Our provincial government securities regulator for British Columbia, Canada, released this PSA to warn residents of AI investment scams. I think it's great. I think it's only a matter of time until someone gives a government agency flak for posting a video with uncensored use of the f-word but I hope it stays online.
Although Air Canada Flight 759 was far too close for comfort and should be classified as a failure of the system, even if it did not result in an accident.
1) Because sometimes you are right about something and it's nice to show that you were thinking about it ahead of time. An example would be my prediction in 2023 (which is fairly late in all fairness,) that one of the most important improvements in AI in the near future would be the ability to interact with any GUI as if it was an API.
2) Because often you are wrong about something and having it written down and in public will keep you honest about hindsight bias. An example would be predictions I made about lasting impacts of the pandemic on how we approach healthcare and minimizing respiratory infections in general.
Re: "Cannot be manipulated unlike GPS signal derived coordinates, which can be altered by the user's device before relaying them to the server"
Is it possible to ensure that the data is not manipulated? If the user had to install a voting software package on their phone, then couldn't that piece of software take responsibility for pulling the co-ordinates from the device and encrypting it? I am assuming most modern phones are secure enough that the signal from the GPS that is made available to applications can be trusted but maybe I am wrong?
Re Starlink: Is it possible to trace your route through a specific satellite and to look up the location of that satellite? That seems like a relatively easy and secure check (aside from the VPN/Proxy concerns which feel like they would be a larger challenge in this scenario since I am assuming the delays through the satellites would be more significant than delays through fiber.)
> Is it possible to ensure that the data is not manipulated?
I don't think one can place much trust in phones not being tampered with as they are frequently jailbroken. So you could supply fake GPS antenna data to the software or I believe you could in principle also put your phone in a metal box and spoof actual GPS signals into the box. Civilian GPS signals aren't encrypted, I think..
The problem with the Vancouver system is the combination of it being above ground and noisy. Ideally, you want to build density directly beside the tracks. That said, I lived near the tracks for a few years and although we could hear it, it wasn't that bad. We were fairly high up and had good windows.
However this study is about the impact of the noise on passengers, not people living beside the tracks. For passengers, I think a tunnel (which reflects the noise back) is worse than an above-ground track. Of course, for both avoiding tight curves during planning and good track maintenance help a lot...
The article you linked also mentions some of the disadvantages of rubber-tire metros:
> Rubber tires wear faster and must be replaced more frequently, meaning more waste. Trains on the Paris Metro – which pioneered the use of rubber tires and inspired Montreal’s design -- can run for 4,325,917 km for every $1 million in maintenance; Toronto’s steel wheeled trains can go for 8,991,405 km-- more than double. Montreal’s Metro requires approximately 2900 new tires every year – that’s a lot of old tires being discarded. When these tires break down, they also create airborne particulate matter that can remain in the environment for years, contributing to air pollution.
The friction between rubber and concrete is greater than between a steel wheel and steel tracks. This means that more energy is required to push Montreal’s cars forward than Toronto’s
I think this gets at the heart of it. People assume that these fires are fought and prevented in the forest/hills by wildland fire fighters but the reality is that individual homeowners can do a lot by clearing brush, etc. (ahead of time,) from their own yards. It's an inconvenient truth because it shifts the responsibility to individuals.
""...Ignitions downwind and across streets are typically from showers of burning embers from burning structures.”
This fundamental misunderstanding has likewise led to a misunderstanding of prevention. No longer is it a matter of preventing wildfires but instead preventing points of ignition within communities by employing “home-hardening” strategies — proper landscaping, fire-resistant siding — and enjoining neighbors in collective efforts such as brush clearing."
With the world's population now exceeding 8 billion, we need to be thoughtful about the best way to rewild ourselves. We can live in dense cities with concrete high-rises but animals can't. Many animals at the top of the food chain need significant ranges for themselves. So the challenge is finding a way that we can minimize our footprint while also providing more opportunities for legitimate connection with nature. Put another way, a bimodal life - with time split between a concrete high-rises and natural areas is probably more ideal for the overall system than a push for everyone to live in slightly more rural areas.
The world is far bigger than most realize. Split completely equally there's enough room for more than 200,000 square feet per person. [1] Thats about 4 football fields of area for every single man, woman, and child alive today.
Factor in that some people enjoy living in urban areas, most won't leave in any case, and so on - and we're realistically talking about tens to hundreds of football fields per person. It's a big world out there.
Although that is true, the counterpoint is that I think some people underestimate the potential impact on animals and how much room away from humans they really need. Some interesting recent research here: https://www.ualberta.ca/en/folio/2025/01/human-recreation-pu...
only about 71% of all land is habitable, and there would be a lot of other restrictions in terms of access to resources, and we need land dedicated to stuff like manufacturing and shared common spaces, so that per-person number quickly gets much smaller
Against all of the advice in the world, I'm trying to set things up to avoid basically everything described in the article. It's tricky because the truth is that a lot of the tactics work and that is why companies implement them. A lot of investors also consider that process to be best-in-class and look for it as a sign of maturity.
The counter approach is:
- Make complete information available as transparently as possible and don't gate it.
- Be forthcoming about weaknesses. Don't force prospects and customers to find them.
- Ensure that when a prospect or customer does want to talk to someone, they immediately reach someone who can handle the problem or answer the question (no need for escalations.)
- Never have an AI agent call someone unless the customer specifically requests that and be sure that all AI agents immediately disclose that they are AI.
- Offer flexible e-mail list subscription options (monthly, quarterly, annually, only release notes, etc.)
- If the product is not a fit, try to offer something useful anyway such as a suggestion of another product that might be a better match for their needs.
Value based pricing is one of the reasons why a lot of companies end up in these situations. Rather than setting a standard price, the company does a detailed investigation of the customer to try to find out how much value they will gain from using the product and then they set the price based on that determination. Although it maximizes revenue in theory, it is slow and invasive.
- people don’t read your documentation
- if they find one edge-case that is not covered by your product they concentrate all their energy on it even though the competitor product doesn’t even work for the happy path (but ofc they won’t learn that until too late)
- you will have a person on the free tier who is not able to the simplest programming take up all the time of your technical support if you let them
The rest (disclose usage of AI, offer multiple newsletters (imo unnecessary work), be upfront if it’s not a good fit) is very sensible and works in my experience.
The first three will break your product - but maybe I’m just cynical and was holding it wrong all this time
edit: I’m assuming you want to build some kind of investor fuelled unicorn - your approach probably will work for a single person slow but steady growth while you have other side income
You need docs. Most users won’t read them. Do a good job anyway because they can save you a TON of support costs if they’re good, even for the few people who do read them. The cost of writing docs is easily offset by even a modest reduction in human support cost, unless you just half-ass your support with LLMs and FAQs and chat with overseas wage slaves.
ALSO: your UX needs to warn people about sharp edges and one-way doors, BEFORE your user commits to an action they might regret. These are not incompatible.
If nothing else, the "smart cows" will read the docs and may even help out on support forums when some of the user base doesn't and decides to complain. Docs are good for everyone and will save time internally and externally.
>your UX needs to warn people about sharp edges and one-way doors, BEFORE your user commits to an action they might regret. These are not incompatible.
Assuming trump doesn't nix it, the recent FTC ruling should fix this by itself. it should be as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe.
I don’t think easy unsubscribe falls under «sharp edges and one-way doors». But high friction unsubscribe probably goes hand in hand with sharp edges and one-way doors at those lead you to want to unsubscribe…therefore they make it hard.
Docs are a great defense against clients that demand hand-holding, even if nobody ever actually reads them. If they ask a question covered by the docs, simply point them at the docs and they'll go away indefinitely rather than read something.
My point is that the clients that matter will require hand-holding.
Sure if you just sell to hobby programmers and students it’s no problem.
But if your customers should be real businesses - in my experience 90% of them require a lot of handholding, you literally have to read the docs for them and tell them in a call.
Even if no one reads docs up front - having some documentation to point them to is a must.
I cannot imagine making stuff up all the time as you go. Maybe if system is super small. But then even better to build up documentation to have it for later.
Clients that won't use the docs and need handholding can pay for service: sell them training, and you can use the docs already written as the training material.
Also, it's pretty easy at this point to setup an AI support agent that can reference your docs, and it is a helpful exercise for organizing your own thoughts and being able to communicate them back to yourself. There's not really a good reason to not have good docs.
I just assume that if a product is gated behind "let's hope on a call!" it's still vaporware and there's a 50/50 chance that they'll pivot within a few months.
Also docs can be effective for marketing especially if you sell bottom-up to devs. If i visit a site and see a section for docs, it means they are catering to my needs
You definitely needs docs, they are just as important as the product.
But thinking all your prospects will read the docs is a fallacy- maybe 5% of prospects fall into the category of OP, more commonly they won’t even know what their own requirements are, let alone how to map that to your product/docs
> if they find one edge-case that is not covered by your product they concentrate all their energy on it
Having run into this many many times it's usually because that little edge case is where the hard problem lives in the problem domain and is the reason, whether the customers know it consciously or not, they bought it. Who pays for something that only handles the easy cases? The author even talks about it with the "one specific thing" line. I guarantee it's that one stubborn edge case.
It's likely you reached for a solution in the first place because you wanted something to turn a problem with a mix of difficulties into an easy one offloaded to a 3rd party.
Docs aren't just for the users, they're for your support team as well. A lot of times I'll put in a support request for some product we use and the first thing support sends back is documentation. Most of the time, that's all I need and it saves us both a ton of time.
There are times when I would ask for this. If it's midnight on a Saturday and the website says: "You can reach a human agent 9-5 M-F or we can have an AI agent call you right now" then I might opt for the AI agent. I may also do this if I want to take a call while out for a bike ride, in a noisy place, etc. Talking to AI means I don't need to worry about being polite which is actually very convenient.
True, it depends on the quality of the human on the other side. If it's a mindless front-line support person parroting a script, "did you try restarting the computer?", then I'd take a smarter AI too.
I created and sold software (and services) for over a decade, and could never have lived with myself if I'd treated customers the way the original article describes.
sadly, they do it because it works, and (not trying to be too offensive): lotta people are dumb. If you're confused, a nice "team mate" will be more comforting than a cold hard doc and web form. Even if they are upcharging you on a bunch of stuff you will never use. They call multiple times because some people genuinely forget and appreciate the reminder.
I'm sure you knew all this better than me, but just want to elaborate for anyone who genuinely don't understands who falls for this.
The counter approach is better for everyone, less work for the company and a nicer experience for the user, but only in a vacuum.
Unregulated competition is a race to the bottom, so the most unethical, invasive, borderline illegal, and manipulative tactics come out on top. Not the best product, but the best marketing. Not the most customer friendly, but the most customer-converting through coercion. Not pricing products and services what they're worth, but the most anyone will be wiling to pay for them.
> The counter approach is: - Make complete information available as transparently as possible and don't gate it. - Be forthcoming about weaknesses. Don't force prospects and customers to find them. - Ensure that when a prospect or customer does want to talk to someone, they immediately reach someone who can handle the problem or answer the question (no need for escalations.) - Never have an AI agent call someone unless the customer specifically requests that and be sure that all AI agents immediately disclose that they are AI. - Offer flexible e-mail list subscription options (monthly, quarterly, annually, only release notes, etc.) - If the product is not a fit, try to offer something useful anyway such as a suggestion of another product that might be a better match for their needs.
From the perspective of designing a sales org to do this it is, roughly, a sales-engineer focused sales organization with the sales engineers on a minimal commission plan (i.e., a pooled 80% base/20% commission plan instead of something like an individual 70/30 plan.)
I never saw it in practice, but it would probably have something like a 2:1 ratio of sales engineers to account managers. On the plus side, sales engineers are less costly to employ than account managers. On the down side, this will almost certainly result in lower revenue.
> Value based pricing is one of the reasons why a lot of companies end up in these situations. Rather than setting a standard price, the company does a detailed investigation of the customer to try to find out how much value they will gain from using the product and then they set the price based on that determination. Although it maximizes revenue in theory, it is slow and invasive.
In my experience (working in tech sales for a few large manufacturers,) this is almost never a routine practice of the sales team. It is sometimes discussed in sales training, and very, very occasionally put into practice, but the Achilles heel is your last comment: it is slow and invasive. Sales people are a diverse group, but they are united by the belief that time kills all deals.
Product teams do large scale market segmentation and price sensitivity studies -- that's where you get all of the packaging options. Sales teams? If they have a large existing customer, that customer will already have a standard discount level. That's the starting point for any given negotiation. For new customers or smaller customers, the sales team will try to sell at the 'standard' price, where by 'standard', I mean the prevailing discount level in their region. Variables that will ultimately cause the price paid to change: fiscal year-end/quarter-end, competition, bundling, "incentives" / customer "budget." I put those roughly in terms of how powerful a lever they are to move the price, on average.
Fiscal year-end/quarter-end. One challenge with trying to root out traditional sales/purchasing behavior is that customers are trained to reinforce the behavior. While it doesn't always work (a sales rep might be significantly under or over goal and might want a deal to slip into the next quarter/year,) if a customer can force a deal to get done around the end of the vendor's fiscal periods, they have significant leverage to negotiate a lower price if the vendor believes the deal might slip.
Competition - this one is pretty obvious, but adding a competitor to your purchase evaluation and letting the vendor you want to buy from know that you are seriously considering their competitor will likely result in a lower price. Bonus points for the purchasing team telling the vendor their engineers like the competitor's product better, but the purchasing team really wants to buy from you because they love you so much. Double bonus points for telling both vendors that.
Bundling -- if a manufacturer has multiple products, they often will voluntarily increase their discount level to induce the customer to buy a product 'suite'. The sales reps are often under immense pressure to sell the newer and flakier products on their price lists, and this is usually the only way it gets done. On the plus side, the customer gets more product for the same price. On the down side, the extra products included often aren't worth using, and come renewal time, the true total cost of ownership becomes apparent.
"Incentives" / "customer budget" - these are both, typically, BS in that the vendor doesn't usually have a magic "incentive" to offer a one-time discount. The sales rep just got (or thinks they can get) approval for a lower price. Similarly, while customers most certainly do have budgets, they often lie and say they can't buy x because it exceeds their budget, when their internal sales people (the purchasing team) just wants a lower price. I refer to the purchasing team as "internal sales people" because they often-times have a commission incentive just like the vendor sales rep: it isn't uncommon for them to have a personal, individual bonus tied to driving vendor contracts down in price. In some cases, it is a direct commission -- i.e., the purchasing agent (or sometimes budget owner) gets 10% of any monies saved.
I wish you the best of luck, but other than taking people completely out of the equation, I think it is really hard to eliminate this behavior in practice because 1) it is so thoroughly ingrained amongst both vendors and customers and 2) it works.
