There should be some balance for practicality. If you sell cars, you shouldn’t have to be accessible to blind people who can’t even drive them. The only thing Dominos did wrong in my opinion is not provide the same discounts to everyone.
Why would you say the impact on low-income people was unintentional? Do you think that Intuit would release a tax product without an analysis of who it would affect? It feels like you’re giving Intuit the benefit of the doubt here when numerous sources, including Intuit employees, say that Intuit deliberately set out to increase revenue at the expense of lower income taxpayers.
> “They were always supposed to be customer focused, customer first,” one former staffer said. But the income levels of the groups that were being driven to paid products “was never really considered.”
Where's the numerous sources that said Intuit deliberately set out to increase revenue at the [disproportionate] expense of lower income taxpayers (emphasis mine)?
The "Freefile" product is only supposed to be free for lower income people, so when Intuit misdirected everybody to the (non-free) product which they named "Free", they exclusively harmed lower income people, as the higher income people were never entitled to free filing.
(that entitlement is due to an agreement with the IRS, where the IRS agreed to limit competition in the tax filing industry in return for the development of free file products).
edit: also note that it is absolutely not an accident that Intuit used these names which make it almost impossible to talk about their non-free product which is named Free, and their actually free product which is named Freedom and Freefile.
That's a good point, and a valid one, but not the central thesis of THIS article. (ProPublica has previously written articles on that.[1])
[1] "But, as ProPublica has been reporting, Intuit has steered eligible customers away from the truly free version, aggressively marketing products that are called “free” even though many customers end up paying."
Not sure why it’s hyperbole - they never said all Midwesterners drank it, just that there were Midwesterners who drank it. And did you only drink water at home or from a bottle? If not, you can’t be sure you never drank Cargill polluted waters.
Well, the author disingenuously picked starting points for his charts that just happened to coincide with major economic events like 9/11 and the housing bubble in order to advance his flawed argument. When he picks charts with starting points of 1960, 2001, and 2006, he does so to fit his argument.
Doesn’t seem fake when the person’s accounts go so far back. Also, the FBI has ignored much tips on terror attacks before they happened, so it would be no surprise for them to ignore evidence in a cyber crime committed by someone far beyond their reach.
But couldn't it be the case that one of the person's accounts was compromised, they discovered that other accounts used the same password, and so they just hijacked the credentials to create new accounts to be used on the criminal sites? How many people use the same one or two user names and one or two passwords for multiple accounts? I personally know a few.
Or they know the individual and feel slighted by them somehow and, like unwell people are tend to do, got obsessive and went long-term.
Humans are odd creatures, it's entirely believable to think this person didn't wish them happy birthday x years ago or cut them in line at Starbucks and the person made it their mission to 'exact revenge'.
A former co-worker of mine was angry over another co-worker over something trivial. She had a known peanut allergy and at some point someone coated her keyboard and desk with peanut butter powder (which was blatantly obvious that something was all over her desk). We all knew he did it but no one saw it happen so nothing could be done about it. He would also go on and on about "you don't want to be on my list! I'm going to put you on my list!" but he'd never say it around management so again, they wouldn't do anything about him.
I’d much rather not go to the store, but I’ve had too many grocery deliveries with bad produce, dented cans, etc. Ifbthere was someway I could remotely choose my fruits and vegetables and make sure there were no other damaged items, I’d never go the grocery store again.
If the customer’s emotions are affecting their account status, then it is entirely the company’s fault. If a customer is upset, a federally regulated financial institution should never be able to just shut down their account without recourse. That’s why we have regulations and laws, so some random customer service rep (possibly from a country with far different rules and regulations) can’t power trip over a customer.
Amazon is supposed to abide by the laws of any country they operate in. The law in Australia says that they need to disclose energy use and that those numbers are made public. If Amazon doesn’t want to follow Australian laws, perhaps they shouldn’t be putting bit barns in Australia.
It appears that they are acting within the law for this request.
"Section 25 of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (NGER Act) permits corporations to apply to have information withheld from publication. Pending finalisation of their application to withhold their corporate emissions and energy data from publication, Amazon Corporate Services Pty Ltd's data is withheld from publication"
"Section 25 of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (NGER Act) permits corporations to apply to have information withheld from publication."
