First thing this A.M., I made a sweep of sites that told what was up with Hurricane Matthew. It was great to see that damage in Miami (or anywhere) has been less than had been feared. But one of those links led me to a political site where the proprietor was saying, "See? We told you the government was exaggerating the danger from this storm to hype the concept of Global Warming!" It took me a couple of reads to decide this was not a parody.
Leave aside the fact that the storm has caused destruction and may still cause more…and while you're at it, leave aside the fact that it wouldn't really sell the idea of Climate Change if a storm underperformed. Just consider the idea that the National Weather Service deals in probabilities, not certainties, and has to err on the side of caution. Better that they tell you to evacuate when it isn't necessary than they don't when it is.
Also, a lot of folks don't understand the concept of probabilities. Many moons ago when I jokingly flirted with a job as a TV Weatherguy, a real TV Weatherguy told me, "One of the downsides of this profession is that if you predict an 80% chance or rain or even a 60% chance of rain, people who don't get rained-on will call up and accuse you of incompetence or lying."
He said 50% seemed to be the tipping point. If you said there was 50% chance of rain, people understood it was a maybe thing. It you said 60%, it was taken as if you'd said it was an absolute certainty and you could bet your life on it. They also seemed to assume your forecast was for the block they lived on, not for the entire city.
Anyway, happy to see it may not be as bad as it could have been, at least in some places. It's still a pretty ugly, powerful beast.
Not much on the political front this morning. There are all sorts of wild guesses out there as to what will happen in Sunday's debate. They call them predictions but in this case, they're really wild guesses. I can sure imagine the Trump forces debating whether this is the time to go relentlessly negative and nasty…or on the other hand, is it when they need to show the candidate's human, reasonable side? And no, I don't think he has one but if he just tones it down a bit and doesn't get too incoherent, we'll hear how presidential and human he really is. He'll probably try to do both at the same time.
Lately, I've had to call Technical Support lines for a number of technical things in my life. Almost always after a call, I find myself in one of those robotic surveys, being asked if the representative was courteous, if I would recommend their company to others, etc. I'm limited to certain responses and often, none of them apply.
On a recent matter involving Time-Warner Cable, most of the questions were on the order of "Did our representative resolve the matter to your satisfaction?" and none of the answers I was allowed to give reflected what I would have said, which was either…
- I don't know yet. The problem comes and goes and I have to wait and see if it happens again in three days or —
- No, it still isn't working right but that doesn't seem to be the fault of the employee you're asking me to evaluate.
The reps I talk to all seem to be courteous and well-schooled in their areas but that doesn't mean they have the power to solve any problem or to keep it solved. Two nights ago, the correct answer to the question, "Did our representative resolve the matter to your satisfaction?" would have been, "No, I seem to need a new modem and since he's in another time zone, he set up a service appointment for someone to bring one over and install it." But the only options available to me were "Yes" or one worded so as to suggest that the guy on the phone hadn't done his job.
And none of the questions I'm asked deal with my biggest problem, which is how to get through the complicated phone system. That's the one which likes to keep you on hold for a long time then hang up on you or which is confusing with regard to getting to the right division. They never ask me for my opinion on that.
With some companies (not just Time-Warner Cable), it feels like the survey is configured not to ask questions but to plant the notion that if you're satisfied, it's because they're a great company and if you aren't, it's the failure of the employee to whom your call was routed. And since that employee is usually polite and good at what they do, you don't want to give them a negative rating. The end result is that my completed survey indicates a more pleasant, satisfying experience than I actually had. I wonder how much of that is deliberate.