Artificial intelligence: Riders on a swarm  - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/16789226?story_id=16789226&fsrc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economist%2Ffull_print_edition+%28The+Economist%3A+Full+print+edition%29 <comment><USER2> > The search for artificial intelligence modelled on human brains has been a > dismal failure.

No, it hasn't. There have been huge strides made in artificial neural networks in the last decade. One example is the HyperNEAT algorithm [1], which uses an indirect encoding enabling it to evolve networks with millions of connections. There's an entire conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), which is considered one of the most prestigious publication venues in AI.

This article is complete garbage. Ant colony optimization has been around for decades. It's great for routing and similar tasks where you need to find the best path and be able to handle breakdowns in that path. However, there is no basis for making the leap that human brains function like ant colonies.

[1] Stanley et. al. A Hypercube-Based Encoding for Evolving Large-Scale Neural Networks. In: Artificial Life journal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. [http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/publications/2009/stanley.alife09.ht...](http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/publications/2009/stanley.alife09.html)

<comment><USER3> To disagree on a side issue, it's been a long time since NIPS dealt much with classic ANNs (which never had much to do with human brains, in any case). Most of the action there, as in AI and ML at large these days---eg, the focus also at ICML and at other venues---is in statistical methods.

(On the other hand, neuroscience and explicitly biological neural modeling are exciting areas, reasonably well-represented at NIPS. Those topics, however, are almost entirely different from neural networks of the multilayer perceptron / [Hyper]NEAT varieties.)

But your criticism of the article seems accurate. ACO isn't new, and there's little evidence that it will solve any of the major outstanding problems in AI.

Less generously, however, I'd suggest that much of the research related to the family of population-based stochastic search methods, ACO, PSO, and HyperNEAT included, is prone to the same risk: the lack of a field-wide theoretical foundation, coupled with the absence of a field-wide standard methodology and benchmark set for empirical comparison (as opposed to, say, the situation in supervised learning), makes it temptingly easy for a particular researcher to believe too strongly in the capabilities of that researcher's pet algorithm. This situation seems to have balkanized the field (page through a recent GECCO proceedings, for example), and holds back wider progress.

That's not to say that HyperNEAT can't do great things. It's a fun approach, and Stanley et al are running far with it. But your boosterism of it, and the boosterism of ACO that you're objecting to, seem closely related.

(For contrast, I'd suggest, eg, the natural gradient work at IDSIA. It's unlikely to be the ultimate method, but may be a good model for solid research in this area.)

<comment><USER4> > This situation seems to have balkanized the field (page through a recent > GECCO proceedings, for example), and holds back wider progress.

Stochastic optimization has always been balkanized, but not because of a lack of methodology or benchmarks, but rather because the field was simultaneously invented in several different locations (Evolutionary Programming in San Diego and at NSF, Evolution Strategies in Germany, the Genetic Algorithm in Michigan). That's what happens in such situations: you get competition and differentiation when there really isn't much. Due to various political reasons, GECCO and CEC broke apart and GECCO itself decided to divide itself up by topic. In the meantime, alternative methods (ACO, PSO, various single- state "metaheuristics", etc.) have danced about at the periphery.

I think your criticism of benchmarks is much too harsh. First off, it's not really true. A number of areas in evolutionary computation have very well established benchmarks: certainly this is the case for genetic programming; and for vector representations (Rastrigin? Rosenbrock? Schwefel? The De Jong test suite? Griewangk? Etc.). Also multiobjective optimization has established a fairly common set of benchmarks. Second, much of the remainder of the field consists of different kinds of solution representations (ACO; various graph representations such as NEAT/HyperNEAT; list representations; etc.) and in such situations unifying benchmarks make no sense. It's like insisting that the Iris data set be used for problems in text mining.

I think there's quite a large degree of theoretical work among these techniques. Indeed there are entire theoretical conferences. But if you're looking for field-wide theoretical foundation, you're barking up the wrong tree. The problem is that most "interesting" solution representations result in dynamics which are essentially impossible to base a theoretical foundation on. In a real sense, various other fields have theoretical foundations because their problems are well formed. Stochastic optimization by its nature is tackling nastier problems for which there is no well-formed solution concept. The problems are ugly and hairy. This shouldn't reflect on the researchers brave enough to tackle them.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, enjoyed your response.

Your "tackling nastier problems" point is well-taken, and one reason I have a great deal of sympathy for work in these research areas.

I think that you're painting an overly-rosy picture of the benchmark situation, but you're right in that I was likely too critical. The attention paid to synthetic fitness landscapes, for example, is also a positive sign that that many researchers do care about issues of comparison and analysis.

(That said, I obviously believe that the field can and must do much better--- and, since it relies so heavily on empirical evidence, its need for consistent methodology is somewhat higher.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "The purposeful collective activity of ants and other social insects does, indeed, look intelligent on the surface. An illusion, presumably. "

No more an illusion than the individual intelligence/consciousness we humans experience.

</comment><comment><USER6> >In particular, Dr Dorigo was interested to learn that ants are good at choosing the shortest possible route between a food source and their nest. This is reminiscent of a classic computational conundrum, the travelling- salesman problem.

Ugh.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure if you truncated that excerpt on purpose or not, but the sentence that follows it indicates that the author _does_ actually know what the TSP is.

> In particular, Dr Dorigo was interested to learn that ants are good at > choosing the shortest possible route between a food source and their nest. > This is reminiscent of a classic computational conundrum, the travelling- > salesman problem. Given a list of cities and their distances apart, the > salesman must find the shortest route needed to visit each city once.

<comment><USER6> No, it shows that he looked it up and failed to understand it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very interesting article. The Hard AI problem is one of the new frontiers of science.

If you're interested in this topic, I highly suggest you check out the Radiolab episode on emergence.

The episode doesn't focus on AI, per se, but it does talk a lot about how many individual things (ants, fireflies, bees) are not intelligent on their own, but do appear intelligent as a collective whole.

Here's the link: <http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2005/02/18>

</comment><comment><USER9> I posted this article almost a week ago :-(

Good article though.

</comment><comment><USER10> A really good book on this subject is Swarm Intelligence by Russell Eberhart

[http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Morgan-Kaufmann- Evolution...](http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Morgan-Kaufmann-Evolutionary- Computation/dp/1558605959/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282352355&sr=8-1)

(I'm not affiliated with the book in any way :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Good companion resource to the article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization>

</comment><comment><USER12> Ray Kurzweil does not understand the ants and the bees.

</comment><comment><USER13> Goedel, Escher, Bach applies yet again....</comment>


Using Automated Tests to Help Teach Python with Trey Hunner – Podcast - <AUTHOR> http://testandcode.com/42 <comment><AUTHOR> This interview with Trey Hunner discusses his use of automated tests to help teach programming. Automated testing is a huge part of developing great software. But many new developers don't get exposed to testing for quite a while. But this is changing.

New ways to teach programming include automated tests from the beginning.

Trey Hunner is a former PSF director, a Python and Django team trainer, and he has been using automated tests to help people learn Python.</comment>


Ask HN: Working with the Amazon Web Services console - <AUTHOR>

I am working on a small academic project trying to understand how software developers and architects utilize the consoles and dashboards of different cloud providers, especially in their product development and deployment workflows.
I would be grateful for some responses to the following 3 questions specifically about the Web console of Amazon Web Services.
How often in a month do you use the Console to...
1) reconfigure existing AWS instances or other service units (like an S3 bucket or a load balancer)? 2) add new AWS instances or other service units? 3) replicate existing AWS instances or other service units wherever applicable? <comment><USER2> Aside from some legacy systems, our infrastructure is almost entirely hosted on AWS.

The answer to all three questions is the same: virtually never. Instead, we use Cloudformation and the AWS CLI/SDKs for various languages to script configuration and deployment. We do use the web console to view the current state of our infrastructure though.</comment>


Show HN: Creating Custom Ubuntu Web Link App - <AUTHOR> http://vaclavkosar.com/2018/02/25/Creating-Custom-Ubuntu-Web-Link-App.html <comment><USER2> Well, I don't know the Ubuntu specific part, but in Chrome with KDE you can simply click (probably works with other desktop environments too):

      Menu -> Tools -> Add to desktop

Et voilà, you have an app with a separate profile in your KDE menu. For example, that is the way I use [https://draw.io](https://draw.io)

Didn't know through that it was so easy to get it working with FF too. Thanks :-)

<comment><USER3> I run WhatsApp, Messenger, and and couple of Slack channels, as separate 'applications' by using the '\--app=<url>' when launching Chrome. However they are not sandboxed.

Chromium can be run in portable mode, so I guess you could sandbox apps by having separate side-by-side Chromium installs. That said, this tool is probably easier to use.

<comment><USER4> Do the --profile-directory / \--user-data-dir flags help here?

<comment><USER2> I am wondering whats the difference. So far I was able to find this explaining the flags:

      profile-directory: // Selects directory of profile to associate with the first browser launched. [1]

      user-data-dir: // Specifies the user data directory, which is where the browser will look for all of its state. [2]

But to be honest I am not sure I understand that completely. I mean there is also some documentation stating that the user-data-dir contains profile data[3]. Does anybody what the actual difference is?

[1]: [https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/chrome...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc#702)

[2]: [https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/chrome...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/lkgr/chrome/common/chrome_switches.cc#835)

[3]: [https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/user_data_dir.md)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of Mozilla prism, which I think is discontinued now. I always liked having a separate window and process for gmail that wouldn't close if my browser crashed</comment>


2 Air Traffic Controllers on Duty at LAX - <AUTHOR>

The Air Traffic Controllers have been made a political football by the Obama administration over the budget sequestration. Right now I am sitting on an airplane because there is only two air traffic controllers (side note: why have they not replaced them with computers????) for all of Los Angeles International Airport. Literally tens of thousands of people are stranded on planes right now around the country. <comment><USER2> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5587667></comment>


How we read online. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2193552/?from=rss <comment><USER2> It this author is right, most people would only read about half of this article.

(I'm not sure he's right - I only read half of the article.)

<comment><USER3> I don't think the article was very well written. The constant lame attempts at humour made me skip a couple paragraphs because they were basically "haha, lost another reader there LOL".

There's a higher chance of bad writing on the internet than in a reasonably high-brow print paper or magazine. (or book) I guess when I encounter bad writing or annoying style, I'm more likely to skip it because I feel I'm wasting my time. There's better-written stuff out there with a higher information density.</comment></comment>


Quickly set up a Rails app with awesome plugins and get all the details right - <AUTHOR> http://seed.happyfuncorp.com/

<comment><USER2> Nothing revolutionary, but I use this for pretty much all rails apps now and it saves a ton of time. It's delightful to start a project, be doing something meaningful within thirty seconds, and then not waste time later becuase of the corners you cut just to get things moving.</comment>


I Fell Victim to a $1,500 Used Camera Lens Scam on Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://petapixel.com/2017/08/11/fell-victim-1500-used-camera-lens-scam-amazon/ <comment><USER2> Recap as I understand it, since the blog post isn't

0\. Buyer purchased item from third-party seller on Amazon

1\. Seller picked a name and address in buyer's town, from an obituary, and sent parcel containing two baking mats thereto ( instead of camera lens )

2\. Occupant of that address signed for it believing it to be for the deceased relative

3\. USPS updated status to 'delivered' with signature and address recorded

4\. However the proof of delivery shows the address from (1) and not the buyer's address

5\. Buyer repeatedly appealed on the basis of (4) but Amazon only check that the parcel was signed-for IN THE SAME TOWN. Therefore requests for refunds or further action were denied.

Very clever seller, knows the system well. I wonder how many items he had to sell before striking it rich with a $1500 "lens".

<comment><USER3> I got hit with the same-zip-code scam for a $6000 VNA on eaby and the response was completely different. Customer service immediately shuffled me off to a special claims department that investigated and got my money back within about a week.

At no point did I encounter anything resembling the Kafkaesque web of strategic incompetence that I half expected. They followed up every step of the way with courtesy and professionalism even though the seller had woven a substantially more convincing lie than in OP's case -- they had a many year history of selling equipment and radio astronomy books along with two previous successful VNA sales. Evidently it was an account hijack. In this price bracket, even a solid account history isn't a guarantee.

I no longer resent the 10% cut eBay takes. They saved my bacon on this one. It sounds like Amazon's team could learn a thing or two from eBay.

<comment><USER4> I have shifted all my budget and used buying from Amazon Marketplace to eBay.

At this point it seems like there are new stories about Amazon Marketplace scams almost daily. Does anyone think Marketplace is a priority for Amazon leadership these days? Does Bezos even know it is still operating? It's not getting the A team, obviously.

Meanwhile connecting sellers and buyers is _all_ eBay does. They don't make devices, produce TV shows, run cloud services, etc. etc. Of course their support is good. It has to be.

<comment><USER5> If you're _buying_ eBay is great. If you're the seller however, it's an entirely different story. eBay heavily, heavily, _heavily_ favors the buyer in almost all disputes -- so much so that at times it seems as if it's automatic to the buyer's favor. I guess that's how they get people to spend money on the platform, and of course take their cut of the transaction.

There are tons and tons of seller horror stories, especially with buyers from Asian countries. They will buy an iPhone or something, pay for it, then request a return/refund from the seller but they send back a box of scrap. Even if you don't manually refund their money, they will dispute it, and eBay just sees the return tracking # as 'delivered' and gives them their money back. It really doesn't matter how much you protest, eBay pretty much always sides with the buyer.

<comment><USER6> But what's the solution here? Without an escrow service which verifies the contents both ways, the best they can do is arbitrarily choose the winner.

<comment><USER7> What we need is maybe a species of md5 for mail packages

A formulae that mix weight + dimensions + sender data + receiver data + followed route + category of contents. In several parts. Some parts (buyers adress, weight, category, etc...) can be verified for buyer, other for seller. The total formula is available only for the postman and would be easily verifiable.

When the package is sent, a mobile app sends the buyer a message with the buyer part that is checked against the data entered by the buyer in his/her own telephone. The buyer can quickly compare both md5 in the phone and must answer to the postman approving the message in order to the package being accepted in the post.

All returned packages have to be put in a special post yellow envelope available only in the post and checked against the maild5 using the weight and measures of the original (plus-minus a reasonable confidence interval). A machine calculates the statistic probability of having a different content and if under some p-value the postman will not accept the returned package.

<comment><USER8> >What we need is maybe a species of md5 for mail packages

Or maybe just more honest people?

<comment><USER9> And where do you propose we find more such "honest people"?

<comment><USER8> No ideas, most probably it will be many years in the making, you have to start with children ...

It was just an alternative (jokingly) to the idea of the "MD5 for mail packages".

The actual issue is not with the Postal Service or the delivery, it is with Amazon checks on it.

The package was sent to address B instead of address A, it was delivered by the post/courier to address B, and properly signed for by a valid recipient at address B.

It is the Amazon checks that failed to detect that the order was intended for address A and that having it delivered to address B does not represent a fulfillment of the order.

There is however IMHO no need of a complex verification algorithm, and a statistic p-value calculation triggering this or that action.

<comment><USER7> > It is the Amazon checks that failed to detect that the order was intended > for address A and that having it delivered to address B does not represent a > fulfillment of the order

Of course. But maybe this should be automatized and solved in advance instead to allow it and solve (or let fall the customer) later, at least for most valuable items

<comment><USER8> Well whilst a directive "check that the address is exact" to the people providing assistance for issues at Amazon would be fine and cost very little, revolutionize the whole way packets are sent, courier/postal service procedures, etc. to have the "MD5 for packets" seems too much.

I mean, it's not like the number of this kind of frauds is that large, probably somewhere there is an Amazon report stating that they have a fulfillment rate with full satisfaction of customers of 99,9999%, the whole issue (not only Amazon's of course, most "remote" or "call center based" assistance is terrible) is about how poorly this (minimal) 0,0001%is managed.

If the numbers are so small, I believe these large firms could well put in charge of these cases someone with some more capabilities than the "standard" call center guy/gal just reading a script and incapable of solving (or not allowed to solve) these cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm wondering more and more why Amazon hosts third-party sellers at all.

They dilute the Amazon brand to a tremendous degree. It used to be that buying from Amazon meant a certain level of quality and service. Now there are really two Amazons: the old one, and a new one that's basically a shitty version of eBay.

I have to go out of my way to avoid these crappy third-party sellers when I'm searching for stuff on Amazon. It's not a nice experience to go searching for a product and have to step through a minefield of "cheap" items that take two months to arrive, or have outrageous shipping fees, or are outright scams.

It is really worth it for Amazon to have them? I struggle to see how.

<comment><USER11> This 100 times.

I never buy from third-party sellers in Amazon, but I am having such a hard time explaining to friends and family how to do the same. They keep buying from third-party sellers and keep wondering how it is not "Amazon".

I wish there was an option to set it once and never see third-party seller items again.

<comment><USER12> > I never buy from third-party sellers in Amazon, but I am having such a hard > time explaining to friends and family how to do the same. They keep buying > from third-party sellers and keep wondering how it is not "Amazon".

3rd party sellers are usually fine.

There are things I check for:

1\. A "critical" mass of 4-5 star reviews

2\. Prime Shipping

3\. History of selling the types of items I want to buy.

If I am going to buy from someone who is a one-off seller, I'll do so locally via Craigslist, or OfferUp.

<comment><USER13> I feel pretty comfortable if the seller's name is the manufacturer, and their inventory is full of stuff they manufacture, with a long history of positive feedback.

I get scared off by seller names that sound like alphabet soup, small numbers of sales and reviews (for a $5 item I'll chance it, though), and recent reviews suddenly changing for the negative.

And I'm really skittish about clothing, unless I know the brand. Too many times, I've gotten what was listed, technically, and it really isn't what I was thinking. T-shirts that look glorious but are really crappy iron-ons, shirts that look great but are really, really thin... that sort of thing. I don't want to go to a store, but I order brands I like and trust directly from them instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> filing the chargeback is a good idea... but also, the sender made a critical mistake sending it usps.. that makes it mail fraud. Talk to the US Postal Inspection Service, it's a branch of law enforcement, and I'm sure they would be very interested with all of the evidence youve collected. They can cross state lines and arrest the sender.

[https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/](https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/)

<comment><USER15> I'm a little more skeptical of the claim that crossing the post office is a big mistake after nothing came of this case: [http://www.postal- reporter.com/blog/usps-oig-investigating-a...](http://www.postal- reporter.com/blog/usps-oig-investigating-arrest-of-on-duty-letter-carrier-for- possible-federal-violations/)

The comment sections at the time were full of people talking about how it was a federal crime and the cops would be in deep trouble but the postal inspector seems to have been a paper tiger.

<comment><USER16> That's not remotely close to being the same thing. There isn't a grey area when it comes to fraud (if there is enough evidence), whereas there is plenty of grey area when it comes to making arrests in the field, which may involve some amount of human error and judgement and therefore has leeway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why do people do mail fraud?

While mail fraud crimes often involve the use of the United States Postal Service, or USPS, you can also commit the crime when you use any interstate carrier, such as FedEx, UPS, or other delivery services. Mail fraud is super easy to prove [prints on box, cameras at fedex offices, credit cards used for materials, amazon accounts, logged ips, bank accounts involved, federal authority] and carries ridiculous sentencing: 20 years. THIS is a bad plan for $1500. Most likely this person DID THIS MORE THAN ONCE so they could face like 10 counts - it is 20 years _per count_. Not to mention people doing the investigation are federal officers - they are on point. With 2nd murder you at least get parole and probably wont do 20 years or charged with multiple counts. mail fraud = bad times.

[http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime- penalties/federal...](http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime- penalties/federal/Federal-mail-fraud.htm)

<comment><USER18> It's probably hard to track the seller. They can use a fake email, illegally obtained credit card to sign up, PO box or just some random address, drop off packages to FedEx drop boxes or just drop ship an item. They may never even touch the packages.

<comment><USER17> Uh. No. If I were a federal officer I would just contact amazon and find out where the money went. Paypal or Bank account - game over. Contact whatever bank he picks it up from get security camera details, address info, on and on. I would also grab all the ips, entered in info and the prints from the box. I bet he would be in my office by lunch. Plea dealed to 5 years by monday.

<comment><USER19> Put your money where your mouth is. Go provide your legal services to article's author.

I expect to see an article on Monday, from you, which bemoans exactly how _easy_ it is to track thieves like this. Show us the face of the accused, too.

<comment><USER17> So become a federal officer by monday? I need an extension.

<comment><USER19> It sounded to me like you already had all of this figured out. Why do you suddenly need to be a federal officer?

<comment><USER20> > I would just contact amazon and find out where the money went

I like to think that Amazon won't give its users bank details to random people. A federal officer could force them give it up.

<comment><USER21> Maybe I'm Pollyannaish, but I'd hope Amazon would not give bank details to a federal office and instead hold out for a subpoena or search warrant or court order.

<comment><USER17> I bet the feds even have an api.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It won't get your money back, but it is worthwhile to file a fraud complaint with the USPS as well. Mail fraud for $1500 is a big deal to sweep under the rug with a charge back.

<comment><USER23> I don't see why he wouldn't get a credit-card chargeback authorized - he has clear evidence of fraud on the party of the seller, and evidence of the middle-man's (Amazon's) unwillingness to investigate further. As Amazon is accepting the credit-card payment they will eat the chargeback - if they do ever dispute this then elevate it to a small-claims court case and the judge will easily side with the customer.

<comment><USER24> One potential problem with that is that Amazon can retaliate by closing the users's account if they didn't agree with the charge-back even if they're unsuccessful at fighting it. That can be really difficult to deal with if you're also using AWS for hosting or other things.

<comment><USER25> Whenever I see comments about how "Company XYZ deleted my account after I issued a charge-back!" I ask: Why would one want to continue doing business with a company that made you issue a charge-back? Charge-back is pretty much the nuclear option of last resort when you have exhausted all avenues of redress. You're basically doing it to get your money back and "salt the earth" as you leave. I've done a few charge-backs in my life, and not once, ever, under any circumstances would want to do business with those companies again.

<comment><USER26> I frequently see people suggest a chargeback as the first option. I have seen people suggest it instead of even trying for an RMA. I have seen it suggested for delayed delivery.

I have no idea about the frequency, but I have reason to suspect some are quite frivolous.

Like you, I believe it should be the last option. I'm just not sure that we are the majority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The only way I've got problems solved with Amazon is going to the police and let them sort it out. Worked every time.

Amazon was in now way responsive or helpful before I've got the police involved.

<comment><USER28> What did that process look like for you? Do you just call up your local non- emergency number and and tell them Amazon cheated you?

<comment><USER29> Not OP, but pretty much. Works much better if you can investigate and assemble most of the evidence yourself so all they have to do is make an arrest.

<comment><USER30> Does it bother them enough to get other police departments involved? I imagine no one they can arrest is within their jurisdiction...

<comment><USER29> Usually they will forward the case on to the relevant department as long as you stay involved and apply pressure. There's nothing stopping you from personally contacting the relevant department, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is the poison in Amazon's well. The average layman has very little grasp of sold & shipped by amazon vs amazon marketplace. Amazon needs to tighten the clamps on all of these awful third party sellers before they become a casualty like ebay.

Anecdotally my father purchased a projector recently and the seller tried the "I can't ship it unless you make payment on my offsite merchant page because Amazon is holding me hostage" scam. My father remarkably recognized this as fraud and reported it to Amazon. He said they were less than helpful in getting a refund to his credit card so he could go make a purchase from a legitimate merchant. They made him wait out the full 30 days it could have possibly taken to ship before they were willing to work with him.

</comment><comment><USER32> It seems like the Amazon reps weren't paying attention to the detail, or the seller was also supplying fraudulent evidence of delivery.

This blog post will likely get it resolved for the buyer, though it shouldn't have to be this way.

<comment><USER33> I'm more sympathetic to Amazon here than most. Scams are hard to detect. They set up a shipping confirmation process that's worked fine for them for almost two decades now. It has a hole (it only checks the town and has no closed loop to verify that the shipper shipped to the right address in that town), but none of the existing employees actually know that it has a hole. They get a report about a missing shipment, check their process, and it says it was received. Case closed.

This is like trying to report a web site vulnerability to a help desk employee. It doesn't work. You have to escalate until you find someone who understands the root issue, and escalation is messy (and involves blog posts like these).

<comment><USER10> The author appealed, stating that the delivery address was incorrect. Amazon's rejected the appeal on the basis that the tracking information "shows that someone at your address signed for the package." That's not a mysterious hole that low-level employees are unaware of, that's just inattention on the part of whoever was handling the appeal.

<comment><USER33> The point was more that "mysterious hole" and "innatention" are mostly the same thing. My words were "scams are hard to detect" and I stand by them. The people you want to be more attentive make hourly wages and probably see _thousands_ of these appeals every week, statistically none of which are creative scams worthy of arguing about on HN.

You're asking too much. Those employees don't exist. You have to get over their heads to people who design the processes, and that sometimes requires writing blog posts and making noise in public.

<comment><USER10> I don't get how this shows that "scams are hard to detect." This scam was _trivial_ to detect. When the seller's supposed proof of delivery shows a different address, then it's not actually proof of delivery. All it would have taken to detect this was looking at the tracking info and looking at the order's shipping address and observing that they weren't the same.

Yes, obviously something is terribly wrong at Amazon which meant that this simple comparison never happened, but I don't see why we should expect this, or why we should be sympathetic to Amazon about it.

<comment><USER33> > This scam was _trivial_ to detect.

No, it's trivial to _understand_. It's simply an objective truth that it's hard to detect, given that you and I are hearing about it for the first time in August of the year 2017, when it exploits a USPS tracking data that probably hasn't changed much in 15 years or more. If it's so trivial why didn't you figure it out before? Why haven't Amazon and the post office closed the hole? Why haven't more people been scammed?

<comment><USER10> What do you mean, why hasn't the post office closed the hole? Are you or I misunderstanding what happened here? The post office had no problems here.

And what do you mean, "why didn't you figure it out before?" Why would I have figured anything out about this...?

Why haven't more people been scammed? How do you know they haven't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Amazon seriously pisses me off these days.

Here's an example:

\- search Amazon.com for "1 tb usb flash drive"

\- the first hit (for me) is a fraudulent drive for $26.99 USD [1]

\- there's no mechanism that I can find to report the drive as fraudulent, suspicious, or spam

As far as I'm concerned, Amazon is the new Best Buy. I go there to find something I want, and then buy it somewhere else (NewEgg!)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Flash-Drive-Memory-Stick- Storage/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Flash-Drive-Memory-Stick- Storage/dp/B01KOFOLLO)

</comment><comment><USER35> These amazon emails literally look like automatic mails with a small custom message on top. He stated multiple times that what they said was WRONG yet no one bothered to listen to that part. If I was the author or if this ever happens to me, I'll go directly to disputing the charge.

<comment><USER36> As the "owner" of thousands of dollars worth of Kindle books, I'm terrified of disputing an Amazon charge.

<comment><USER37> If you are in the EU, you don't have to worry - you are the owner. If Amazon bans you from accessing your Kindle books, they're committing a crime.

In a recent court case [https://openjur.de/u/879923.html](https://openjur.de/u/879923.html) this exact topic was discussed in the EU. If your account gets banned, you might want to take a lawyer and cite this case - OLG Köln Az 6 U 90/15.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I had something similar happen about a year ago and it was a really bad time. I purchased some hard drives from a third-party seller (claimed as new, seemed reasonable in price, but huge mistake in hindsight, I know), and they arrived fine. The problem was, the hard drives were not what I ordered, and were almost certainly used (scratched up a lot).

I requested a return, and had the seller provide me a shipping label, I sent them back, and never got my money back. The tracking showed that the package was delivered, but because the seller had provided me a label that didn't require a signature, Amazon said they wouldn't give me my money back, as the seller said they hadn't received the item.

At this point, I left the seller a review saying what had happened to me, and a few days later, I visited the seller's page, and noticed that my review was gone.

Not only does Amazon provide really shoddy support for people that have been scammed, they actually help protect the scammers in a way, by allowing sellers to remove a couple bad reviews from their page every month.

<comment><USER39> Didn't you bother to run SMART and see what the power-on time was? Just for curiosity if nothing else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I don't get why he kept hammering on them for the fact that it was delivered to the wrong address. The bigger problem here, and a better basis for a refund, is the fact that they sent the wrong item. If they sent the wrong item to the correct address it should be eligible, right?

<comment><USER41> Amazon probably has a process for "wrong item at right address", but since this is "wrong item at wrong address", they don't have a process for it. That's why this seller did this; they probably made a mistake once and discovered the loophole, and now they're driving a truck through it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I don't even buy anything that is not sold via Prime. I assume anything non- prime is of the lowest possible quality or a scam. For some reason I feel comfortable with prime thinking that the items have had some sort of quality approval. (at least getting my item as described and expected.)

<comment><USER43> Prime doesn't mean it's sold by Amazon. It can be a third party seller using Fulled by Amazon services. And in that case, the item may not even come from the specific seller you're buying from, because of inventory commingling - they put all of the sellers' inventories into one big bin and send you any of them.

What you may be looking for is "Ships from and sold by Amazon.com". But there have been reports that even those products may be commingled with third-party inventory. (I don't have any personal knowledge on that one way or the other.)

<comment><USER44> > the item may not even come from the specific seller you're buying from, > because of inventory commingling - they put all of the sellers' inventories > into one big bin and send you any of them.

Yeah, but in that case you're at least very likely to be getting the _item_ you ordered. I've got the same policy for ordering stuff from Amazon - if it's prime and does from their warehouse I'll trust it. Haven't been burned yet, and the occasional mistake is always cleared up, usually with a 1 month credit to my prime subscription.

<comment> mark-r The biggest issue in that case is fake merchandise. Fakes can get shipped from the warehouse just as easily as the real thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's a prime example of what happens when you deal with a large company with reps who are not empowered to think for themselves, and often times are incapable of doing anything other than following a very rigid process, and have extreme apathy.

I had a similar experience with NewEgg. In these cases it is sometimes helpful to use LinkedIn and contact people high-up in the company (Directors and Sr. Managers). Send them an inMail, it goes directly to their personal e-mail in many cases.

In several instances, contact like this via LinkedIn has helped me. Other than that, don't waste your time and just file a charge-back.

</comment><comment><USER46> I feel like either amazon, or the market, is missing an opportunity when I read stuff like this. Amazon could be:

1\. Gathering intelligence about the person making the claim from public sources (twitter, LinkedIn, blogs, etc.) 2\. Mashing that against past purchase history (inside amazon or through browser fingerprinting across a wider pool, though they are amazon and should be pretty wide on their own) 3\. Ferreting out when high-trust customers are making claims against more shaky merchants

Claims like this should be the backbone of a fraud management platform. They can take high-quality customers getting screwed over and not only rectify the problem but also spare their other buyers from the embarrassment & fraud

</comment><comment><USER47> In 2016 I made a couple hundred (yes hundred) purchases on Amazon. Of those, more than a dozen failed to ever arrive. All of the ones that failed were from third-party sellers.

Amazon Customer Service is _very_ willing to work with you if you call directly. (I've also had a $1500 item fail to arrive.) I wouldn't trust their email support though.

Long story short: Pick up the phone.

<comment><USER48> Read first, comment later! He called initially and then decided to start emailing so he can add he's own extra details to the emails and have a paper trail.

</comment></comment><comment> martin-adams How would this have played out if it was sent to the correct address, signed for but just had baking mats in there instead of the Lens? Would Amazon side with the seller still?

If not, why didn't the buyer just claim the items in the package was not as described?

</comment><comment><USER49> It was not signed for.

There are many dispositions once usps presses delivered. One is "to an individual at address" that is what i interpret - not signed.

Some other dispositions: at or by box, other or garage, office, (there are many more)

So the usps carrier pressed 4 - individual at address. He she handed it to someone.

Also, the exact gps coordinate of the initial scan is recorded. So the carrier scans the amazon box... That time&location is address knowing. In fact, the usps can turn on a feature that tells the carrier "you are more than 200(some distance) away from the address" this is used primarily when sunday newbies are delivering.

It sounds like amazon does not receive all the data collected from the carriers handheld. Also, there can be multiple dispositions for a parcel. Like "damaged" and delivered.

</comment><comment><USER50> So glad that Jeff's assistant isn't even able to read an email. This sucks man. Appreciate you taking the time to document it and share it.

<comment><USER51> I'm guessing too many people know about the "email firstname.lastname@example.com" hack, and that they now forward everything from there to customer service.

<comment><USER52> Time to start mailing s-team members instead

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> 1500 bucks purchase 2nd hand from a seller with 1 review?

10/10 bravery

<comment><USER18> I would say the description makes it appear to be an actual photographer, although that's very easily duplicated from somewhere else. Also, Amazon is usually very good about protecting buyers from scams.

<comment><USER53> >Also, Amazon is usually very good about protecting buyers from scams.

Retrospectively...sometimes.

Don't get me wrong I like them (average like a package every 48 hrs) but I have fairly limited confidence in their ability to protect people. Especially with the inventory co-mingling fiasco.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The correct solution to this is a 3rd party escrow service for these expensive items prone to fraud.

Amazon could physically validate the lens with pictures/weight, and verify they shipped it directly. This blocks fraud by both the customer and the seller/shipper.

<comment><USER55> Exactly this.

If I'm buying something off of Ebay from a private seller (particularly used gear and such) that is going to cost more than I feel I can possibly comfortably lose ($200.00 is the upper end there), then I ask the seller first (before doing a buy-it-now or bidding) if they'll do escrow (usually via escrow.com, since that used to be an ebay thing).

If they won't, I don't bid or buy - because it is likely a scam of some sort. Usually, I explain that the protection is both for seller and buyer, and that I will pay all fees involved (so they aren't out anything). If they still balk, then forget it. Not worth it, no way.

I've never used Amazon Marketplace to buy used goods or anything like that (everything I buy from Amazon is prime stuff; rarely do I do third-party seller unless its from a place that has a real website too - and even then I exercise caution).

For large cash transactions via Craigslist? Take a friend with a gun, in case things don't go the way they should. My last purchase from CL was a car, and I swear I thought at one point I was going to be rolled for cash I didn't have with me. It was in the vehicle my friend was driving; I was riding with the owner in the vehicle being sold - we were trying to find a place to transfer the title - I know that doesn't sound like it should be difficult, but the story is much more complex. In the end everything went fine, the guy got the cash, I got the car, and we parted amicably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> a similar scam has been going on for a while, with at least video games, board games, and bike gear, from what I've seen on Amazon Canada.

Third party sellers with a "real" looking name will list an item at a ridiculous discount off retail. If you buy it, you get a Chinese international tracking number. This takes forever to "arrive" and it turns out Amazon only really cares that the tracking number shows to Canada. I'm not sure what is actually in the package, since it's not possible to figure out more than just the city it went to.

Eventually, Amazon will refund you, but it's a bit annoying. It's pretty easy to spot once you get bit the first time, but you'll usually see the third party seller spike to several hundred bad reviews before the entire situation gets resolved.

This seems like Amazon CSR just failed to read the writer's complaints correctly. It should eventually get fixed, because it often does get fixed, even for hundreds of customers at a time.

<comment><USER57> This happens with books too, though in these cases it can be more difficult to spot beforehand (e.g. 20-30% off a cover price isn't too unusual). However, if the seller has _every_ book listed for the same price, something is very obviously wrong.

From those I've seen, it looks as though old and/or inactive accounts have been compromised. These have a decent history, possibly even a positive feedback rating, but no activity in (e.g.) the past 12 months.

<comment><USER56> on .ca they seem to be newer accounts, often "FIRSTNAME LASTNAME" "located" in the US somewhere.

Totally forgot the _every_ book thing - they also sometimes have items that aren't actually released yet, but are available for immediate shipping, which I guess gets them bumped up a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The A-Z guarantee is actually pretty biased towards the costumer. Something went wrong here obviously, but in part it is a side effect of too much information. There was no need to go visit your neighbors--once the wrong address is confirmed, A-Z should come into effect. Get someone on the phone if you can.

The larger problem is the integrity of the package. For example, as a seller, I've had multiple chargebacks from customers who claimed that the package they received was empty (and A-Z always ruled in their favor). I've also had customers "return" items that were not at all the same as the original purchase. In once case, the returned materials were clearly counterfeit (where I sold the originals)! A-Z ruled in customer's favor in each case. I've since stopped selling on Amazon due to prevalent fraud.

The package is pretty well tracked, how do we make sure what goes into the box corresponds to the sale or refund?

<comment> ryan-c > In once case, the returned materials were clearly counterfeit (where I sold > the originals)!

Do you use FBA? If so, do you allow inventory intermingling on your items?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> oh hey, I work on a team that should prevent this kind of thing. This should be fun to fix.

[I'm not allowed to say more on the topic, nor do I speak for Amazon, as per the current Amazon guidelines on what we're allowed to talk about on social media. We're hiring though, and it's a fun adversarial engineering job]

<comment><USER60> I'd hesitate to blame you if you're on the engineering side. This doesn't sound like a technical problem, necessarily, but rather a policy-level problem. The whole sordid affair seems to have taken place because the reps either didn't comprehend the issue or weren't empowered to do anything about it.

At a minimum, Bezos needs to have a come-to-Jeff meeting with the people answering email in his name. It shouldn't be necessary for a customer to start a Twitter debacle or a social-media shitshow in order to receive good customer service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> We're hearing the Complainer's version, and not Amazon's. Lady Justice carries a balancing scale, with both sides being weighed.

Whenever I see blotted out information, I wonder why...., so let's look at the evidence carefully.

Notice the ship to address on the Amazon invoice-- the green-blotted-out portion with the ship to address beginning with a 4 and then green-- possibly holding another 8 to 10 characters.

Then look at the the USPS confirmation ship to address "Glenbrook Cir" with 13 characters and erased number preface.

The number of characters in the Amazon invoice and USPS confirmation are probably different. Complainer claims Amazon did not "see" or refuse to acknowledge the incorrect ship-to-address. Difficult to believe. And according to Complainer's writing on Amazon's response, Amazon stated the ship-to- address is correct. If Complainer wants to make a better case, remove the blotting. The Courts will never allow for this type of deliberate blotting as evidence, and I don't think we should either.

I've never had problems reaching Amazon support by phone or chat (my choice), and the delay is usually 30 seconds or less. An easy-to-understand scam as this would be critical to Amazon's business. Difficult to believe Amazon staff had trouble understanding Complainer's complaint.

What I see so far is a Complainer who blots out unique identifying person or address information, and gives photos of various documents, which are partially related. Partial relationship, not total.

Lady Justice's scale has two weigh pans. The Complainer's weigh pan already has some holes.

</comment><comment><USER62> I got burned in a different way. I have the mark 1 version of the Canon 400mm DO lens. The mark 2 came out, to rave reviews, I wanted one, got a little toasted one night and said "screw it, I'm gonna get one". It's $6700 lens.

I clicked around and found one cheaper, it was $6500 so I got that one.

Imagine my joy (jk) when I open it up and found that Amazon/Adorama thought it was OK to sell me the mark 1 version of lens for $200 less than the much better mark 2. That's nuts, the mark 1 lens was selling used for about $4000 before the mark 2 came out, when the mark 2 came out, the used value of the mark 1 dropped to about $2000.

So it's pretty lame of Amazon/Adorama to put the old lens up there for $200 less when it should have been $3000-$4000 less. And pretty stupid of me to not notice the version.

I had to threaten Adorama with a media campaign before they took the lens back. Left a sour taste in my mouth and I buy all my stuff from B&H now.

</comment><comment><USER63> Long time lurker here. Amazon has let a lot of shady business in lately. Abuses on all sides.

Even my local USPS abuses the system for the 2 day delivery. (They marked a packages as incorrect address, and than, not available to sign... I called them, the woman said the were too heavy, so I now get it on day 3..). Now I know about the free months of prime, but I would have to get USPS to confess to Amazon what they told me. And I'm not as dedicated as the author.

And the preditory tactics they allow sellers to implement are crazy. I paid to return a dead on arrival ipod, and I had to send multiple emails to confirm I was getting my money back. (Seller stated they needed RMA or no refund, seller never provided RMA after 3 emails. Never even sent an RMA after all that, Amazon just ended agreeing to refund after multiple calls). Seller is still active with same terrible return policy.

Good article, I feel less crazy now. Hopefully more of these stories circulate.

<comment><USER64> Calling your postmaster about the USPS will get the problem fixed. I had a similar problem where my carrier refused to do Sunday deliveries – they'd always use the disposition of "nobody available to accept package".

I called the postmaster and complained, and she said they'd look into it. Two days later, she called back and explained that they had pulled scan records for the packages going to my apartment building and that all the Sunday packages were scanned as "nobody available" while the packages were still at the post office (!).

Apparently, the USPS has GPS attached to all their scan records, so she was easily able to tell that there was chicanery and to deal with it. I've not had a problem with Sunday deliveries since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Be wary of Amazon closing your account due to the credit card charge back dispute.

I had Amazon close my account several years ago due to a credit card number change right when I made a purchase. It was hell getting them to re-open my account and take my payment for the product I ordered and received.

<comment><USER37> I had a similar issue (account didn't authorize a SEPA ELV transfer, so it bounced), and I just had to send the payment + 6,50€ to amazon via SEPA wire transfer, and they reopened it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Amazon need to have a "This is a scam" checkbox for resolution. Something where instead of the automated process, an actual human with a brain looks at the evidence.

A one-minute read would show that this is fraud and the customer should be refunded immediately.

</comment><comment><USER67> For those wondering how this scam happens, here is a live example: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer- listing/B002JCSV8U/ref=dp_ol...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer- listing/B002JCSV8U/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all)

Notice how the first item is listed at 1/4th price of other listings, and that seller is a 'just launched' third party. If you text or email asking them to confirm item is genuine and not stolen, you will not hear from them.

If Amazon wanted they can detect and remove such listings (also good candidate for ML based fraud detection)

<comment><USER67> if Amazon could at least drop third party individual sellers or thoroughly vet them I'd assume it will reduce such scams considerably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I don't get how this could happen. I used to sell on eBay and PayPal was very strict about only shipping items to the address given to me on the PayPal payment. A way I'd been scammed as a seller was when the buyer asked me to ship an item to their work address. I complied, and then the buyer did a paypal dispute saying they never received the item, and I automatically lost the dispute because I didn't ship to the address on the payment. I just don't see how Amazon isn't siding with the customer in this case.

</comment><comment><USER69> If you are the person this happened to file a complaint with the United States Postal Service office of the Inspector General. As they used USPS this would actually be mail fraud something the law enforcement arm of the postal service has jurisdiction over.

You can file a complaint at [https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/filecomplaint.a...](https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/filecomplaint.aspx) or by calling 1-800-ASK-USPS

</comment><comment><USER70> This is one of the main reasons I avoid buying anything from Marketplace sellers on Amazon. One can argue if it is right or wrong but you can't expect the same level of service which you are used from Amazon for Marketplace sellers.

Couple times I ordered something without double checking that it is sold and delivered by Amazon and had nothing but trouble. I'm sure there are honest Marketplace sellers as well but I just can't be bothered.

I hope that the OP gets his money back.

</comment><comment><USER69> I would open a case with the USPS Inspector General [https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/filecomplaint.a...](https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/filecomplaint.aspx)

This seems like it would be considered mail fraud, and as UPSP was used they have jurisdiction to investigate it. I'm not sure how serious they will take the case however.

</comment><comment><USER71> Contact USPS immediately.

Using the US mail system to commit fraud is a crime, and the post office has postal inspectors that investigate exactly these kinds of cases.

</comment><comment><USER72> I've had a similar thing likely happen from about $100 of things off aliexpress. Air china handed off to the USPS and it showed up as delivered without me ever having signed for it. I argued with aliexpress, and they just saw air china had it marked as delivered and just closed the claim against me. If they can do this locally, they likely can pull this off from outside the US as well.

</comment><comment><USER73> I don't understand why the scammer bothered to ship to an alternate address -- if Amazon is just confirming that the package was delivered and signed for, wouldn't that also occur if delivered to the buyer's address? The buyer would sign for the package before opening it and realizing the camera lens wasn't inside. (The weight difference could be made up with rocks.)

</comment><comment><USER74> Very weird -- earlier this year the FedEx guy delivered some photo mattes to the apartment across the street. The vendor wouldn't refund me because it showed as delivered, but Amazon told me (and refunded the $40) specifically under their A-Z program. Eventually a few weeks later, the box turned up because I guess someone decided to actually check the address and re-deliver it.

</comment><comment><USER75> Item was supposed to be sent to address 'A'. Was accepted at address 'B'. This billboard-size neon-glowing discrepancy takes so little time/effort to spot that I'm incredulous that multiple customer "service" people in mentioned in the blog post didn't see it. It has to be impossible to miss this bloody obvious gap. Just how?

</comment><comment><USER76> I don't know if it is the same in the US, but in the UK you would basically tell the credit card company this is their problem.

</comment><comment><USER77> If your credit card doesn't support a chargeback here you should sue the issuer or st least widely publicize them. Any reasonable issuer would support this chargeback, particularly with all the evidence you have provided.

I am wary of buying things through amazon, even first party amazon.com LLC stuff, due to counterfeits and other scams. It is as bad as eBay.

</comment><comment><USER78> Wow. Close call. I was about to get the same lens from the same seller about a month ago but at the very last moment I thought I can wait for a few weeks to see some more reviews of the seller come in.

I was thinking about getting defective product shipped etc but never thought I could have faced such a sophisticated scam.

</comment><comment><USER67> I generally reach out to third party sellers before placing an order. Only if they respond, do I place my order. In general it's better to avoid them though. Another scam and actually more hurting to buyer is the sale of stolen goods (again camera items like in the article).

</comment><comment><USER79> > The description of the used lens indicated the lens is in excellent > condition and the price seemed very good… maybe too good

If the lens sell for $1,500, and he got it for $1,490, why does he say he thinks the price may have been too good? It seems like it would be an accurate price for it.

</comment><comment><USER80> Thanks for putting that out here. Amazon shouldn't get away with their bots like that.

</comment><comment><USER81> about 3 months ago I bought some USB-C <-> USB-A [1] cables on Amazon. I plugged one into my MacBook and it immediately turned it off and banned it from the system. I started to smell electrical burning. I yanked the cord out of the wall and never touched it again. Threw away the whole pack.

The cables were made in China and re-branded by a USA company.

Don't buy cheap Chinese garbage electronics.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0161GVULY/ref=oh_aui_deta...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0161GVULY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

</comment><comment><USER82> Why did he even bother about the shipping address? He should have begun with reporting receiving the wrong item, that would have then lead to discussion about the shipping address and incorrect weight. Potentially

</comment><comment><USER83> I guess this is why Ebay always sides with the buyer. Scuks for sellers though.

</comment><comment><USER84> What? As someone who's sold on Amazon, all the buyer had to do was _cough_ and they were given a full refund with absolutely no obligation to ship the item back. Something's not being told here.

<comment><USER85> Out of curiosity, have you sold items in the 1000+ price range?

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> I never purchase an expensive item (>$25 or so) unless it is sold by Amazon. Right now, I've been looking at buying a Nintendo Switch, which only is available from third party sellers.

No thanks, I'll wait.

</comment><comment><USER87> It's very unfortunate, when the same thing happened to me amazon refunded me straight away, they acknowledged the person who signed the package was not me and I had my money back straight away.

</comment><comment><USER88> Someone hacked my Seller Central account a few months back. It took 8 weeks to sort it out with Amazon. In the meantime, they completely suspended my entire Amazon account. What a nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER89> For the amount of business Amazon gives USPS/UPS/FedEx, you would think their APIs could show Amazon that a package with a given tracking number matches the address for the order.

</comment><comment><USER90> For $1500 it's worth taking Amazon to small claims court. Not for the fraud -- that was the fraudster -- but for their refusal to to honor the terms of their guarantee.

</comment><comment><USER91> From my extremely limited understanding of legal matters, I'd say this should be a criminal fraud case. Maybe the police can get through the "wall" at Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER92> In my opinion this makes amazon an accomplice of the theft, especially that they earned a commission from this operation.

Hope that buyer will get help and get his money back.

</comment><comment><USER93> Amazon solves for these types of problems in other markets (India) through Cash on Delivery.

</comment><comment><USER94> As the author says, this is what the credit card dispute system ought to sort out.

<comment><USER36> Not if you've got EC2 instances or Kindle books.

<comment><USER94> You're saying that disputing with Amazon will _pull all your kindle books_? I don't think that would fly in countries with consumer rights. Bear in mind this is also a Marketplace seller and not the real Amazon.

<comment><USER36> Steam happily bans accounts that make chargebacks, so it's apparently legal (or at least get-away-with-it-able) in the US. I'm really not willing to take that risk with Amazon.

<comment><USER21> You know, I think I just decided never to use Steam again. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hope you get enough social media visibility to get your money back.

</comment><comment><USER95> What's Amazon's cut of a $1500 third party sale?

</comment><comment><USER96> Amazon Marketplace is full of garbage sellers...

</comment><comment><USER97> "...trustworthy as Amazon."

?!

Amazon has their money, and most everyone's money. There is little incentive here to do the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER98> Enter binding arbitration.

</comment><comment><USER99> test

</comment><comment><USER100> I like how this list is zero-indexed.

<comment><USER101> Liking zero indexed lists is such a dumb programmer meme. Lists are for humans to read and therefore should use the natural numbers, which start at one. Arrays are zero indexed because the first item of the array starts with zero offset.

<comment><USER102> I found it interesting to see that building floors in Australia are zero indexed. The first floor there is what Americans would call the second. Not sure why they chose to do it that way but it works fine in the real world.

<comment><USER103> That's not the case in all Australian buildings. Usually we call the ground floor "ground floor" (which you could argue is 0-indexed), and the floor above it is "the first floor". But there are a lot of buildings that follow the American style of "the ground floor is the first floor".

We also don't use negative numbers, basements are prefixed with a B, so B1 is like -1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I would reply to Jeff again with the particularly unhelpful email.

</comment><comment><USER104> Email firstname.lastname@example.com.

I've done it a few times before when Amazon really messed up. I got a call back in less than 24 hours and my problem was solved.

[Edit: read the article again, it seems he did :) ]

<comment><USER105> If you read the article, he _did_ , someone got back to him on his behalf and it did not resolve his problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> As the other commentators on the posting pointed out. Stop pissing around with Amazon customer service (who are usually excellent) and perform a credit card charge back.

</comment><comment><USER107> Maybe this sort of fraud becomes impossible if we had cryptographic ledger based delivery confirmation systems (keyed to sender, recipient, delivery address). Edit: Because apparently technological solutions aren't to be discussed if they involve recent, trendy tech?

<comment><USER29> lol blockchain.

It'd only work if they wrote the APIs in Rust and the management UI was isomorphic React.

<comment><USER108> no noSQL? it's not webscale</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Motolister -- Carsabi for motorcycles - <AUTHOR> http://motolister.com/

<comment><USER2> I love the idea but I don't see how you'll get around Craigslist blocking you the same way they did Pad Mapper and Carsabi. Do you have plans for this?</comment>


Hippie physics student saved Apollo 13, cut out of history cos he had long hair - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old_that_worked_apollo_missions_1/c5oaobm <comment><USER2> Apollo 8, 10, and 11 had all already used "free return" trajectories, which would have caused the spacecraft to "slingshot around the moon" and return to earth in the case of main engine failure. Mission Control would not have needed a cold call from a hippie physics student to remind them they could try that with Apollo 13.

This could be a garbled version of some other piece of critical advice coming in a cold call. But it's also possible that some hippie grad student _thought_ he came up with the idea of free return trajectories on the fly, and assumed that long hair was the reason he never got credit for telling Mission Control what it had already known for years.

<comment><USER3> Since this story is being told by a NASA employee and not by the grad student, it's not the grad student making assumptions about why he wasn't credited.

See also this follow-up comment that lends some credibility to this anecdote:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/xove1/iama_97_year_old_that_worked_apollo_missions_1/c5onsqb)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there anything at all to substantiate this story other than an anonymous blip on Reddit? Anything?

<comment><AUTHOR> Many a good investigation starts with a single, unsubstantiated piece of information. It's certainly an interesting claim - perhaps it can and/or will be chased down and appear one day on Snopes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it really so hard to right because instead of cos?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is when the full and proper title doesn't fit into the 80 character limit.

And in return, is it really so hard to write "write" instead of "right"?</comment></comment>