There will always be angry customers. People who call customer service and abuse the representative are not expressing anger solely due to the complaint. It’s an accumulation of other things in their lives.
When I call my insurance company and their sound recognition is so sensitive that if I make any noise at all it starts over and says "i'm sorry I don't recognize that" and then it takes me 10 minutes to get someone on the call, all while I'm paying them $25 every day of the year (it will rise another 10% next year), and the call center is in another country so it's hard to understand them and the call quality is shit, it's not other things in my life.
It's a broken system to divert money to executives and shareholders (most of whom have done zero work for the company), resulting in shittier service and anger for all of us.
BTW, I don't abuse the representatives with cursing or name calling, but I can get upset and I do let them know it's not their fault.
Please don't straw man. Nothing in OP's comment said they're against fixing issues. But they - correctly - pointed out that you won't be able to completely eliminate abusive callers even if you're fixing issues. They never once presented it as dichotomy.
I would argue the strawman is the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem instead of the issue they're contacting customer service about.
> the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem
That's the straw man. I don't see anything in the parent comment that implies or expresses that. It says
1. "There will always be a subset of people who act irate or abusively for external reasons", not
2. "All people who are irate or abusive due to external reasons"
Your flipping the implication within the sentence, then arguing against that
People clamor for open source software and then shit on the people who make it because they provided a feature they didn’t want but didn’t have to use.
If you are the target of a nation state level actor, you are already fucked. Most of us just don’t want our behavior sold to our insurance companies or whatever. Apple doesn’t do that because it would kill their brand for very little return.
This is the part that’s always so humorous to me about the super tinfoil hat security crowd. They think they’re in the plot of Mr Robot or something. When for the most part, no one actually cares about them at all.
My dad fits into this category. So worried about being “tracked by the government.” He’s not a dissident. He’s not a journalist. Not a freedom fighter. Just deeply inconveniencing his kids with some of his tech choices.
But if these people were the targets of APTs, all the massive technology lifestyle changes they’ve made to supposedly protect themselves wouldn’t really matter.
He’s otherwise a good dude. Just makes some tech choices here and there as if he’s a former CIA agent on the run that sort of just make you chuckle and shake your head.
I really also don’t bother about security, but I hate that any argument against people caring about privacy is along the lines of „I have nothing to hide“. Especially on the note of Apple, I remember when a dad was flagged as a pedophile because Apple found photos of his kid in his iCloud and their algorithm decided to get him raided. It’s about control, when you hand your data over to 3rd parties of any kind you are giving up control and one day that will bite you in the ass in some way. I am will to take that risk, you too, but I still think not wanting that is totally valid. A type of angst which I find much more stupid is people being scared of AI taking over the world HAL x Terminator style…
That's the convenient line of blind apathy they rely on, to sell iPhones. If people cared, they would object to owning an iPhone just from the material and labor cost of it... but they don't. It's a running joke that nobody cares what next year's iPhone looks like as long as the trade-in value is good. Apple couldn't kill their brand if they tried, past this point. People don't pay attention anyways.
Which is why it's good for us to demand more from capable companies. Apple looks good when they're scared, and the market wins when they're forced to compete in novel and interesting ways. Success breeds complacency, the rest is distant history.
Yes to both. Also, this might vary, but hunger used to hurt a lot to me. The thing that helped was going on a 5 day fast (prepared, with a doctor approbation) and especially going through the pain on the 2nd day, which hurt more than when I broke my ankle, probably the worst pain I remember.
Nowadays, being hungry doesn't hurt as much, so I can easily let myself go hungry,and I'm at a healthy BMI.
Does Phoenix have a heat problem or a meth and fentanyl problem?
> Meanwhile, drugs and alcohol were involved in 65% of Phoenix’s heat deaths, merging two public health scourges into one. Among the drugs most commonly contributing to heat deaths were methamphetamines and fentanyl.
reply