You’re right. But your statement was that no product worth using is bug free. I said that no software exists that is without bugs. Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using. But since all software has bugs, that applies to every product ever made. It doesn’t have any discriminating power. So it’s not fallacious on its face but it’s not useful either, and that’s what I was trying to point out.
> Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using.
This is not correct; "If a product is worth using, then it has bugs." (P→Q) does not imply its converse "If a product has bugs, then it is worth using." (Q→P). Buginess is presented as a necessary condition of being worth using, not a sufficient one.
It does, however, imply "If a product has no bugs, then it is not worth using.".
That was exactly my point. The presence of bugs in a product (in this case Apple Maps) does not mean it should not ship. “No open bugs” cannot be the criteria for whether a product is ready to ship.
This whole idea is dead on arrival because of this.
Most nations actively warn their citizens never to carry packages from someone you don't know, and never to carry packages you didn't pack (or saw opened) yourself even for people you do know. And still people agree to carry sealed packages for someone they had a few nice nights with on holiday before boarding the plane back home. That tends to end in a little room on the same airport with security/police grilling you before sending you on to the judicial system where the tough-on-drugs judge will sentence you to a couple of years of extra holiday. In a cell with rats.
There is no way to clear this legally and ethically.
Even across state lines is a big risk but carrying unknown packages into another country is astronomically stupid. You don’t get to play the “I didn’t realize” card, either, when you lie to a customs agent and claim you didn’t accept packages from anyone else.
Yeah, but bringing back a brand new Mac that I personally bought at an Apple Store for a friend won’t ever land me in jail - worst case scenario is that the friend would have to pay me back for whatever import duties the customs officials levy on the computer.
Now, carrying a random package from somebody on the Internet? There are more productive ways to get into jail than this!
And yet I know there used to be a business (when the Concorde was flying), where they would offer very cheap tickets on the Concorde from New York to London and back, the hitch being that you agreed to take no luggage, and your luggage allowance was taken up by the brokering company, who provided a rush courier service largely for legal/business documents and the like.
I guess this company is slightly different, I think it could be made legal.
A: unpacking and inspecting the packages?
B: The company assuming the risk and liability.
C: The company collecting evidence through KYC and cooperating in the case of crime?
Probably too much hassle to save some bucks when compared to a courier service, though.
A. Maybe. Are you going to ship with someone who is going to open your package and rifle through it, though? I would personally also not feel confident in my ability to check fully for hidden illicit material if I were the courier.
B. No. Absent laws indemnifying the courier, a company saying “I’ll take the heat for those drugs you’re carrying” is not a meaningful act.
C. No. This seems like more of B.
This is all surmountable if the laws allow it. I assume FedEx drivers don’t go to jail of a package unknowingly contains drugs. But I don’t know what needs to be in place for random Joe to be acting as a casual courier without taking on legal liability.
>Jade’s Instagram account suggests she thought she had been hired for a legitimate job as an “international package shipper,” with a salary of $5,000 per trip.
Her recruiter texted her: “We pay your flights, accommodation, food.”
The bigger problem is that being a casual package courier is not worth the hassle.
Let’s say someone doesn’t want to pay FedEx $70 to ship a box next-day from San Francisco to Portland, so OP arranges for you to do it and charges $35, takes $10 off the top and pays you $25. Now you are supposed to drive to random person’s house to pick up the package, carry it across state lines, and drop it off at someone else’s house. You have to deal with potential flakes on both sides of this transaction and risk of carrying who knows what the whole time. For $25.
Would you agree to do this job? And if not, would you trust your package with someone who would?
> Would you agree to do this job? And if not, would you trust your package with someone who would?
You're absolutely right BUT I do want to point out a situation where the answer is "Yes" because the model is entirely different.
Last mile delivery is expensive because it does't enjoy the economies of scale.
I'm increasingly seeing increasing number of random personal vehicles drop off my retail packages that were shipped via UPS/FedEx to a central hub. I don't understand why these retailers even do this - these items are like $1-$10 and part of a much larger order that arrive in a staggered fashion. I would imagine people pay more than the item in just gas so it's likely a customer satisfaction thing.
I imagine either the retailer or UPS/FedEx indemnifies these people if and when things go wrong so these people have the backing of a multibillion dollar logistics company. Perhaps the OP could look into this portion of delivery? The OP is really light on location and painpoints to ave a real concrete conversation.
> I'm increasingly seeing increasing number of random personal vehicles drop off my retail packages that were shipped via UPS/FedEx to a central hub
I have also seen this, but I’m pretty sure these people are essentially employed as delivery personnel, and their cars are acting as small delivery trucks. I’m not sure how the cost for this work out. Maybe FedEx/whoever is closing the gap when they can’t get everything onto real delivery trucks and this is more cost effective than buying more trucks and hiring more drivers?
I think last mile is an interesting problem but OP seems to be intending to build full transit logistics infrastructure built on casual labor, which seems unlikely to pan out.
> I think last mile is an interesting problem but OP seems to be intending to build full transit logistics infrastructure built on casual labor, which seems unlikely to pan out.
I think we are unloading a lot of expectations on the OP. Maybe this was just an interesting thought experiment to them - "how would I solve the cold start?"
> Maybe FedEx/whoever is closing the gap when they can’t get everything onto real delivery trucks and this is more cost effective than buying more trucks and hiring more drivers?
Ah fascinating! This could explain why I see this behavior across multiple retailers. My initial hypothesis of "the retailer wants to see me happy" is now supplemented by "UPS/FedEx wants to see their retailer customer (not I) happy".
Free markets are fascinating and Thank You for offering this new perspective.
> Maybe this was just an interesting thought experiment to them
Possible, though OP says they are “About to launch the MVP”.
> ”UPS/FedEx wants to see their retailer customer (not I) happy"
Just to be clear, that was my guess. I’ve done no research on this specific thing so maybe some other factor is in play with these packages delivered from private vehicles.
This is the key thing. None of this “trust a stranger” stuff actually works out. Uber isn’t actually a rideshare. It’s a professional driver. Airbnb isn’t a room in someone’s house. It’s an apartment rental. GrubHub isn’t someone who picks up your noodles when they pick up theirs. It’s their job.
The courier model could totally work the same way. You want someone to drive your package from San Francisco to New York? Someone will happily do that. The trick is they will want to get paid. No one’s doing this stuff basically for free as a favor or to help OP’s company show a profit.
This is the problem (or arguably success) of modern appliances in general. They just aren’t generally worth repairing.
People grumble about planned obsolescence but the reality is that there are people who will repair them, if you are willing to pay. But when repairs cost a significant chunk of the price of a new appliance, most people opt to replace.
I've been guilty of repeating this claim on the basis of not fully reading the original analyses. Thank you for your sources and a reminder to stay humble about what you might think you know.
> People have higher opinions of doctors than they actually deserve.
This is kind of absurd. Most doctors are both intelligent and capable. The fact that some small set of doctors is incompetent says little about doctors as a whole.
> industrial scale transport and personal transport share a rolling platform with an engine, but they're different platforms with different requirements, different economics and different lifecycles.
What does this mean? This feels a bit like a distinction without a difference, as the infrastructure built is shared by both.
> although school children here will happily pedal 10km to school and back on the daily
How flat is it there? I can’t imagine a typical kid biking 10km each way around me. I feel like the average kid at my kids’ school would take 45 minutes or more to bike that distance.
>What does this mean? This feels a bit like a distinction without a difference, as the infrastructure built is shared by both.
I guess I wasn't clear in implying my doubts as to whether that's a hard requirement. Trucks are much larger and heavier which takes its toll on the road surface itself. They don't need access to suburban environments. Even in the inner city here trucks are banned outside of loading and unloading hours to foster a walk-able environment. So yes, in part they do, but it's not that black and white.
>How flat is it there? I can’t imagine a typical kid biking 10km each way around me. I feel like the average kid at my kids’ school would take 45 minutes or more to bike that distance.
Famously pretty flat, but with e-bikes gaining ground, elevation changes don't make much of a difference anymore. And yeah a 45 minute commute by bike is not unusual, but remember, we have the safe infrastructure for it. Kids bike in from villages surrounding towns and cites.
> They don't need access to suburban environments.
How are suburban environments stocked then? Surely village grocery stores are not stocked with milk one bike load at a time.
> Even in the inner city here trucks are banned outside of loading and unloading hours to foster a walk-able environment.
Sure. But they use the same infrastructure. The fact that the vehicles are built for different purposes and may have different regulations doesn’t mean the cost of infrastructure isn’t shared. Pervasiveness of roads makes it easy for cars, trucks, ambulances, buses, and even bikes to get around more easily.
Just like the pervasiveness of the Internet make it easy to scroll TikTok, purchase goods from Amazon, and read books through Project Gutenberg, even though those are very different use cases.
“Real artists ship”
No product worth using is bug free.
reply