that FedEx didn't just pay them the 400k for lost shipment. They had all the proof that it was lost, all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. Even after their "higher ups" got involved all that FedEx could do was "huh, sucks to be you I guess?" Does freight shipment not have insurance? What's going on here?

> all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. [...] What's going on here? Basically a lot of global logistics runs on trust. If a driver is delivering a pallet to the FooCorp warehouse, he doesn't get given a copy of the FooCorp org chart, or get an example signature to compare against the signature they're given, or get given a map or a secret password or anything…

>>If a driver is delivering a pallet to the FooCorp warehouse, he doesn't get given a copy of the FooCorp org chart, or get an example signature to compare against the signature they're given, or get given a map or a secret password or anything like that.

Obviously. But if there is 400 grand on the line, you'd think someone would actually check(when the claim is made). The receiver would say "you have a signature from person X. Person X doesn't actually work here". Fedex then says "ok, prove it" - and then the receiver does, in whatever way is legally acceptable.

Edit: in fact, let me add a bit more - if the shipment was delivered to the right address just signed by someone who didn't actually work there then sure, I think FedEx would be in the clear. But they delivered the parcel to the wrong place - the fact that it was signed for by someone is almost irrelevant, it's the same as having no signature at all.

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#62

Post by pbhjpbhj »

raybb wrote: post #24
gambiting wrote: post #13

The thing that surprised me the most about it is that FedEx didn't just pay them the 400k for lost shipment. They had all the proof that it was lost, all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. Even after their "higher ups" got involved all that FedEx could do was "huh, sucks to be you I guess?" Does freight shipment not have insurance? What's going on here?

Would playdate be able to sue FedEx or take them to small claims court or do you sign something when you use FedEx that says you can't sue them for XYZ?

'you cannot sue us for not doing the only thing you are paying us for (delivering your goods)' sounds like an inconscionable clause. Surely any worthwhile legal system would make such clauses illegal. Otherwise many scams (fake invoicing, for example) would be essentially legal as long the perp buried a clause in a contract.

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#63

Post by matwood »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #19
gambiting wrote: post #13

The thing that surprised me the most about it is that FedEx didn't just pay them the 400k for lost shipment. They had all the proof that it was lost, all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. Even after their "higher ups" got involved all that FedEx could do was "huh, sucks to be you I guess?" Does freight shipment not have insurance? What's going on here?

This reminds me of the recent story where an Uber courier stole two MacBooks, there was no signature, CCTV showing no delivery, and Apple was just like "our carrier has completed the requested investigation, and no further action will be taken by Apple."

I followed that story and something seemed off. Not that the person was lying, but something felt left out.

Apple and Uber know driver who the order was given to and the police are involved but they also haven’t been able to do anything? Just seems odd.

I’ve had trade ins go missing and after a short investigation Apple has always credited me.

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#64

Post by [deleted] »

gambiting wrote: post #13

The thing that surprised me the most about it is that FedEx didn't just pay them the 400k for lost shipment. They had all the proof that it was lost, all that Fedex had was a signature of someone who doesn't even work at their fulfilment centre. Even after their "higher ups" got involved all that FedEx could do was "huh, sucks to be you I guess?" Does freight shipment not have insurance? What's going on here?

[deleted]

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#65

Post by anymouse123456 »

kuschku wrote: post #45

I summarized the transcript into an article: https://gist.github.com/justjanne/1e1254bf207c4d98862e040136... Not sure if it helps anyone else, but for me it made the story a lot easier to grasp. I wrote most of it by hand, using an LLM just for a rough outline which I then manually rewrote line by line, streamlined, removed hallucinations, double-checked all quotes, reordered and added images and links.

That was amazing. I wasn't up for spending an hour listening to the podcast, but a few minute reading the article you created were well worth it. Thank you!

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#66

Post by throwaind29k »

beAbU wrote: post #57
supermatt wrote: post #22

I wanted to buy a playdate when they first came out, but unfortunately they weren't shipping to my country. Now they do, so I just placed an order 15 mins ago and my partner just received a call from the bank to verify that it wasn't a fraudulent transaction. She just asked me - what is this "play date" you just sent $300 to? Oh dear. :D

This comment fells too reddit esque for me, as if it's crafted to solicit upvotes or "facebook up, hit your lawyer and delete the gym" style comments. - Why is your partner getting the call from the bank when you placed the order? - If it's a shared account, why would you not forewarn your partner about this transaction? If I'm about to buy pay for something big from our joint account, I sure as hell let my partner k…

It does feel very reddit-esque the comment, because it seems a tad like an interesting yarn to farm attention without having content of substance.

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#67

Post by johnnyanmac »

agos wrote: post #27
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the recent story where an Uber courier stole two MacBooks, there was no signature, CCTV showing no delivery, and Apple was just like "our carrier has completed the requested investigation, and no further action will be taken by Apple."

I wonder if this tunes changes once lawyers are involved

given that those mac's would have been 4-5k? I sure as heck would have at least consulted a lawyer. I don't want to just lazily have my package stolen in real time.

if no one else is seeking justice, I will at least poke the blind woman a bit.

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#68

Post by johnnyanmac »

sweetjuly wrote: post #31
raybb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would playdate be able to sue FedEx or take them to small claims court or do you sign something when you use FedEx that says you can't sue them for XYZ?

$400k is quite a bit more than they typically let you pursue in small claims court :)

In this economy? Don't worry just give it 20 years ;)

Re: Story of the two thousand stolen Playdate handhelds

#70

Post by soneil »

gambiting wrote: post #54
whazor wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipment insurance is normally an optional add-on. IMO, if the shipper doesn’t get it, it is on them. It is nicer for the shipper to decide the value and pay the corresponding price for that. Because you need to know the replacement value of that lost item. This is dependent on all kinds of factors.

Is there any scenario where someone would knowingly decide not to take insurance on a 400k shipment? What would be the reason for doing so? In this case the shipper is the company behind the Playdate, so it seems weird to me they wouldn't insure their own stock. But maybe there's a good reason why this isn't done?

It's not unusual to effectively self-insure for shipping.

If insurance costs you more than lost shipments, it stops making sense to pay for insurance. If insurance costs less than lost shipments, it stops making sense for the insurer to offer you insurance at that rate.

Insurance works when the loss is disruptive to your cashflow. If I can't afford to absorb that loss right now, it may be worth finding an insurer that can. If I can afford to absorb that cost, it's almost always better to leave my money working for me, than working for the insurer.

If you're shipping in volume, self-insurance almost always works out better. You can bet amazon don't insure their shipments to you. If they take the potential cost of insurance, stick it in a pot, and dip into it when there's a shipping issue - that pot should never run dry. If that pot runs dry, it means insurers are operating at a loss, and they're not going to stay in business long.

Post reply on HN