You sexualized a perfectly good popcorn bucket is what you did, now look at it, that theater chain's got anxiety
  • @[email protected]English
    11•6 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]English
      10•6 months ago

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

      • @MalfeasantEnglish
        2•6 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 English
      6•6 months ago

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

    • @XeroxCoolEnglish
      4•6 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