Not The Onion

11743 readers

908 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

244

AMC Exec: We Wouldn't Have Made the Dune Popcorn Bucket if We Knew You'd Be Sickos About It (gizmodo.com)

submitted 4 months ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14117334

AMC Exec: We Wouldn't Have Made the Dune Popcorn Bucket if We Knew You'd Be Sickos About It

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 35 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Why don't companies have someone in product development who's entire job is to point out less than desirable ways people will use their products, or protect against rule 34 or the like? The internet has been around long enough that it shouldn't have been a surprise that there were people who wanted to fuck a plastic lamprey eel. How as this even surprising?

[–] MissJinx@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hire a 13yo boy just to look at your products and point out all of the ways it can be badly interpreted

[–] pikmeir@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

They made a movie about that once with Tom Hanks. Guess these companies never watched it 😏

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Red Teams, they exist.

Just like QA it doesn’t “make money” so why bother?

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I would argue that QA saves you money. In that, it detects faulty products and in doing so limit liability.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree whole heartedly, the “it doesn’t make money” argument is common and the fight to do proper QA is rarely won.

[–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The problem is QA vs QC. Quality control means you actually have to do stuff. Quality assurance just means "I assure you, the quality is good ;)"

[–] gimpchrist@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

If you don't have a QA you run the risk of having to rebuild the entire bar from scratch

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

QC detects problems. QA predicts, mitigates, and resolves problems. QA is the first to go when it's cheaper to scrap problems rather than make perfect product. QC goes when companies can outsource it to supplier-reported inspections and then leave it to the customer to act as final inspection. The Amazon method that everyone has to follow if they want to stay competitive

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because that employee would be by far the most overworked one in most companies?

Or maybe just because most companies don't care as long as you keep giving them money without costing them any 🤷

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And HR would hate them.

The "Hey, did you know that you can Fuck this?" Guy.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I’d replace HR with that guy honestly