#28- CEO Tactics in Bollywood Romance | American Girl Reacts - Bollywood Films Uncovered

All this talk of doll, of hunger, of food brings up a

recent alleged whistleblower in the news.

Food, food delivery DoorDash allegations.

You're hungry for the dates. I don't know if it's true or not

of course, but let's just say it certainly doesn't make me want

to DoorDash myself some doll at the moment.

But it is familiar to where we last left off with our Bunny.

Bunny scarcity driven ruled by desperation that made him chase

much and often less specificity, less standards, poorer outcomes.

So a whistleblower is claiming that Doordash's internal systems

and algorithms are designed to quietly exploit drivers,

desperation and customer trust, especially around pay, tips and

data. A recent whistleblower alleges

DoorDash uses things like desperation scores and

algorithmic levers to push lower pay to drivers who seem

financially trapped or more likely to accept bad orders.

The same reporting describes hidden fees and opaque pricing,

arguing the platform is structurally set up so that the

people with the least leverage, gig workers and often

restaurants, shoulder the most risk and cost.

I'm not going to get into what has already been proven in other

investigations regarding completely different issues such

as tips and payments and multi $1,000,000 settlements right

now, or go into other current lawsuits and current allegations

separately that are related to data usage and data breaches.

As this came to mind for a specific reason and I have

brought it up now for a specific reason.

I I'm not going to talk about the other allegations or

settlements because they aren't related to where I'm going with

this. Now.

It is responsible for me to note that DoorDash publicly denies

using anything like a desperation score to set pay and

frames the viral whistleblower narrative as misleading or

false, while also saying it is reviewing concerns about

transparency and worker treatment.

So there you have it. A lot there, but why did this

stick out to me? And what does it have to do with

all, with food, with hunger, with Bunny, with Ye Jawani?

Hey Jawani. The whistleblower claims

DoorDash tracks behavioral metrics.

How often you accept or decline jobs, how quickly you grab low

pay orders, when and how long you stay online, etcetera.

From this, the system allegedly in first a desperation score.

A desperation score. You can't make this stuff up.

How badly does this person need money and how likely are they to

accept bad offers? How likely are they to accept

accept bad offers? Needs and weaknesses being

monitored and then used to give worse deals.

Oh wow. Oh no Oh no no no.

This whistleblower is alleging something.

Something that makes me lose my appetite entirely and actually

makes me a bit physical physically, I'll optimization.

Optimization of exploitation. Not so hungry anymore, are you?

Yeah, me either. This whistleblower is alleging a

possibility of data analysis of behavior being used to push

lower pay, worse routes or more manipulative incentives at the

drivers. Least able to say no.

Least able to say no. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, we aren't going to talk

now or in general about this issue, what's going on, what it

means about real, real desperation here, OK, regarding

survival in this real world situation, about basics.

Certain things are not choices, even if we wish they were.

Let me be clear, what I do want to talk about is not about

alleged exploitation with a company in the workforce

financially with less choice and more basic need and survival.

Something that should not be condoned or normalized in my

personal opinion. And discuss how bad agents in

alleged situations and scenarios that if not true here, could be

true elsewhere. How bad actors, villains in the

real world doing wrong and making poor choices can, in a

way, reflect other entirely different aspects of life.

Like we talked about with money, desperation, hunger, desperation

scores, choices. What we accept and how our

behavior can communicate what we will tolerate.

Exploitation. Put your safety gear on, folks.

We're going in. And Ye Jawani.

Hey, Dhawani with Avi Aditi accepts crumbs.

Yeah. She takes whatever time,

attention and chaos he gives. And the more she accepts, the

less he has to offer. Her desperation lowers her

bargaining power. The whistleblower claims

DoorDash does something similar. It watches drivers behavior, how

often they accept low pay orders when they're online, how quickly

they grab bad offers, and uses that to infer who is a desperate

allegedly. Those drivers allegedly then see

more bad offers offered to them and worse pay structures.

In both cases though, the system, whether it's a person

like Javi or a system company like DoorDash, learns who will

tolerate bad terms and then keeps feeding them those terms.

High cost, low reward, exploiting desperation early.

ADT stays in A1 sided dynamic because she's in love and afraid

to lose even the crumbs she has. Her acceptance effectively

trains Avi to treat her as optional dashers who out of

necessity by the way, except most offers.

Even the worst offers that may not be as worth it are

effectively, if such is true, training the algorithm that they

can be pushed harder. The alleged desperation score is

training turned into code. In both scenarios, what you

accept becomes the new baseline. The system doesn't spontaneously

become kinder all of a sudden, unfortunately.

In this case, it adapts to the lowest level of resistance.

Rough. I mean, not our best moments as

humans, yeah, but we must keep going.

Oh man, we can do this. Aditi's pivot is deciding she

deserves specific things being chosen.

Imagine that. Respected what?

Emotionally safe? Unheard of, right?

And that's when Taron even becomes visible as an option at

that point. And her ROI on love, what she

gets back or what she gives improves.

And so we all learn together here as we watch and analyze the

behavior and then in part the motivators and drivers of

behaviors of those doing the watching per SE.

We all learn here. Sometimes, oftentimes, maybe

even most times, better terms only appear once you stop

agreeing to bad ones, even if that involves real short term

pain. Ouch.

Not super ideal. Not what I was hoping for here.

Don't let go of my hand. We can do this.

An alleged desperation score. She'll always be there.

I don't have to change, right, Avi?

Ah, Avi. We get it, Avi.

But Avi, our girl Aditi deserves better for what she's giving.

Come on, Aditi. Grab our hand, girl.

This is the moment, girl. Your moment girl.

Move from learn desperation. I'll take anything from him to

learn to worth. I will choose someone who

chooses me back. It appears to be the case, a

clear possibility that at times systems and people will optimize

around whatever level of self respect you demonstrate.

At times algorithms treats accepting less as a permission

until something disrupts it. Time to renegotiate love your

life, your choices, your losses, your wins, your time, your

energy, your terms. Change your ask your minimums,

your contract, shift your ROI, reprice yourself.

That's right. Let's talk business in the

spirit of cold, in the spirit of hard, the spirit of corporate.

We see you, DoorDash and friends.

Let's talk numbers, shall we? Let's take right and wrong out

of it. Let's put humanity and meaning

aside. Hold the feeling.

Hold the personal biz. It's not personal, right?

Abby, honey, in this situation here for our girl at TT, you are

simply high cost, low return investment, a high probability

of capital loss, what could be described here as a bad cost

benefit profile, heavy outflow with weak and quite frankly

negative returns, high risk, high volatility assets with

intangible returns. You heard me.

You're bad for business honey. Aditi's earlier attachment to

Avi resembles the sunk cost fallacy.

Years of friendship and unspoken love make it tempting to keep

investing just because she already has.

Her pivot is a textbook cut your losses move.

Ignore sunk emotional costs and ask, given current and future

prospects, does this still justify further investment?

The answer is no, so she exits that position.

In markets, smart investors use screens and criteria.

Minimum return, maximum risk, acceptable time horizons.

DT starts doing the same with people.

Not just I like him, but does he choose me, respect me and

improve my life. It's OK Time to reallocate to a

better risk adjusted asset. We are all about that positive

ROI over here. Avi, your current terms are

denied a good risk return trade off expected benefits that

exceed the cost of diversified stable portfolio, prioritizing

the sustainable over speculative speculative gains.

Taron, you're up. The juice ain't worth the

squeeze if the juice don't look like this.

Hey, thirsty. Now seriously, why did this song

come back into my head now? The juice isn't worth the

squeeze idiom. It's basically the cost benefit

ROI return on investment, a simple profitability measure

that compares how much you gained or lost on an investment

to how much you put in. Is what I'm getting just

actually worth what this is costing me?

Squeeze in decision making? A causal cost benefit analysis.

Weigh the benefits against the cost and if the benefits don't

clear the bar, you don't do it. In investment terms, the juice

isn't worth the squeeze Is saying the expected return is

too low for the risk and effort involved.

Negative, very poor ROI. The DT with RV is exactly this.

Massive emotional squeeze, unreciprocated love, chaos,

worry for almost no real Jews, respect, commitment, stability.

Which makes the deal objectively bad once she stops romanticizing

it. The moment she stops being

desperate and raises her standards, she is implicitly

sane. With Avi, the juice is not worth

the squeeze. With Darren it is.

That shift turns her into a rational allocator of effort.

She stops investing in low yield asset and redirects her squeeze

toward a place where the Jews daily experience treatment life

outcomes is actually abundant enough to justify what she

gives. Ever seen Shark Tank?

Shark Tank is an American business reality TV series.

Entrepreneurs pitch their products or companies to a panel

of wealthy investors called sharks in hopes of securing

funding in exchange for equity or other deal structures.

It can be a good time. Well, it isn't lost on me that

many what would be termed Shark Tank rejects later become

multimillion dollar companies. That's right, same product, same

founder, but now they grow with other investors, loans or just

customer cash. Instead of that original harsh

deal, the original offer with a negative ROI deal.

Time showed us all that some were wise enough to see, to

feel, to know it in that moment. If they had accepted, they would

have sacrificed huge long term value, ownership control, future

profit for a relatively small check and some TV driven buzz.

Their low emotional desperation scores shaped their behavior and

decreased losses or possible exploitation, Like remember Door

Bot now Ring on Shark Tank. So we watched as Jamie Simonov

comes in with Door Bot early Ring at the time asking for

$700,000 for 10% Kevin O'Leary. Like I said, one of the wealthy

investors on the show's panel, a shark, as they're called, offers

$700,000 as a loan with interest plus a royalty, not clean

equity. While other sharks completely

pass on investing in this product idea, Simonov rejects

the deal and leaves with no shark, no deal, no investor.

The squeeze was heavy debt and perpetual royalty for relatively

little juice. One investor on harsh terms.

So he decides the ROI on that capital is not worth the long

term drag. And so a loss, right?

This sad, sad ending of no deal, right?

Wrong. Like I said, door but door but

becomes Ring and is later acquired by Amazon for about 1

billion dollars. Yeah, a possible outcome which

only arrives because he refused to sell himself short and was

able to, a Shark Tank founder said.

I appreciate the offer but I'm going to decline and then build

a massive company later. The business world version of

Aditi finally saying this is what I'm worth and I'd rather

walk away than sign a bad deal on myself.

DoorDash and Ring cameras. That reminds me of another

story. Crazy story, actually, which

I'll have to get into soon. We must talk about what it

really means. It's a lot.

Remind me to talk about DoorDash girl, will ya?

But anyway, that's funny. Amazon's Ring company, a home

security and smart home company best known for its video

doorbells and security cameras. Rings gaze is like on your

physical environment and per these shocking, disturbing and

unverified, might I say allegations by this

whistleblower. Right now, Doordash's gaze may

be on behavior under economic strain.

As we start this new year and aspire for more in life, and

especially from ourselves, let's keep our eye on the prize.

Let's watch ourselves and analyze our own data, our

behaviour and our patterns to improve our own outcomes, our

ROI, our well-being, our investments, and our safety.

Because we're no shark on a panel of wealthy investors, but

we know a good investment when we see one.

#28- CEO Tactics in Bollywood Romance | American Girl Reacts

About this episode