Password Complexity, Good or bad?
-
@johnhooks said:
Losses are pretty easy to show... it's the amount paid. If you pay $100 and don't get to watch the television that you paid for, it is the amount of the service that is in dispute.
Which is exactly what I said. Their loss was around $0.07. They paid for the whole month. Whether they only watch 30 minutes or 720 hours worth of TV, they paid for the whole month.
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
We are in IT. No one should be more aware of this than us. Downtime at night is trivial, downtime during the day is big. The value is not flat.
Television at 3am is often trivial, television on Thursday night at 9PM is big. The value is not flat, you can't even begin to suggest that it would be flat.
The only case, ever, where you could suggest that they lost $.07 is in the one situation where you are assuming that the customer actively watching television 24/7 for the entire month. If you are not assuming that, i don't see how the $.07 can even be suggested.
-
I don't have television nor do I like sports. But imagine if I did and the only reason that I pay for television service is to watch the Superbowl. Now imagine that the only outage is during the Superbowl's last thirty minutes. The value lost is very large.
The value of services is not flat. Plain and simple. There might be legal protections around that to keep companies from having to pay more and it is hard to know what consumers actually wanted to use it for, but you can't suggest to know how much value was lost to someone.
If the average family watches four hours of television a day (that's a LOT) then the idea that this was $.07 on that alone can't be true.
-
And, of course, for tons of customers, the value of what was lost was $0. Just nothing. Tons and tons of people likely never turned on their televisions and had no idea that there was an outage.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
No, that is what they paid for. Until you can purchase minutes of cable TV at a time, you paid for the whole block. You may not use it all, but you paid for the whole thing.
The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
Still not comparable because the 1% of those scenarios are either death or an almost complete loss of business. A 30 minute TV window is at the worst, a loss of 30 minutes of television.
But my willingness to pay $1/kW might be dependent on it being there when I need it, not just when it is convenient.
So if this 30 minutes of TV is that life altering that you could possibly die or lose your business, then you would do the same here. You would spend more money and have a satellite dish or some other way to watch this television program.
We are in IT. No one should be more aware of this than us. Downtime at night is trivial, downtime during the day is big. The value is not flat.
You're right, it's not. So comparing downtime of a pace maker and critical database backup to a television program is ridiculous. One is trivial compared to the other.
If the average family watches four hours of television a day (that's a LOT) then the idea that this was $.07 on that alone can't be true.
You're right. So let's take it from that perspective then. It would be $0.80. A far cry from a whole month's payment for a 30 minute slot.
Then you have to come at it from the angle that, there is no way to prove that's all they watched. You would still have to prove that you have a loss of that amount. How do you prove that you only watched 30 minutes of TV that month?
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
No, that is what they paid for. Until you can purchase minutes of cable TV at a time, you paid for the whole block. You may not use it all, but you paid for the whole thing.
Okay, the did they receive the whole thing? No.
So paid for X. Did not receive X. Should they have to pay at all?
If you look at it as "they paid for the whole thing", then they are owed all their money back as they didn't get the product purchased.
-
@johnhooks said:
The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
Still not comparable because the 1% of those scenarios are either death or an almost complete loss of business. A 30 minute TV window is at the worst, a loss of 30 minutes of television.
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.
-
@johnhooks said:
You're right. So let's take it from that perspective then. It would be $0.80. A far cry from a whole month's payment for a 30 minute slot.
Then you have to come at it from the angle that, there is no way to prove that's all they watched. You would still have to prove that you have a loss of that amount. How do you prove that you only watched 30 minutes of TV that month?
It's not how much they watched either, it's the value of what they are watching. You paid for more than you wanted so you use it, doesn't mean that it has value. You can't project value.
You don't need to prove what you watched. There is no proving, which is tough, but you can't ask for proof unless you ask for it up front (and in that case you might have to alter what you provide and what people pay based on the answer.)
Imagine it's you as the consumer, imagine any product or service that you buy for one purpose and can't avoid getting other things (like packaging or service at times you can't use it) and you get those things but not the parts that matters to YOU. The things that were why you were willing to spend the money. How much of a discount do you feel you should get when you buy something for an agreed upon about of money and the value delivered to you is dramatically different than agreed upon, but the value delivered is perceived to be effectively the same?
-
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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
Still not comparable because the 1% of those scenarios are either death or an almost complete loss of business. A 30 minute TV window is at the worst, a loss of 30 minutes of television.
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?
Imagine it's you as the consumer, imagine any product or service that you buy for one purpose and can't avoid getting other things (like packaging or service at times you can't use it) and you get those things but not the parts that matters to YOU. The things that were why you were willing to spend the money. How much of a discount do you feel you should get when you buy something for an agreed upon about of money and the value delivered to you is dramatically different than agreed upon, but the value delivered is perceived to be effectively the same?
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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
