Honey's Dieselgate: Detecting and Tricking Testers

It's always the people who are actually forcing slaves to work for them. Always. Consumers will always want lower prices but that doesn't justify slavery. It's not as if a company like Apple is being forced to abuse workers because they'd be bankrupt otherwise. These companies are pulling in massive amounts of profits year after year. It's not "market pressures" that force them to abuse their workers it's just greed.

> see how many people claim to want a nicer experience, yet airlines are always focused on cutting costs. Is that the fault of the airlines? Or is it the fault of the consumers who, despite what they say, show extreme preference for lower costing tickets?

Every customer wants low cost tickets. Of course they do. There's a lot that goes into that though. Almost nobody wants to fly in the first place. It's annoying, expensive, stressful and uncomfortable. What people actually want is to get to their destination. Consumers are basically forced to deal with airlines since it's the fastest, and often the only, way they can get to where they want to go when they need to. It's just a necessary evil that must endured.

That's not the airlines fault, but it does put airlines in a position where they know they can take advantage of travelers at every opportunity and so they do. They overbook their flights, they charge endless bullshit fees, they cram as many people into the plane as they can, their ticket prices change by the minute and airlines aggressively charge people as much as they think they can get away with.

Mergers and the high cost of entry into the airline industry have greatly hurt competition and often most people have only one choice in airline when flying to certain destinations. Airlines have consumers bent over a barrel and they pound away at them relentlessly. That's all on the airlines, not the consumers.

The only real thing consumers have any control over is the price of their ticket, and because airlines play so many games with ticket pricing they enable a certain amount of gaming the system to "get a better deal" so many flyers do work hard to limit what they pay for what will inevitably be a shitty service.

There's also a question of how much consumers can even afford. Many consumers would love to pay more to get a less shitty air travel experience but they can't if it means they'd no longer be able to afford their trip. ULCCs are often the only viable options travelers have and even then many people go into debt to travel. Others may figure that going with a cheap airline or putting in the effort to get a cheap ticket will be worth it because while the flights will be a miserable 6-8 hours it means they'll be able to afford a nice dinner or have a little bit more spending money when they reach their destination. Those kinds of choices can be put squarely on the consumer.

I don't know what the ratio is, but I do know it doesn't matter in this context, it's still malware.

The moral fortitude on that man!

I applaud his actions, but genuinely do not know if I would have the stones to leave my job if I was in a similar position!

Over time I realized that the company knew this wasn’t really true. Daily deal customers weren’t likely to return. They went where the deals were. The influx of cash from daily deals was a marketing expense, almost always at a loss (most deals were 50%+ off and half of the remaining revenue went to LivingSocial), and buyers rarely returned so SMBs would never recoup their loses.

Once I figured this out, I decided to leave even though I would miss my equity cliff by a month. I ended up joining ZenPayroll (now Gusto) early on because they were helping SMBs with a real problem (payroll was a fking nightmare back then.)

While this can be irritating, I have come to see it as a good thing. It helps me screen out candidate employers. It is taxing to work in an environment that constantly challenges your ethics. Imagine having access to all your customers' supposedly private emails and being tasked with mining them without your customers' knowledge. Imagine being tasked with adding an obscurely worded line item to the monthly bill of all cutomers that your logging indicates haven't accessed their billing statement in the last 12 months.

Now imagine working at a job where you are tasked to find all customers who haven't used an optional paid feature in the last 12 months and notifying them that there might be an opportunity to reduce the amount you bill them. Imagine working for an insurance coop that actively scours for ways to charge members less money without compromising their protection and without taking advantage of somebody else.

Imagine that your personal life choices automatically disqualify you from exploitative employers and lead you to more fulfilling employment. This is a real thing that many people don't have to imagine. They live it.

Though, sometimes the exact reason is muddied, since companies that are perceived as unethical in how they behave externally are also perceived as unethical in how they behave towards employees.

Also, sometimes fashion is involved. For example, many people wouldn't work for company X, because of popular ethical objections to what they do being in the news, but some of those people would probably work for an unknown company doing the same things without thinking much about it.

But often it's just "I don't like what company Y is doing to people, and I wouldn't work on that, even if they treated employees really well, and it was really fashionable".

(See, for example, the people who refused to work for Google after the end of Don't Be Evil honeymoon phase, even though they generally treated employees pretty well, and it was still fashionable to work there.)

I think pretty much everyone has an internal red line, of course they will vary a lot and may even move over time.

I went to school for aerospace. When I got out, it was all military related jobs. So I switched fields to software development even though starting from the bottom I got paid less than half what the defense contractor jobs paid.

o/

i was offered a high paying job, with relocation to a 1st world country (at the time, i was living in a 3rd world country with high murder rates), to a industry that i consider quite shady (and it's not military and not around killing -- i have no issues with both of those). i politely refused.

most of my friends, at the time, told me that they would've have accepted without even thinking, but for me, it's just not worth it.

Civil/mechanical/electrical have countless codes that must be followed with the force of law.

When we say we want engineering standards for software developers we are also asking for standards and codes to be applied to software and all that entails.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, just to consider the ramifications of this at all levels.

Or said differently: there’s a reason why software engineering jobs pay so well; no mandatory ethics training required!

There's lots of carrots (compensation, high quality desk jobs) and sticks (promotion structures, threat of offshoring). The really annoying and egregious aspects of corporate speak are easy targets for ire and take the heat, while the subtle euphemisms make the actual questionable projects easier to live with day to day.

Now that I could definitely see happening. I would also want that in writing somewhere.

I guess discovery for the impending lawsuits should be very interesting

We can't have it both ways: be essential digital infrastructure, AND move at "the speed of light".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45898407