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.

Has anyone else had luck with Salesforce on this?

Very ambiguous wording which is probably put there on purpose. But model training for your company is a fair and useful feature.

I would involve a lawyer to ask Salesforce to put what the rep said in writing and in a legal binding way.

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.

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 believe you're thinking of jet.com? they used to give a % discount if you waived the right to free returns[1]

[1] https://www.enzasbargains.com/jet-com-return-policy/

I would love an option like this. I would gladly pay 1-2% extra on items I might return (and especially on something like shoes where I might buy two pairs to see which fits better if I can't find the brand locally) and keep the discount for things I know I won't.

My only concern with a system like this would be when you get an item that truly is defective/broken, are you expected to pay a return fee in those cases?

I don't get it, sorry. What would the money do? The damage is done, isn't it? I'm assuming often the item can't be sold again so it's just discarded, no? We can't pay the environment back for the damage we do by overconsumption.

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).

Jet.com, before it was bought by Wal*Mart, used to do this.

I think this was it! Thank you, that was bugging me.

>When places like Zappos encourage people to buy extra just to return the excess

Yeah, but Zappos just sprays some of that stuff they use for the rental shoes at bowling alleys, which as we all know makes the shoes pristine, in like-new condition. All shoe retailers use this eldritch magick, created by the great Druid Alchemists that built Stonehenge, so that's not a fair comparison.

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.

I seem to remember Jet.com might have had something kind of like this, except I think it was defaulted to "allow returns" and they would offer you, on each line item, to for instance "Save $0.37 by waiving returns."

Jet also had a very neat logistics-driven feature where if you bought more things that came from the same warehouse they passed some of that savings onto you. So once you had in your cart, say, a box of paper towels, you might save $1.50 off of a box of crackers that they knew they could throw into the same box.

Marc Lore is clever and I was sad to see Jet.com go (though not sad for him since I think it was another great exit)

Airline seats seem to work that way. It's purchase insurance.

what you're proposing seems like a good idea - except certain retailers have more money than others and will offer free hassle free returns along with a price match. This will result in there always being competition that's as cheap and having returns, resulting in the entire sale going to them.

there's a reason retail is often described as a race to the bottom

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'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."

You’re probably aware of it already, but just in case: Reddit.com/r/NotTheOnion

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.

You have the correct instinct. Laches (not latches, it really is a different word) is about a specific cause so it only helps if you've got a reasonable case that the plaintiff should have noticed this cause ages ago. If the cause is new that's obviously not going to work.

Thanks! That’s what I thought. It’s been a minute since law school and my in-house brain has been steadily leaking for some years.

Yes! Just in the last couple of weeks, just the most bizarre spam getting through.

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?

You'll never get a straight answer. Cryptocurrency fans love huffing their own farts too much to actually give a salient explanation for this.

Proof of work does a good job contributing to increasing problems with global warming and wreaking havoc on the computer hardware market.

There's talk about major cryptocurrencies switching to proof of stake. Good luck on that, because the current powers that be would hate to see their cash cow affected.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. A bunch of early adopters are getting VERY rich because everyone else is FOMOing hardcore. That's never a good reason to buy into this charade.

Our species is so greedy, we will do whatever it takes to fuck everyone else and get ours, I guess. We created a monster. I wish we could own up to it before it's too late.

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."

Well they are not taking initiative at work, so I thought doing an entirely different task may create another dynamic. But you are correct that I don’t expect myself to be more fun than the next guy, especially a boss. The question remains for me, how can I give them ownership of what is happening, because we are not going to grow if they don’t own things.

But maybe that is why I went entrepreneur. I just see the missed potential for everyone, and if I wanted to grow bigger, maybe they are the wrong “first employees”.