# Communicating in the tech industry

Computers, by their nature, are *highly* ordered. While this can be very convenient (and [scalable](computers-distsys.md)), it represents an inhumanity that's the exact *opposite* of [what nature provides](reality.md).

Thus, while [well-designed systems](computers-software.md) can satisfy 90% of everyone's needs (or 95% with [clever design](engineering-design.md), or 99% in the case of [AI implementations](computers-ai.md)), there must be a redundant fallback that *isn't* a computer.

Without any fallback, the system will slowly devolve into yet another FAANG system, with minimal [customer service](people-customerservice.md) and new [tech startups](entrepreneur-1_why.md) that will attempt to fill the gap with more technology.

## Ombudsman

Every well-designed system integrated heavily with technology needs a third-party ombudsman to mediate conflicts which may arise between people inside the organization and outside it. They have to be outside normal channels, and should receive far more [authority](power-types.md) than any tiered technician or middle manager.

Without an ombudsman, the gaps in expertise will likely be filled by [technical idiots](https://gainedin.site/idiot/) that [fix problems](https://adequate.life/fix/) that may not need fixing, or that won't resolve the actual problem the user is having.

There are several options that prevent abuse of an ombudsman system, and should be communicated *before* the fix is applied:

1. Place a hard limit on what the ombudsman is allowed to do (e.g., a $20 limit per fix).
2. Require the *user* to pay for the problem to be fixed.
3. After fixing it, track whose fault it was, and bill it to either the organization or the user, depending on the situation.