Having worked for a major dispute resolution provider, these conversations generally leave out a lot of context. Lots of Gell-Mann Amnesia.
First, 90% of arbitration is between firms, not consumers. Consumer driven arbitration is rare enough that it's hard to specialize as a pro-business arbiter. Usually arbiter bias will be pro [big, small, old, new] just like us regular people.
Second, like other public facing retail and service management, consumer disputes are generally 80% frivolous. Like "they did not read the contract" level issues. That about 50% of disputes award in favor of the consumer is seen as overly benevolent appeasement.
Note: the 20% non-frivolous are usually very clear cases of the corporate participant blatantly or maliciously screwing up; no sympathy there. People are people everywhere.
For this reason most industry professionals very strongly suggest mediation rather than arbitration. It's quicker, cheaper, and usually ends in a voluntary non-binding settlement. And if you don't like it, it's non-binding; you can proceed to arbitration. Corporate clients would usually prefer to voluntarily agree to a settlement to make the problem go away, and consumers get the neutral information they need to understand why they misunderstood the situation.
However, most people see red and want to punish the other side. That rage makes them want to use as much authority and leverage as they can. Arbitration is seen as "not enough of a punishment, court would be better." When really, most people would be better served sitting down and talking things over with mediation rather than explicit adversarial intent.
I've heard similar things from civil court judges. They don't think they're biased for or against citizens, police, lawyers, etc. They are used to seeing the most incompetent petty facepalm justifications to "punish" someone, instead of seek justice or restitution. They are biased positively towards anyone who shows the slightest decorum, competence, or noble intent.
I've heard similar justification for farm subsidies; paying them not to grow food, to keep prices sufficiently high. It seems wasteful until you compare it to the regular cycle of famines humanity has dealt with to this point. Turns out paying for extra unused capacity is tremendously valuable.
I've really enjoyed "graphic audio" adaptation of books with better sound effects, voices, and adaptations to the medium. Too bad it's not a wider selection.
I was thinking of "new world" when I wrote the comment. It's essentially the most "design by committee" MMO possible, and the reviews reflect the poor attempt.
Weirdly, MMOs actually fit Amazon's business model better than off the shelf games. You pay for access, like Amazon prime. I'm surprised they didn't bundle in new world into prime membership as a way of catapulting their video game unit expansion. That's much more their modus operandi; expand first and just the intense scale to force improvement over time.
Hmm, while these may be the emotional pangs of going through the process, there is a much greater failure that destroys much more value (both monetary and tangible benefit).
Joining a large company prevents expanding total addressable market.
The acquirer wants to tap an existing resource. While growth is commendable, it's only perceived as an option within a narrow customer base or market segment. It's increasing ROI, not capitalizing on new changes in the market.
This looks like a failure to innovate, but that's correlation not causation; not the root cause. There's plenty of innovation, it's just constrained by a limited business model.
I've never seen a company break out of this trap. If you make money from ads, b2b users (Slack), or b2b management (Oracle), it's impossible to change those stripes.
Microsoft could make a video game unit because they think "software in a box." Amazon never will.
It's not usually the giants where this really plays out, but the middle tier. Adobe, Atlassian, Intuit, PayPal, Salesforce, Walmart labs. Like trading Bitcoin for pizza in 2015, they made a great financial deals that paid off, even legitimized the space and were ahead of their time, but lost out on underpinning entire future markets.
This is a thoroughly impressive response, particularly in a thread about contemplation. It's honestly a masterpiece.
It may be a bit cliche, but it reminds of this Alan Watts anecdote.
> That is why a person who might be enlightened (a bodhisattva) does not always present a kind of detached and indifferent attitude but is perfectly free to allow emotions and attachments. Why R.H. Blyth, who was a great Zen man, wrote me once and said 'How are you these days? As for me, I have abandoned satori (enlightenment) altogether and I'm trying to become as deeply attached as I can to as many people and things as possible.'
I thought it was a rather vapid comment but it just slid right past my relevance filter, easily ignored in a stream of people sharing their opinions as a weak form of anecdata.
Until that last footnote. And the dawning realization that this is my opinion of 98%+ of comments and yet I read them anyway.
And even here now as I respond with yet more drivel and unsolicited anecdotal opinion vaguely attempting to contribute to an already obsolete comment thread. I question everything.
This seems like sarcasm, but I believe this is ultimately the goal.
Call it Star Trek post scarcity, or fully automated gay space communism, or the Culture.
People only work if they choose. Not everyone who wants one gets major capital investment (like a starship) without demonstrating competency but otherwise everyone benefits from the collective automated bounty.
First, 90% of arbitration is between firms, not consumers. Consumer driven arbitration is rare enough that it's hard to specialize as a pro-business arbiter. Usually arbiter bias will be pro [big, small, old, new] just like us regular people.
Second, like other public facing retail and service management, consumer disputes are generally 80% frivolous. Like "they did not read the contract" level issues. That about 50% of disputes award in favor of the consumer is seen as overly benevolent appeasement.
Note: the 20% non-frivolous are usually very clear cases of the corporate participant blatantly or maliciously screwing up; no sympathy there. People are people everywhere.
For this reason most industry professionals very strongly suggest mediation rather than arbitration. It's quicker, cheaper, and usually ends in a voluntary non-binding settlement. And if you don't like it, it's non-binding; you can proceed to arbitration. Corporate clients would usually prefer to voluntarily agree to a settlement to make the problem go away, and consumers get the neutral information they need to understand why they misunderstood the situation.
However, most people see red and want to punish the other side. That rage makes them want to use as much authority and leverage as they can. Arbitration is seen as "not enough of a punishment, court would be better." When really, most people would be better served sitting down and talking things over with mediation rather than explicit adversarial intent.
I've heard similar things from civil court judges. They don't think they're biased for or against citizens, police, lawyers, etc. They are used to seeing the most incompetent petty facepalm justifications to "punish" someone, instead of seek justice or restitution. They are biased positively towards anyone who shows the slightest decorum, competence, or noble intent.