Why is anyone blaming anyone but Amazon?
This is a clear and serious problem with Amazon, yet, somehow, some commentators on here are suggesting the customer is at fault? Are you insane (or just work for Amazon)?
136 posts • joined 27 Apr 2007
Not quite the same, but EE have me down in their system with a misspelled surname ("Welly" instead of "Melly"). Everytime I speak to them, and they address me as "Mr Welly", I laugh and correct them, and they confidently assure me that they've just updated their system and fixed it. This has been going on for bloody years (yes, I've been an EE customer for years - I'm an idiot).
I can only assume that they're updating a node, and the central db keeps 'correcting' the update. Or maybe they're just a bunch of wazzocks who can't find their arse with both hands.
Not that relevant - a bank can pay back the stolen money, and has a clear responsibility to do so, negligent or not. In this case, we talking about a punitive fine that, IMHO, should only be issued if the company can be shown to have done something wrong (which doesn't seem to have been the case).
Unlike the LIBOR stuff, the employee here was acting against the interests of the company, so there's no question that Morrisons encouraged this by any means.
I honestly can't see how they're liable, since I can't honestly see how they could have prevented this. The guy wasn't acting out of ignorance - he damn well knew what he was doing was wrong.
What is it with Skype and MS? I mean, at this point I just vaguely assume they hate it and want us to hate it too.
How is it possible to take a fairly simple, established, concept, and produce an interface that's so confusing and so badly laid out that each time I use the damn thing, I find myself flailing around trying to spot how to send a text message or share a screen.
Recent versions are increasingly unreliable when it comes to relaying messages.
Is this seriously a product MS wants us to use?
I'm not asking for a forensic breakdown - just "X co. got hacked, we got passed a list of potentially affected cards, and monitored those accounts for unusual activity."
The bottom line is that I've no idea which company dropped the ball, and I would like the option of no longer using that service.
Hmm... my CC was used fraudulently a few weeks ago. My bank, FD, stopped it and issued a new card, but have been very reluctant to clarify what they know about the fraud, where it originated from, and how they spotted it, although a rep on the phone did drop a clue that I wasn't alone.
Still in the dark, and puzzled as to why the bank is being cagey.
... I'd say that the problem occurred because the software made too many assumptions. It thought it heard the wakeup call, so it then anticipated a command or request, and so on and so on. It essentially did something rather 'human' (albeit via algorithm) - it looked for a pattern where none existed.
The two bits that cracked me up were when he said it was disappointing that customers were hanging up before anyone could speak to them and 'acknowledge' their complaint. This was with an average wait time of 30 mins.
The next best bit? That that 30 mins doesn't include anyone who hung up after, say, an hour - it only includes people who actually spoke to someone.
Reminds me a bit of the XML craze a few years back, when it seemed that everyone was using it as a solution. One product I came across, which shall remain anonymous, used it in a db for storing data. The fields themselves didn't define what the data was; the xml wrapper around the data did that. Ran like a one-legged dog.
That doesn't stop XML being a good solution to many problems; just not all problems... The blockchain will find its uses in time; for now, its fans need to calm the fuck down.
"There are a number of linked causes, [including] issues with the systems' IT and how ages are programmed into it," he said.
I'm struggling to work out how that's anything but vaguely technical, "it's really complicated", speak for a massive bit of incompetence by a programmer, irrespective of what sort of time-scales they were working on.
I love Perl - for certain jobs, namely mine, it's a god-send. And I never get the complaint about perl + regular expressions. That's what regular expressions look like - anything with regex support is going to look the same.
As for too many ways to do things - sure, you can write cryptic code, and head off down obscure structures, but then you're just an arse.
My wife still cannot navigate or use a UI effectively, and flat designs have just aggravated the issue. I can no longer point her towards useful clues as to whether a single-click or a double-click is required - flat UI seems to depend on familiarity with the technology, rather than imparting it intuitively.
It's a bit hard to say with the fairly low sample size, but what makes me uncomfortable about self-driving cars is the requirement that, in a single environment (behind the wheel), the driver has to flip between two different states of engagement.
At the moment, it all seems a bit in the anti-Goldilocks zone.
Heh - I saw something very similar. A car got hit side on in Cambridge Circus and flipped. Hell of a smash, but we helped the driver out, who seemed unhurt. The hard thing was stopping him from going back to the car (which was leaking fuel) to retrieve a cassette from the stereo.
There was a brain-dead interviewer on the BBC the other day who couldn't seem to get their head around the reason for the rise in dementia. "So, people are living longer - could you explain why that leads to more dementia cases again?"
FWIW I used to work on a renal ward, and the number of very old patients who should have been allowed to die of renal failure (a very pleasant death, relatively speaking), who are kept alive on dialysis only to develop dementia was both maddening and heart-breaking.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021