Agreed; we're typically okay with training if it's on our own models (and only there).
I actually am an in-house attorney and that's exactly what we're trying to do. We're waiting for a response from their legal team, but in the meantime I wanted to get thoughts from folks here. We haven't been waiting long, but we are small potatoes for them so I'm not expecting a quick reply.
After Slack's kerfuffle a few weeks ago, we wanted to make sure all of our Salesforce documentation had appropriate protections for Customer Data. And lo and behold, Einstein specifically allows Salesforce to use Customer Data "for the purpose of improving and training similar or related services and features...."
Our Salesforce rep says this is so they can train our own specific customer model, but that's not what the terms say.
The fairness of the comparison doesn’t really matter because we’re talking about buyer expectations… My point was more akin to the one made in the article - regardless of she store methods, they’ve helped create the expectation and habit for the buyer.
You’re right; the money is meant to make people think twice about the purchase. Like many people in the article, I would buy whatever with the intent of just returning whatever I didn’t need. The extra cost made me reconsider that option. It had a lasting impact on my online buying habits, even though it’s not available to me anymore and hasn’t been in some time (another commenter helped me recall this was jet.com, which was bought out ages ago).
I think you’re right - the ones offering the cheapest and most convenient option will naturally be the best choice for the most amount of people.
Not to be that guy, but I do think there’s an element of privilege in shopping any other way. I’d gladly pay a bit more for the comfort of not participating in the throwaway culture we’re building, but how many people can really say that? I have time and money that a lot of people simply don’t have.
But I do think there are a lot of people in my situation and would do something similar. We might not bring down the amazons of the world, but a place for us can still exist.
I see a few comments going both ways here - punish the returners, etc., but I don’t think punishment is really the right concept. When places like Zappos encourage people to buy extra just to return the excess, you can’t blame people for getting used to online shopping this way.
That said, I do agree with the general idea that serial returners should bear some of the additional costs (just not via punishment). I can’t recall the retailer, but I remember buying something from a brand that had the option of “free returns,” which, if selected, would add a small percentage onto the overall price. If you didn’t select it, returns would be even higher out-of-pocket. I think the idea was that not everyone who selected the option would actually return items, but having the option was a premium lots of folks would pay for.
I've never heard such a limiting definition for judicial activism. It's typically understood more broadly as a criticism of American judges who, according to some, go beyond their duties of "interpreting law" and instead create it. To borrow from conservapedia (a resource I wouldn't otherwise defend, except in this limited case), it's "when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court."
Would the latches doctrine really apply to separate enforcement cases though? My understanding is that doctrine would prevent me from enforcing my rights against a particular actor if I wait too long to enforce those rights… but waiting too long against one actor wouldn’t be relevant if I seek to enforce those rights against a separate actor in a separate case.
It’s been successful in obtaining usage, but I am still confused how it accomplished this beyond a bunch of people asking for it. What problems does Bitcoin solve for these traditional finance institutions that could give us a better barometer of its success?
If I may... your events might not be as fun as you think they are. Just because I don't have kids doesn't mean I don't have other obligations. I'd like to workout after work. And the dog needs to be walked, dinner needs to get made, clothes folded, etc. I'm also an early person so I've been logged in since 6:30am. Maybe I just want to zone out and watch the grass grow for a while. It doesn't matter - the point is, you don't know what people have going on outside of work, and it shouldn't bother you that those might be a higher priority for the people on your team. If these forced events are so important to you, maybe try delegating them? "I've set aside an hour for us all and have asked Amy to put together an idea."
I actually am an in-house attorney and that's exactly what we're trying to do. We're waiting for a response from their legal team, but in the meantime I wanted to get thoughts from folks here. We haven't been waiting long, but we are small potatoes for them so I'm not expecting a quick reply.