Password Complexity, Good or bad?
-
@johnhooks said:
Ok, up front you you purchased this service that it's for a certain amount of time (1 month). You knew that you were paying for ~720 hours of service. The agree upon amount isn't drastically different. The agreed upon amount was ~720 hours. If the agreed upon amount was 2 hours, then yes it would drastically different, but that's not the case. This is where scale has to be applied again. You can't say things like drastically, and not have some kind of scale.
Yes BUT we aren't talking about a service where that options exists. We are talking about a monopoly where the customer HAS to accept the terms to get what they want, this conversation is not allowed to happen.
Again, no question, legally the company can screw teh customer all they want. Ethically, the customer is being extorted.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If the idea was like... they ordered 100 apples, we delivered 99 apples, we don't charge for 1 apple, it would be simple. The service is pretty much apple by apple.
And MAYBE that is how it applies to a specific customer.
But to another customer it might be like a road. A road from point A to point B isn't useful if it goes 99% of the way, if it doesn't go 100% of the way traffic can't make it through.
The road analogy isn't fair. The whole 100% has to be functioning for the road to work. Which in this case, if you're arguing that all 720 hours aren't equivalent, then you can't use that argument.
But 99% works, you can drive to other points. If you ar saying that ANY television show is good enough, not just the ones that the customer wants, how is that different than part of a road.
What if it was one channel that they didn't get rather than one time slot?
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Sure, but the scale doesn't matter. The point remains that it might be "all that matters." Within the scope of course. But .1% of the time death from cyanide or missing "all the shows you were paying to see" is the same... total loss of useful services in the end within the scope.
Scale has to matter. If it doesn't matter, then money means nothing. If 30 minutes costs that company $5 million dollars, why isn't this TV service worth $5 million?
Why? Why can't it matter by percentage?
You said percentages are a red herring.
Why? In both cases it might be 100% of the purpose for which it was purchased?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Ok, up front you you purchased this service that it's for a certain amount of time (1 month). You knew that you were paying for ~720 hours of service. The agree upon amount isn't drastically different. The agreed upon amount was ~720 hours. If the agreed upon amount was 2 hours, then yes it would drastically different, but that's not the case. This is where scale has to be applied again. You can't say things like drastically, and not have some kind of scale.
Yes BUT we aren't talking about a service where that options exists. We are talking about a monopoly where the customer HAS to accept the terms to get what they want, this conversation is not allowed to happen.
Again, no question, legally the company can screw teh customer all they want. Ethically, the customer is being extorted.
There are plenty of other means to get a TV show.
-
@johnhooks said:
The road analogy isn't fair. The whole 100% has to be functioning for the road to work. Which in this case, if you're arguing that all 720 hours aren't equivalent, then you can't use that argument.
The road is fully functional 99% of the way. It works just fine. Sure, it doesn't go where you wanted, but what does that matter? You can watch tons of shows you don't care about, too. How is one "all or nothing" to you but the other is "shades of grey"?
Both cases are partial delivery and the assumption that we know what matters to the end user.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What if it was one channel that they didn't get rather than one time slot?
The whole argument was the time slot. That was the scenario that happened.
-
@johnhooks said:
There are plenty of other means to get a TV show.
That's neither here nor there. They paid for the show in this way, is what we are discussing.
Telling people that they can pay someone else to maybe deliver it too doesn't help them. You can buy a 4x4 and skip the road, too.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
What if it was one channel that they didn't get rather than one time slot?
The whole argument was the time slot. That was the scenario that happened.
Sure, but a time slot is like a channel. What's the difference? 99% of service in both cases.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
There are plenty of other means to get a TV show.
That's neither here nor there. They paid for the show in this way, is what we are discussing.
Telling people that they can pay someone else to maybe deliver it too doesn't help them. You can buy a 4x4 and skip the road, too.
You said it was a monopoly and they couldn't. I said they could. They could still have those options before they purchase also.
-
@johnhooks said:
You said it was a monopoly and they couldn't. I said they could. They could still have those options before they purchase also.
Okay, but no other legal way. If you are watching sports or something that is only available there, how do you get that legally another way reliably? We aren't talking about "watching something", we are talking about the specific show that they might have been paying for.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
You said it was a monopoly and they couldn't. I said they could. They could still have those options before they purchase also.
Okay, but no other legal way. If you are watching sports or something that is only available there, how do you get that legally another way reliably? We aren't talking about "watching something", we are talking about the specific show that they might have been paying for.
Ya, all of those are available legally by other means.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
You said it was a monopoly and they couldn't. I said they could. They could still have those options before they purchase also.
Okay, but no other legal way. If you are watching sports or something that is only available there, how do you get that legally another way reliably? We aren't talking about "watching something", we are talking about the specific show that they might have been paying for.
Ya, all of those are available legally by other means.
Perhaps, I have no idea how. Any that are free? If not, you are still requiring "more money for something already purchased."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
You said it was a monopoly and they couldn't. I said they could. They could still have those options before they purchase also.
Okay, but no other legal way. If you are watching sports or something that is only available there, how do you get that legally another way reliably? We aren't talking about "watching something", we are talking about the specific show that they might have been paying for.
Ya, all of those are available legally by other means.
Perhaps, I have no idea how. Any that are free? If not, you are still requiring "more money for something already purchased."
Free depends on what it is.
If not, you are still requiring "more money for something already purchased."
This is kind of what I don't understand. We will use the business that lost $5 million as an example. They have one internet connection, and it went down for 30 minutes. They lost $5 million. In the real world they would have a second line set up for that scenario, but why would they if they should be given that $5 million from the company who didn't deliver the service for that 30 minutes. Why go through setting up another line (that's a bad analogy since it's not really much extra work but it's the point of extra work period) when you should just be able to get that money from the provider.
I still don't believe the road analogy is a good one. You either had to A. know the road didn't reach your business which is your fault to begin with, B. you hired a company to build the road and they only finished 99% of it, or C. the road failed somewhere leaving only 99% functioning.
A. was already covered, it's your fault for putting you business where you knew the road wasn't going.
B. You could sue the company but only for the 1% that isn't finished, because you still received the rest of it. You could also hire another contractor to finish.
C. This scenario is the most like what we are talking about. The infrastructure is already in place, but something failed for some reason during the month. The number of reasons for this could be enormous, anything from normal wear and tear to natural disasters like a mudslide. But the scale with which this has to be fixed is infinitely more complex than a 30 minute failure in a TV service window. The TV service obviously came back on after 30 minutes, so the provider didn't need to rebuild their infrastructure. However, with a road failure that causes traffic not to be able to get somewhere will take a complete rebuild of that area. Even a temporary road will take sub-base, a certain asphalt mix meeting SRL levels for that area, etc. So again, scale has to be applied or I could say that all of the United States was worth the same amount as that 30 minute TV window.Why? Why can't it matter by percentage?
Percentages don't mean much unless there is a value attached. 1% of a persons life is not worth 1% of an inanimate object. They are both 1% but one has vastly more value than the other. Which is why comparing life and death scenarios to 30 minutes of TV is not a real comparison.
-
@johnhooks said:
I still don't believe the road analogy is a good one. You either had to A. know the road didn't reach your business which is your fault to begin with, B. you hired a company to build the road and they only finished 99% of it, or C. the road failed somewhere leaving only 99% functioning.
But B is what matches here. You hired someone to deliver a service and it didn't get fully delivered.
-
@johnhooks said:
Why? Why can't it matter by percentage?
Percentages don't mean much unless there is a value attached. 1% of a persons life is not worth 1% of an inanimate object. They are both 1% but one has vastly more value than the other. Which is why comparing life and death scenarios to 30 minutes of TV is not a real comparison.
I think that that is misleading, though. I think that the basis for you "they shouldn't complain" is based on the fact that you feel that their concerns are trivial. But to some poor person in Florida, this might be a massive percentage of their income and something that the save up for and make big sacrifices to have. Why do they do that for television? Got me, but they do. This is really, really important to some people, it's their lives to them (surprisingly, to a LOT of people.)
Is it life and death important? Of course not, but we are talking about percentages so that removes that concern. The point is... they spend, say, $100 and don't get what they paid for. The amount we are talking about is the percentage of $100. That's why the scale doesn't matter.
-
@johnhooks said:
C. This scenario is the most like what we are talking about. The infrastructure is already in place, but something failed for some reason during the month. The number of reasons for this could be enormous, anything from normal wear and tear to natural disasters like a mudslide. But the scale with which this has to be fixed is infinitely more complex than a 30 minute failure in a TV service window. The TV service obviously came back on after 30 minutes, so the provider didn't need to rebuild their infrastructure. However, with a road failure that causes traffic not to be able to get somewhere will take a complete rebuild of that area. Even a temporary road will take sub-base, a certain asphalt mix meeting SRL levels for that area, etc. So again, scale has to be applied or I could say that all of the United States was worth the same amount as that 30 minute TV window.
Not really, that's the great thing about working in percentages, it removes the scale problems. Everything is better or smaller, but the ratios are roughly constant. That's why we do that specifically. Scale can mislead you in emotional ways really easily.
-
@johnhooks said:
A. was already covered, it's your fault for putting you business where you knew the road wasn't going.
But they didn't know. They paid for it to go there, they were told it was going there then... it stopped short. This isn't about a business, this is about a product you bought. Dont' add in the business piece, that adds confusion.
-
@johnhooks said:
This is kind of what I don't understand. We will use the business that lost $5 million as an example. They have one internet connection, and it went down for 30 minutes. They lost $5 million. In the real world they would have a second line set up for that scenario, but why would they if they should be given that $5 million from the company who didn't deliver the service for that 30 minutes. Why go through setting up another line (that's a bad analogy since it's not really much extra work but it's the point of extra work period) when you should just be able to get that money from the provider.
It's not about the $5 million, it's about the cost of the line. If that company pays $500/mo for that line and the ISP let's it drop for 30 minuts and $5m is lost... do you think that they will pay $499? How much should they pay for the service that was not continuous?
And this is a bit unfair, companies compete on equal footing with other companies, control SLAs and have many more options. We are talking about real people getting a service that they don't have that much control over.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I still don't believe the road analogy is a good one. You either had to A. know the road didn't reach your business which is your fault to begin with, B. you hired a company to build the road and they only finished 99% of it, or C. the road failed somewhere leaving only 99% functioning.
But B is what matches here. You hired someone to deliver a service and it didn't get fully delivered.
Ok let's go over what actually happened. These customers were customers for a while. It was a small cable company in an area where around 95% of the people had a second home. The rest were people that had enough to buy a ridiculously overpriced house and pay $600 a month in HOA dues.
But B is what matches here. You hired someone to deliver a service and it didn't get fully delivered.
Which is what happened in C also. This scenario would be correct if we just installed their stuff and only finished 99% of the installation. They didn't go from not having service to still not having service but it being 99% finished. Building the road is not the same as using the road and then it stops functioning for a short amount of time. That's why C is more like the scenario I was talking about. This is another reason why the road analogy doesn't work. This was an ongoing service that had a 30 minute interruption. A road doesn't have a small interruption that's fixed without your intervention.
I think that that is misleading, though. I think that the basis for you "they shouldn't complain" is based on the fact that you feel that their concerns are trivial. But to some poor person in Florida, this might be a massive percentage of their income and something that the save up for and make big sacrifices to have.
This might be where the disconnect is , and I probably should have explained better. These were not poor people. They were either retired with this being a second home or wealthy enough to live in these certain HOAs. They may be "poor" from the fact that they have no extra money per month to spend on anything, but that's 100% because of the price of the houses, plus the HOA dues (which were around $600 a month or what most people spend on a mortgage), but they are not poor from the fact that they don't have money.
But they didn't know. They paid for it to go there, they were told it was going there then... it stopped short. This isn't about a business, this is about a product you bought. Dont' add in the business piece, that adds confusion.
In scenario A, the road was already in place. If they didn't know the road didn't go there, then they didn't open their eyes. If they paid for the road to go there, and it stopped short, that's scenario B.
I was acting like the business bought the road, since usually individuals do not purchase roadways.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This is kind of what I don't understand. We will use the business that lost $5 million as an example. They have one internet connection, and it went down for 30 minutes. They lost $5 million. In the real world they would have a second line set up for that scenario, but why would they if they should be given that $5 million from the company who didn't deliver the service for that 30 minutes. Why go through setting up another line (that's a bad analogy since it's not really much extra work but it's the point of extra work period) when you should just be able to get that money from the provider.
It's not about the $5 million, it's about the cost of the line. If that company pays $500/mo for that line and the ISP let's it drop for 30 minuts and $5m is lost... do you think that they will pay $499? How much should they pay for the service that was not continuous?
And this is a bit unfair, companies compete on equal footing with other companies, control SLAs and have many more options. We are talking about real people getting a service that they don't have that much control over.
They did have real control over it. This wasn't a hypothetical scenario. They were real people, who had the choice to buy the service from someone else.
