Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/07/2014 11:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/7/2014 3:54 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> It's a salesman's whole freaking *job* is be a professional liar!
>
> Poor salesmen are liars. But the really, really good ones are ones who
> are able to match up what a customer needs with the right product for
> him. There, he is providing a valuable service to the customer.
>

Can't say I've personally come across any of the latter (it relies on 
salesmen knowing what they're talking about and still working sales 
anyway - which I'm sure does occur for various reasons, but doesn't seem 
common from what I've seen). But maybe I've just spent far too much time 
at MicroCenter ;) Great store, but dumb sales staff ;)

> Serve the customer well like that, and you get a repeat customer. I know
> many salesmen who get my repeat business because of that.
>

Certainly reasonable points, and I'm glad to hear there *are* 
respectable ones out there.

> The prof who taught me accounting used to sell cars. I asked him how to
> tell a good dealership from a bad one. He told me the good ones have
> been in business for more than 5 years, because by then one has run out
> of new suckers and is relying on repeat business.
>

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but it relies on several 
questionable assumptions:

1. Suckers routinely know they've been suckered.

2. Suckers avoid giving repeat business to those who suckered them (not 
as reliable an assumption as one might expect)

3. The rate of loss on previous suckers overshadows the rate of new 
suckers. (Ex: No matter how badly people hate working at McDonald's, 
they're unlikely to run low on fresh applicants without a major 
birthrate decline - and even then they'd have 16 years to prepare)

4. Good dealerships don't become bad.

5. There *exists* a good one within a reasonable distance.

6. People haven't become disillusioned and given up on trying to find a 
good one (whether a good one exists or not, the effect here would be the 
same).

7. The bad ones aren't able to compete/survive through other means. 
(Cornering a market, mindshare, convincing ads, misc gimmicks, 
merchandising or other side-revenue streams, anti-competitive practices, 
etc.)

Also, the strategy has a potential self-destruct switch: Even if the 
strategy works, if enough people follow it then even good dealerships 
might not be able to survive the initial 5 year trial.

Plus, I know of a counter-example around here. From an insider, I've 
heard horror stories about the shit the managers, finance people, etc 
would pull. But they're a MAJOR dealer in the area and have been for as 
long as I can remember.

>> But then again, slots and video poker aren't exactly my thing anyway.
>> I'm from
>> the 80's: If I plunk coins into a machine I expect to get food,
>> beverage, clean
>> laundry, or *actual gameplay*. Repeatedly purchasing the message "You
>> loose"
>> while the entire building itself is treating me like a complete
>> brain-dead idiot
>> isn't exactly my idea of "addictive".
>
> I found gambling to be a painful experience, not entertaining at all.

I actually enjoyed that evening quite a bit: A road trip with friends is 
always fun, as is seeing new places, and it was certainly a very pretty 
place inside (for a very good reason, of course). But admittedly, the 
psychological tricks were somewhat insulting, and by the time I got 
through the $20 I'd budgeted I had already gotten very, very bored with 
slot machines and video poker. And blackjack's something I'd gotten 
plenty of all the way back on the Apple II.

If I want to gamble I'll just go buy more insurance ;) Better odds.

Or stock market. At least that doesn't have quite as much of a "house" 
that "always wins", at least not to the same extent.