McDonald's app bug let people order for free in France(twitter.com)
twitter.com
McDonald's app bug let people order for free in France
https://twitter.com/koba_des_neiges/status/1225926716926963713
89 comments
It might be a stunt, but stuff like that happens. Many years ago I used to work for a large European company that ran a booking system for several hundreds of airlines. The system was used as a back-end by more than one famous online booking site. Currency rates were updated automatically. Once, on a new year's eve, at midnight, a glitch slipped into the Canadian dollar conversion rate, setting 1 CAD to 0 EUR. All of a sudden, all Air Canada flights were for free for European customers, at what might be the worst time of the year :
"- so, this year's resolution : we take time to travel.
- hey look honey, Canada looks cheap.
- deal done, book right away, and let's open one more bottle of champagne !"
I don't know how many AC flights were booked before someone realized and an on-call guy fixed the conversion rate. However, I know that all those free bookings remained valid, and were offered by my company who payed all of it directly to Air Canada.
A cigar retailer I used to frequent had a buy 1, get 1 free special on a variety of cigar 5 packs on their site. One day, a cigar I loved was no longer part of this deal, so out of interest, I found the id of the product and placed it in the request. It worked!
That was a problem. So I emailed them to let them know that it was an issue, and received a phone response. I was told "oh, that's not a big deal." I responded by telling them to place a $500 box of cigars in the field.
NOW it was a big deal.
That was a problem. So I emailed them to let them know that it was an issue, and received a phone response. I was told "oh, that's not a big deal." I responded by telling them to place a $500 box of cigars in the field.
NOW it was a big deal.
Amadeus?
I remember at some point the French computer retailer had an issue when running a "buy 2 get 1 free" offer on blu-rays. One could remove the two bought items from the cart and the free one would remain. Repeat ad-libidum.
Last year Amazon ran an offer where all photographic gear cost $94. All of it, even lenses which retailed for over 13k. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/07/19/amazon-prime-... If there is one regret I have in my life, it was not checking the prime day that fateful morning.
I remember at some point the French computer retailer had an issue when running a "buy 2 get 1 free" offer on blu-rays. One could remove the two bought items from the cart and the free one would remain. Repeat ad-libidum.
Last year Amazon ran an offer where all photographic gear cost $94. All of it, even lenses which retailed for over 13k. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/07/19/amazon-prime-... If there is one regret I have in my life, it was not checking the prime day that fateful morning.
I won the lottery on a similar issue. I was looking at monitors on Amazon using a business account, which sometimes offers volume discounts. Instead of a $10 discount, someone had set the unit price to $10 if you bought more than one, for a $1100 monitor. I bought five. I expected the order to be cancelled, but a week later five monitors showed up.
Along the same lines, I was shopping for fuel injectors and someone listed a particular part number at like $1.50ea. So now, years later, I have a peanut butter jar fulled of 24lb/hr EV1 injectors that are not the right flow rate for anything I own but hey, maybe I'll use them eventually. It's nice to find a pricing error but it's rare to be in a position to actually use or be able to re-sell multiple units.
Similarly long ago, a french amazon like site offered (alapage?) a 5e rebate for new customers, one coupon per person, and a person being identified by its delivery (fullname, address) pair. Except that they used string equality as comparison which means every typo combination got you a new account.
Suddenly anything <= 4.99 was open hunt. A month or so later, most item were now 5.01. And possibly uniqueness was now put on credit card number, people can't get more than a handful.
I never could find a figure nor an article in the news but considering how fast this spread around, it was an expensive mistake.
Suddenly anything <= 4.99 was open hunt. A month or so later, most item were now 5.01. And possibly uniqueness was now put on credit card number, people can't get more than a handful.
I never could find a figure nor an article in the news but considering how fast this spread around, it was an expensive mistake.
Recently my company (well known company/brand) someone created a coupon code that made your total 0 dollars.
Apparently around 400 orders had been made using it before it was found, which on the scale of things isn't as bad as it could have been
From what I followed it didn't seem malicious, it was a broken attempt to implement a referral bonus
Apparently around 400 orders had been made using it before it was found, which on the scale of things isn't as bad as it could have been
From what I followed it didn't seem malicious, it was a broken attempt to implement a referral bonus
On what level do those happen? Actually tweaking code, or some higher-level interface? (I wonder why this is even possible to do)
CMS type interface
Technically it didn't make any order free actually... just 200$ cheaper and you could use it as many times as you liked.
They made a discount with the correct amount, but it was supposed to require a referral from a much bigger ticket item and they missed that
Technically it didn't make any order free actually... just 200$ cheaper and you could use it as many times as you liked.
They made a discount with the correct amount, but it was supposed to require a referral from a much bigger ticket item and they missed that
I always wonder why systems like this so rarely do even basic plausibility checks before data is updated.
IKR
Once my brother wired 10M EUR from Austria instead of 10M HUF. The exchange rate is above 1:300. Needless to say, he didn't have 10M EUR on that account. Like, ever. Not even close. I still have no idea why the bank let him wire more money than he had especially on this magnitude. They reverted it but we needed to cover the spread which caused an almost 10k eur loss. That hurt.
I have once accidentally copied my one time password into my ebank for payment (I was trying to copypaste the amount from somewhere else, it didn't take, that happens often with PDF and then the clipboard contained the previous copy) and it would've let me do it if I don't stop it at the confirm screen. It's mind boggling.
Once my brother wired 10M EUR from Austria instead of 10M HUF. The exchange rate is above 1:300. Needless to say, he didn't have 10M EUR on that account. Like, ever. Not even close. I still have no idea why the bank let him wire more money than he had especially on this magnitude. They reverted it but we needed to cover the spread which caused an almost 10k eur loss. That hurt.
I have once accidentally copied my one time password into my ebank for payment (I was trying to copypaste the amount from somewhere else, it didn't take, that happens often with PDF and then the clipboard contained the previous copy) and it would've let me do it if I don't stop it at the confirm screen. It's mind boggling.
[deleted]
It saves so many headaches. I used to support a system with an automated fallback. If today's feed wasn't in by cutoff then the previous day's feed was used.
Unfortunately we'd sometimes get partial or corrupted feeds. Partial feeds triggered investigation and possibly a manual rerun and corrupted ones often halted the system.
Because we only used monthly numbers for reporting, delaying and rerunning any other day was pointless beyond standard root cause analysis to prevent recurrence. And this system had hundreds of feeds so at first there were almost daily issues.
So I added a check to throw out any deviations over two sigma from the median of the last 30 days' good feeds which knocked out 99% of our data quality issues. I got in a boatload of trouble for different reasons but that's another story.
Unfortunately we'd sometimes get partial or corrupted feeds. Partial feeds triggered investigation and possibly a manual rerun and corrupted ones often halted the system.
Because we only used monthly numbers for reporting, delaying and rerunning any other day was pointless beyond standard root cause analysis to prevent recurrence. And this system had hundreds of feeds so at first there were almost daily issues.
So I added a check to throw out any deviations over two sigma from the median of the last 30 days' good feeds which knocked out 99% of our data quality issues. I got in a boatload of trouble for different reasons but that's another story.
>I got in a boatload of trouble for other reasons but that's another story.
You cannot just drop that line and walk away. Storytime?
You cannot just drop that line and walk away. Storytime?
This predated DevOps: we were using the Carnegie Mellon Capability and Maturity Model (CMM) which split roles into Plan, Build, Operate and Control with me in the Operate tier. I proposed the change, got Build to schedule and release it but I didn't get buy in from the architect of the system. He was toweringly, incandescently angry that I had dared touch his design. To the point where I think he tried to get me fired over it. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed because really I was right and it was all just an ego thing on his part. I took a page from my boss who was masterful at dealing with these kinds of things. We buried the architect in all things operational to the point where he eventually asked us to stop and grudgingly allowed we knew what we were doing. I don't know if he believed it or just wanted the emails to stop.
More details: if you ordered a "Golden Menu" with a "McFirst" sandwich on the mobile app or on the self-service machine, almost everything you add would have been for free. The bug was first reported on Twitter and it took about 7 hours for restaurants to refuse to give orders.
Interesting that they had the exact same issue on both platforms. It's also the kind of thing where some people might just guess that the behavior is intentional and take advantage of it.
It's always interesting to me that so many people seem to completely lose all compunction about stealing once technology is involved.
If they were ordering from a cashier at McDonald's and the cashier got distracted for a minute and somehow forgot to charge them before finishing the order, most of the people that abuse a bug like this would tell them about the mistake. I've been in similar situations plenty of times, where I easily could have gotten something without paying because of a staff oversight, but I always tell them I haven't paid yet. Most people won't suddenly decide to steal something just because they're handed an easy opportunity.
But when the transaction is through an app or a website or something, people are completely willing to abuse errors, and will even go through an obscure process deliberately to cause errors so they can abuse them. When Amazon accidentally sells expensive camera equipment for 99% off on Prime Day, people clamor to steal as much as they can, even though it's a blatant mistake. None of those people legitimately believe the price is intentional, they know they're taking advantage of an error. The ones that get away with it brag about it, and others that missed the chance are jealous that they didn't manage to steal anything.
It's really a fascinating piece of psychology to me, that once there's a "system" in place, abusing holes in it feels like a reasonable thing to do, even if the end result is effectively shoplifting.
Edit: the replies to me are a perfect demonstration.
If they were ordering from a cashier at McDonald's and the cashier got distracted for a minute and somehow forgot to charge them before finishing the order, most of the people that abuse a bug like this would tell them about the mistake. I've been in similar situations plenty of times, where I easily could have gotten something without paying because of a staff oversight, but I always tell them I haven't paid yet. Most people won't suddenly decide to steal something just because they're handed an easy opportunity.
But when the transaction is through an app or a website or something, people are completely willing to abuse errors, and will even go through an obscure process deliberately to cause errors so they can abuse them. When Amazon accidentally sells expensive camera equipment for 99% off on Prime Day, people clamor to steal as much as they can, even though it's a blatant mistake. None of those people legitimately believe the price is intentional, they know they're taking advantage of an error. The ones that get away with it brag about it, and others that missed the chance are jealous that they didn't manage to steal anything.
It's really a fascinating piece of psychology to me, that once there's a "system" in place, abusing holes in it feels like a reasonable thing to do, even if the end result is effectively shoplifting.
Edit: the replies to me are a perfect demonstration.
That's because both situation have absolutely nothing in common.
People tell cashiers when they make a mistake not out of a desire to avoid "stealing" (stealing is taking something without permission or right by the way so neither case is actually stealing by the way) but because they empathize with an actual human being making mistakes like they sometimes do and want to be helpful.
Corporations can't at the same time replace people with machines to optimise their bottom line and expect their customers to remain empathetic. Once you put in place automatic system you have to owe them. You can't win on both side.
If Amazon gives huge reductions by mistake, well, too bad for Amazon, the reductions are still there. It has absolutely nothing to do with shoplifting.
People tell cashiers when they make a mistake not out of a desire to avoid "stealing" (stealing is taking something without permission or right by the way so neither case is actually stealing by the way) but because they empathize with an actual human being making mistakes like they sometimes do and want to be helpful.
Corporations can't at the same time replace people with machines to optimise their bottom line and expect their customers to remain empathetic. Once you put in place automatic system you have to owe them. You can't win on both side.
If Amazon gives huge reductions by mistake, well, too bad for Amazon, the reductions are still there. It has absolutely nothing to do with shoplifting.
When there's a "system", everyone's very aware that an error against them will be treated inhumanly and be very time consuming to correct. It's a bit like a prisoner's dilemma where you expect the other side to defect.
Also, Amazon have more wealth than like half the population put together. A few lenses aren't going to put a dent in that. The only case I can think of that did was the "Hoover free flights" fiasco, and that wasn't even an error.
Also, Amazon have more wealth than like half the population put together. A few lenses aren't going to put a dent in that. The only case I can think of that did was the "Hoover free flights" fiasco, and that wasn't even an error.
Can you please explain concretely what your definition of stealing is?
To most sane people, it is not stealing when a transaction price is set, and that price is paid.
If you buy a car and complete the transaction and as you're driving off the lot the dealership says, sorry, that car is 200,000 not 20,000; would that be stealing? Why or why not?
To most sane people, it is not stealing when a transaction price is set, and that price is paid.
If you buy a car and complete the transaction and as you're driving off the lot the dealership says, sorry, that car is 200,000 not 20,000; would that be stealing? Why or why not?
In France there is, AFAIK, a law that says that if you buy something when there was a system error setting the price, the company can legally ask you to give the item back.
Usually they don't because of the PR problem it could cause but a system mistake does not mean that the item is suddenly free for grabs.
I do understand people taking advantage of it though, it's a bit like winning a tiny lottery.
Usually they don't because of the PR problem it could cause but a system mistake does not mean that the item is suddenly free for grabs.
I do understand people taking advantage of it though, it's a bit like winning a tiny lottery.
Could it have been obvious the price was 10 times higher than you paid? If yes, then it's stealing. If no, then no.
I see this as a negotiation between man and machine. The machine in this case was bad at negotiating.
These sorts of "cutesy" arguments don't hold up in a court of law.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21534526/ns/technology_and_science...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21534526/ns/technology_and_science...
That wasn't a glitch in negotiating. The system knew that the purchase was cancelled but sent the items anyway. It makes perfect sense that the system can legally ask to get those items back.
It depends on what the cancellation policy is, if the cancellation policy says that the responsibility to return is on the buyer, then absolutely it's stealing.
90% discounts are not unheard of.
can you not think of corner cases to your vague notion of "obviousness"?
Consider it people providing incentives for writing secure software.
Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone behaved honestly all the time, but that is an unstable state because it takes only a single person to deviate from the norms in such a world to exploit all the systems that weren't designed with bad actors in mind.
The cashier situation is not comparable because it's not exploitable reliably. Unless you have an easily distracted cashier that can be cheated all the time. If that were the case I could see some less scrupulous people starting to do that.
Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone behaved honestly all the time, but that is an unstable state because it takes only a single person to deviate from the norms in such a world to exploit all the systems that weren't designed with bad actors in mind.
The cashier situation is not comparable because it's not exploitable reliably. Unless you have an easily distracted cashier that can be cheated all the time. If that were the case I could see some less scrupulous people starting to do that.
Is this stealing or just taking advantage of a loophole?
When tech companies funnel revenue to Ireland or other places to avoid taxes, is that stealing?
When tech companies funnel revenue to Ireland or other places to avoid taxes, is that stealing?
Stealing would imply deceit. McDonalds decided it would be best to use software to engage in these transactions.
>When Amazon accidentally sells expensive camera equipment for 99% off on Prime Day
I've always wondered how much of those are actually mistakes, and not just media stunts
I've always wondered how much of those are actually mistakes, and not just media stunts
I think there is a bias were you learn about digital mistakes effecting many people and human errors that effect only certain transactions. A lot of people will not complain when they get back more than their change.
It's pretty simple at face value. You're interacting with a person instead of a screen, that's basically like a game where you try to "win" by getting the best price for all the stuff you're ordering. Of course you might know it's wrong but you don't see anyone (and can likely assume) no one directly involved will take the fall for it. Compared to a cashier that gives away something for free, they might get yelled at or lose their job. It's empathy, it's human, and it makes a lot of sense.
It's not like McDonald's exists in good faith. Remember that, to the typical person on the street, McDonald's is a system that exists adversarially, not as part of a holistic and humane society.
Edit: I don't eat at McDonald's. Do you, downvoters?
Edit: I don't eat at McDonald's. Do you, downvoters?
People love Robin Hood, who was absolutely a thief, but also a folk hero.
To understand why people are generally ok with this, ask yourself: Who benefits, who loses?
In this case, some random person benefits, and the company (hopefully not the franchisee) loses.
To understand why people are generally ok with this, ask yourself: Who benefits, who loses?
In this case, some random person benefits, and the company (hopefully not the franchisee) loses.
Something that harms a cashier (a worker) is harmful to a worker, which is for most intents and purposes "human."
"Robots are stealing our Goddamned jobs!" is a popular sentiment around the globe. Who is using these robots to replace jobs that should belong to people? Corporations. Corporations are not people, as much as some sorts seem to believe they are.
Taking advantage of a corporation's mistake hurts billionaires and millionaires (this includes McDonald's franchisees, as the corporation doesn't allow just anyone to become one, costs are high), who aren't really people in the conventional sense of the word.
These corporations, billionaires, millionaires and so forth are the ones who are stealing from the people; taking advantage of their errors for something like this is good. McDonald's spends millions a year on lobbying to harm the common good; $5 or $10 or even $1,000,000 from them will mean nothing to them, but will go a long way for the people taking it.
Taking advantage of McDonald's Corporation errors is morally no different than shoplifting from Wal*Mart, which similarly spends millions lobbying and harming the common good, the only difference is that the former presents no risk to the person doing it.
In an era where "No one should be a billionaire!" is a popular political viewpoint, and billionaires have effectively stolen the common person's political agency through lobbying, it seems reasonable that people won't see any harm in taking stuff from them, especially small amounts that they won't miss, like this.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but it's definitely reasonable and understandable to see why people don't care about taking from people who, from their perspective, didn't earn it in the first place, and won't notice that it's gone.
"Robots are stealing our Goddamned jobs!" is a popular sentiment around the globe. Who is using these robots to replace jobs that should belong to people? Corporations. Corporations are not people, as much as some sorts seem to believe they are.
Taking advantage of a corporation's mistake hurts billionaires and millionaires (this includes McDonald's franchisees, as the corporation doesn't allow just anyone to become one, costs are high), who aren't really people in the conventional sense of the word.
These corporations, billionaires, millionaires and so forth are the ones who are stealing from the people; taking advantage of their errors for something like this is good. McDonald's spends millions a year on lobbying to harm the common good; $5 or $10 or even $1,000,000 from them will mean nothing to them, but will go a long way for the people taking it.
Taking advantage of McDonald's Corporation errors is morally no different than shoplifting from Wal*Mart, which similarly spends millions lobbying and harming the common good, the only difference is that the former presents no risk to the person doing it.
In an era where "No one should be a billionaire!" is a popular political viewpoint, and billionaires have effectively stolen the common person's political agency through lobbying, it seems reasonable that people won't see any harm in taking stuff from them, especially small amounts that they won't miss, like this.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but it's definitely reasonable and understandable to see why people don't care about taking from people who, from their perspective, didn't earn it in the first place, and won't notice that it's gone.
> It's really a fascinating piece of psychology to me, that once there's a "system" in place, abusing holes in it feels like a reasonable thing to do, even if the end result is effectively shoplifting.
This is the same anti-empathetic "what can we get away with" dynamic as stores engaging in surveillance-based advertising, deploying menacing robots that bother customers, setting up mobile device tracking and facial recognition cameras, price discriminating with coupons and routine sales, etc. Also when any customer service fleshbot says they "can't" do something because the computer says no.
It's only as technologists that we see the details of technology as ultimately mediating interpersonal actions rather than just taking its presence as a given. We know better than to mess around with holes in apps this way, largely because it's in the category of malicious hacking which generally gets punished pretty hard (burn the witch!), especially if you are one of the first to find such tricks.
But I personally am not going to get too upset over some individuals getting occasional freebies, especially while similar abuse by businesses tends to get normalized and then scaled up.
This is the same anti-empathetic "what can we get away with" dynamic as stores engaging in surveillance-based advertising, deploying menacing robots that bother customers, setting up mobile device tracking and facial recognition cameras, price discriminating with coupons and routine sales, etc. Also when any customer service fleshbot says they "can't" do something because the computer says no.
It's only as technologists that we see the details of technology as ultimately mediating interpersonal actions rather than just taking its presence as a given. We know better than to mess around with holes in apps this way, largely because it's in the category of malicious hacking which generally gets punished pretty hard (burn the witch!), especially if you are one of the first to find such tricks.
But I personally am not going to get too upset over some individuals getting occasional freebies, especially while similar abuse by businesses tends to get normalized and then scaled up.
There was one evening in a small town is England where my fellow students convinced the staff in the local McDonald's that the student offer of one free hamburger did not require a purchase. We ate a lot of free hamburgers that night. Guilt aside, dare say they were the best McDonald's I've ever tasted
Seems like a good way to promote the app specifically and McDonald's in general. I wonder what the ROI on something like this is vs a more traditional marketing campaign.
Their franchisees bore the entire cost of giving out the free food. McDonald's corporate paid nothing except for paging someone in to fix the bug.
Well, the software is provided by corporate so franchisees likely have a claim for compensation.
Whether they would dare at the risk of facing any negative consequences is another issue...
Whether they would dare at the risk of facing any negative consequences is another issue...
I don't know if McDonald's food is that expensive. I would expect that most of the costs are the employees, the building, and the equipment.
Well, their employees had to do all the work to make that food without the franchise getting revenue for it, but the employees were presumably still paid
But the people were already there, it only happened over the course of a single day; it's not like they paid the people more because they were busier or making more orders.
I don’t know about McDonald’s but I knew a manager at a Taco Bell and a lot of this fast food takes very very little work to make. Many Taco Bells can run on just a couple people when they’re not having to clean or maintain anything.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There was another one I saw where you could order a dollar burger, then order another ten burgers without the burger, and because of how the kiosk software calculated the "no burger" modifier, the total came out to $0.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/04/08/11-free-burge...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/04/08/11-free-burge...
> There was another one I saw where you could order a dollar burger, then order another ten burgers without the burger, and because of how the kiosk software calculated the "no burger" modifier, the total came out to $0.
This looks like the software was missing some internal sanity checks. For example, it was hammered into us at Caltech that any answers we derive need to be sane. If an energy value turned out to be negative, we would have to note on the solution something like "the negative value is clearly wrong but I don't know where my mistake is" or we'd get not just zero credit on the solution, but a negative credit.
Software should have the same sort of checks. It's called "contract programming", the simplest manifestation of which are asserts.
This looks like the software was missing some internal sanity checks. For example, it was hammered into us at Caltech that any answers we derive need to be sane. If an energy value turned out to be negative, we would have to note on the solution something like "the negative value is clearly wrong but I don't know where my mistake is" or we'd get not just zero credit on the solution, but a negative credit.
Software should have the same sort of checks. It's called "contract programming", the simplest manifestation of which are asserts.
> Software should have the same sort of checks. It's called "contract programming", the simplest manifestation of which are asserts.
A wrong answer is wrong, but the correct response isn't always to fail. Imagine you added this and that caused 0.01% of orders to fail for 10 days while you debug the issue. Perhaps your assert is only stopping a 1 cent deviation from the correct order total - is it better to prevent 0.01% of orders in their entirety or have the absolute correct order total?
Also a value of $0 is a perfectly valid cost for food - maybe they are using a voucher, or some loyalty points, or something else. The Uber eats integration with McDonalds seems to print an order that costs £0.
A wrong answer is wrong, but the correct response isn't always to fail. Imagine you added this and that caused 0.01% of orders to fail for 10 days while you debug the issue. Perhaps your assert is only stopping a 1 cent deviation from the correct order total - is it better to prevent 0.01% of orders in their entirety or have the absolute correct order total?
Also a value of $0 is a perfectly valid cost for food - maybe they are using a voucher, or some loyalty points, or something else. The Uber eats integration with McDonalds seems to print an order that costs £0.
Detected failures should bounce it to the cashier to ring it up. All the McD's I've been in with a kiosk also have a human cashier to help anyone with problems.
> or something else
Easy to account for it.
BTW, the entire reason for the invention of double entry bookkeeping is to detect errors, not throw up hands and say it can't be done.
> or something else
Easy to account for it.
BTW, the entire reason for the invention of double entry bookkeeping is to detect errors, not throw up hands and say it can't be done.
> Detected failures should bounce it to the cashier to ring it up
Assuming a minor deviation from the real order cost that ends up being more expensive than swallowing the difference and continuing with the order, and it also increases the number of abandoned orders at peak times.
Either way you’re paying a dollar to save a cent.
Because you don’t know what the true value should be (else you have no bug) it’s very hard to choose the correct course of action. I’d argue that attempting to detect unexpected deviations and adding friction to fast food orders could backfire massively at McDonalds scale
Assuming a minor deviation from the real order cost that ends up being more expensive than swallowing the difference and continuing with the order, and it also increases the number of abandoned orders at peak times.
Either way you’re paying a dollar to save a cent.
Because you don’t know what the true value should be (else you have no bug) it’s very hard to choose the correct course of action. I’d argue that attempting to detect unexpected deviations and adding friction to fast food orders could backfire massively at McDonalds scale
Using sanity checks in software is normal practice, especially in software that calculates critical things. It works.
> I’d argue
I'm sure if you put some effort into thinking about how to make it work, you'll be successful.
> I’d argue
I'm sure if you put some effort into thinking about how to make it work, you'll be successful.
> Using sanity checks in software is normal practice, especially in software that calculates critical things. It works.
Literally the whole point, that I've repeated to you 3 times now, is that a single cent is not critical if it means losing the entire order.
This isn't a rockets trajectory or a an MRI scanner, it's a glorified tablet selling high-volume impulse food at a good markup, so stop pretending as if the context doesn't matter when discussing things.
Literally the whole point, that I've repeated to you 3 times now, is that a single cent is not critical if it means losing the entire order.
This isn't a rockets trajectory or a an MRI scanner, it's a glorified tablet selling high-volume impulse food at a good markup, so stop pretending as if the context doesn't matter when discussing things.
> that I've repeated to you 3 times now
I explained how to deal with that.
BTW, crooks have stolen millions of dollars by adjusting software to shave off a penny here and there. The idea that McDonalds can afford to be unaware of a missing penny in a transaction, when they have billions of those transactions, is wrong.
In accounting software, it's critical to be accurate to the penny. Having the POS software be off by a penny calls into question the entire reliability of the software. Especially when normal accounting controls are not followed and the penny error is not detected.
I once read a story where a prospective engineering hire was given a plant tour at Ford. He noticed an inefficiency that was costing Ford 5 cents per car. He was promptly hired.
Edit:
> rockets trajectory or a an MRI scanner
I've heard the same arguments from people who vigorously insist that it's correct for rockets and scanners for the software to ignore bugs and soldier on. I hope the people who do write that software do not agree with those arguments. I suggest that re-evaluating this merits an investment of your time.
I explained how to deal with that.
BTW, crooks have stolen millions of dollars by adjusting software to shave off a penny here and there. The idea that McDonalds can afford to be unaware of a missing penny in a transaction, when they have billions of those transactions, is wrong.
In accounting software, it's critical to be accurate to the penny. Having the POS software be off by a penny calls into question the entire reliability of the software. Especially when normal accounting controls are not followed and the penny error is not detected.
I once read a story where a prospective engineering hire was given a plant tour at Ford. He noticed an inefficiency that was costing Ford 5 cents per car. He was promptly hired.
Edit:
> rockets trajectory or a an MRI scanner
I've heard the same arguments from people who vigorously insist that it's correct for rockets and scanners for the software to ignore bugs and soldier on. I hope the people who do write that software do not agree with those arguments. I suggest that re-evaluating this merits an investment of your time.
> I once read a story where a prospective engineering hire was given a plant tour at Ford. He noticed an inefficiency that was costing Ford 5 cents per car. He was promptly hired.
This seems implausible at best, unless it was long enough ago that 5 cents was a meaningful amount of money. Ford only sells about 5.5 million vehicles per year, so even an inefficiency which affects every single vehicle would only cost $280,000 / year, which is almost certainly not an amount that justifies a process change across all ford assembly lines.
It's important to keep in mind what the acceptable margin of error is. It's very easy to say "no discrepancies are acceptable," but in sometimes you have a legacy system that mostly works and it's not worth the person-hours to stamp out every inconsistency.
This seems implausible at best, unless it was long enough ago that 5 cents was a meaningful amount of money. Ford only sells about 5.5 million vehicles per year, so even an inefficiency which affects every single vehicle would only cost $280,000 / year, which is almost certainly not an amount that justifies a process change across all ford assembly lines.
It's important to keep in mind what the acceptable margin of error is. It's very easy to say "no discrepancies are acceptable," but in sometimes you have a legacy system that mostly works and it's not worth the person-hours to stamp out every inconsistency.
Disregarding the point op was trying to make; the ability to spot the inaccuracy might have had more to do with the hiring decision, than the monetary value of the bug itself.
I ordered a MacBook Pro (though Pink/Rose Gold) for 29999.99 RSD (255.46 €, 279.63 $). It was supposed to cost 299999.99 -- 2,796.29 $ or 2,554.55 € (extra 9). The order was cancelled with no explanation, obviously. Laws in Serbia do allow for a sale to be cancelled before delivery if the merchant entered the wrong price, or the device is not available in the warehouse, etc. It was funny :)
That kind of thing happens in Australia and the sale must go ahead by law. The advertised price is the price, end of story.
I know, it's like that in the USA and a lot of the world, I think even European Union, that's why I mentioned it. Not in Serbia, yet.
I think I've read about people in USA suing companies for refusing to sell, or requesting return, of products that were advertised with "incorrect" prices and ordered/purchased by the customer.
I think I've read about people in USA suing companies for refusing to sell, or requesting return, of products that were advertised with "incorrect" prices and ordered/purchased by the customer.
It's actually not like that in the USA. Amazon and other retailers have made numerous price mistakes in the past that were canceled without shipment. If you ask customer service, they might offer you a small gift card as a consolation. It's rare for companies to honor their price mistakes, especially major ones that incur them significant losses.
If the retailer charges you a different rate than advertised, that's a different issue, but it generally doesn't happen.
If the retailer charges you a different rate than advertised, that's a different issue, but it generally doesn't happen.
You can sue for false advertising, at least in the USA. Well, unless the company has "prices and specification subject to change without notice" and mandatory arbitration.
If the retailer cancels your order and refunds you the amount you paid (or releases the authorization hold on your payment card, since most retailers don't charge until the item is shipped), you won't have any damages to show. Price mistakes happen all the time, and I'm not aware of any US court case that penalized a retailer after they issued a refund.
I understand, I'm misremembering it then.
a few years ago there was a local promotion for packs of nestea, where each case contained a coupon for a free case of ice tea. The coupon didn't say you couldn't redeem it for the same box (which contained another coupon)
A bunch of people (me included) went around and basically cleaned out all the stores that sold it. There was a hilarious thread on red flag deals where people posted pictures of SUVs packed to the brim with ice tea.
A bunch of people (me included) went around and basically cleaned out all the stores that sold it. There was a hilarious thread on red flag deals where people posted pictures of SUVs packed to the brim with ice tea.
Back in 2014 EA issued a discount code for Origin that granted you $20 discount, with no minimum value and reusable. Myself and a couple friends managed to snatch 20 or 30 games before they deactivated it. It was pretty funny, and since it's just a digital product I don't think there's a reason to feel bad about it.
Here in Australia, the app has placed several phantom orders which I have paid for but did not actually order.
Have tried to contact McDonalds but they did not respond.
It was only 4 or 5 coffees so I deleted the app. Should've chased it harder but didn't have the time.
Have tried to contact McDonalds but they did not respond.
It was only 4 or 5 coffees so I deleted the app. Should've chased it harder but didn't have the time.
Just give them a call, they credit you immediately. I had the same thing happen at Sydney International Airport a few months ago - I placed one order but it went through five times. It didn't show up on the app and didn't show up on their registers, but I was definitely billed for it.
A two-minute phone call and they refunded it all.
A two-minute phone call and they refunded it all.
You may be able to create a dispute with your credit card company (or other payment processor)
In the US, there are a couple of locations where, at certain times of the day, the app will process your payment but the location will not receive the order. Later, the payment either reverses or doesn’t actually bill.
I assume it’s related to an equipment problem at these locations, since they’re also often cash-only after 2am, and possibly an address location since both insist they have a different address than what’s reported in the app.
I assume it’s related to an equipment problem at these locations, since they’re also often cash-only after 2am, and possibly an address location since both insist they have a different address than what’s reported in the app.
My father has also had this issue, on his first order too. It's interesting since the application is used in various countries around the world too, it's just re-branded and given it's own unique app.
I wonder if it's just as garbage everywhere else
I wonder if it's just as garbage everywhere else
Is there any proof other than the picture of someone with a ton of McDonalds food and a caption?
I suggest we change the post link to this instead of a simple photo.
IP payment-->> French fries
I still wouldn't want to eat any of that pile of garbage food even for EUR0.
Through the magic of software, McDonald's has allowed its customers to live out their fantasy of becoming real-life Hamburglars.
Well said sir
Even for free I will not eat that processed garbage
I have friends like you. They decry McDonald's food as super bad for you—and then turn around and eat at the fancy burger place where a single burger and fries sets you back $20. Even though it's literally the same food: beef patty, white bun, ketchup, processed cheese, onions, and lettuce. And they get the pop and greasy fries too.
What's bad about McDonald's is not that the food is unhealthy (it is, but no more than most restaurants), but that the food is so cheap that so many people regularly eat it instead of proper home-cooked meals. Also, it's easy to get way too much food and sugary pop.
I eat at McDonald's a few times a month, but I don't view it as an unhealthy habit. My typical meal is two sandwiches, either McDoubles or Junior Chickens. That's less than 800 calories in total (I usually drink water). I rarely go for the combo meals or the big sandwiches.
What's bad about McDonald's is not that the food is unhealthy (it is, but no more than most restaurants), but that the food is so cheap that so many people regularly eat it instead of proper home-cooked meals. Also, it's easy to get way too much food and sugary pop.
I eat at McDonald's a few times a month, but I don't view it as an unhealthy habit. My typical meal is two sandwiches, either McDoubles or Junior Chickens. That's less than 800 calories in total (I usually drink water). I rarely go for the combo meals or the big sandwiches.
Unfortunate username, McPete.