Good luck with the chargeback. I tried to open one with Amex online and it was insta-denied with a note to the effect that I needed to work it out with Ticketmaster myself. I'm hoping Amex phone support is willing to work with me, whenever I make it through.
Ticketmaster's phone support tells you to open a live chat, then hangs up on you. When you open a live chat you get a canned response that the show is postponed and to go away until it's either canceled or rescheduled... then auto ends chat.
If nothing else, I can at least enjoy the minor irony that is getting fucked by the machine over a few Rage Against the Machine tickets.
When you open a chargeback case with Amex there’s a question specifically along the lines of “have you attempted to resolve this with the merchant?” They won’t start a case without it. After you affirm that you have attempted resolution with the merchant they ask for a summary. That’s where you’d list the times and substance of your (attempted) contact with the merchant. Neither condition is onerous or impractical. Did you do both of those things?
After the due diligence I’ve never heard of a case where Amex didn’t side with the consumer.
Yes, the described interaction with TM went down prior to contacting Amex, and was relayed to Amex. The form originally submitted for the online dispute detailed that, but the dispute was still instantly denied.
There is very clearly a relationship between Amex and TM where TM is receiving preferential treatment, as TM transactions no longer even show a dispute option online.
You can sue almost anybody anywhere for anything. Whether you'll prevail on your claims is another question. What makes you think that such a lawsuit would prevail? E.g. have you read amex's terms and did they agree there to arbitrate disputes unconditionally? Or is there a law you're aware of that requires them to?
Unless you happen to be in the state of their HQ, Amex could have any such suit removed to federal court (in which there is no small claims) under diversity jursdiction, which would suddenly make it painfully expensive (compared to small claims) to pursue even if it had merit.
Stories like this almost certainly exist for Visa and Mastercard too. The set of credit card companies that have no instances of an event like that is null. So if you want to avoid any credit card company where someone has had a bad chargeback experience, you're just not going to be able to use credit cards.
To note, Amex is both a payment processor and a card issuer - Visa/MC aren't card issuers, so chargebacks aren't decided by them, they're decided by the issuing bank.
Amex has by far the best record for customers wrt chargebacks. Most companies I start do not even accept Amex for this reason. I had contracts with them in the past where we were not even allowed to fight chargebacks in the first year of the account.
To pile on against X11 over ssh, forwarding on a modern Linux workstation is spectacularly painful. I recently needed to forward a lightweight gtk app from one workstation to another over 10gbe and a single switch hop.
With ssh and X forwarding, my local gnome constantly threw up modal dialogs that the forwarded window was unresponsive, forcing me to keep clicking "Wait" to dismiss the modal, then quickly interact with the forwarded window before the next "unresponsive" modal popped up.
Forwarding Firefox over X11 _sometimes_ works. Sometimes Firefox on the remote machine will try to join the session of your local firefox -- but fail and then complain that there's Firefox already running. Adding `--new-instance` helps if Firefox is running in a container and X11 socket file is forwarded to the container but it doesn't seem to help if X11 is forwarded over SSH.
Firefox is running on the remote, connected to a different X11 session. It is not running on the local. When I use `firefox --new-session --no-remote` on the remote, I see a dialog pop up on my local machine stating Firefox is already running, but is not responding. To open a new window, you must first close the existing Firefox process, or restart your system.
Yes, this is because firefox doesn't allow multiple ff instances to use the same profile at the same time. You can ask firefox to create a new profile (`firefox -ProfileManager`) and then use a seperate profile for the remote instance
I get where you are coming from but given the walled garden there is no need to kill the severs. Merely blocking all clients from
the Apple Store and the Play Store would accomplish the same thing, federated or not.
Android sideloading has been progressively weakened. Google’s plans for AOSP are that sideloading will soon require using the ADB debugging bridge, which would require enabling developer mode on Android versions that allow it (which would scare most ordinary people away) and would be impossible on Android versions where the manufacturer has forbidden it.
While Signal would prefer that most people with Play store use Play store, downloaded APKs are not entirely unendorsed. Firstly, Signal continues to offer an APK for download. Secondly, if you install Signal from the downloaded APK, then Signal acts as its own app store in order to prompt the user to install updates when available.
And for a very good reason. They're also offering the APK for those that need it, and they might make it more accessible e.g. for US users if EARN IT passes.
Am I mistaken or isn't there some way in which Signal effectively prevents anyone from running their own server? I seem to recall hearing this.
(I mean, there's the obvious practical problem that the official server URL is hardcoded into the app, so if you wanted to use your own server you'd have to build your own copies of the app for you and your communicants, but other than that...?)
A pile of separate Signal clones = zero interoperability = zero functionality. So that's why there aren't any.
You could solve that by Federating, except... Federation would be lovely if you could actually deliver Signal's goals and do federation for free, but what we always see from proponents of Federation is that was their goal and so they're done. Oh you wanted security? Sorry, we federated everything, so you'll need to get every single member of the federation on board with every single change you need, we know you can't get that done but that's fine because our priority was federating stuff, so we are successful, shame about your goals.
As an example, somebody earlier in this thread mentions you can "just" know who is communicating with who anyway. Signal got rid of that, because they can, and it's a security improvement, so they put all the work in and did it. Now even Signal's own servers don't know who sent most messages! "Sealed Sender" means Signal has no idea who is sending this message to my friend Steve. Maybe it's me? No idea. It just has to be somebody who Steve allows to send him messages. Could be Steve loves spam and so it's a spammer. Could be Steve loves the AfD and so it's a Nazi. No way to know without reading the message which only Steve's Signal client can do.
Now imagine trying to roll that out to a federated system. After years of effort maybe you switch it on, and then you find a bug and have to switch it off again for a few years while you fix that. Hopeless.
> You could solve that by Federating, except... Federation would be lovely if you could actually deliver Signal's goals and do federation for free, but what we always see from proponents of Federation is that was their goal and so they're done. Oh you wanted security? Sorry, we federated everything, so you'll need to get every single member of the federation on board with every single change you need, we know you can't get that done but that's fine because our priority was federating stuff, so we are successful, shame about your goals.
I have a lot of serious criticisms of Matrix, to the point where I don't recommend it to friends (yet?), but this feels like an unfair and unserious criticism. I don't think you can fault their motives.
And as another user points out, if Signal goes down in the United States because of legislation, so much for the supposed convenience of your non-federated central server approach! If that happens I'll take Matrix over nothing, thanks.
But conversely, if legislation really succeeds in killing Signal in the entirety of US (and EU won't be far behind!) to the point where they're forced to use geo-IP blocks, the end result is still strictly worse off.
If you care so much about uncensorable resilient service you probably already use either jailbroken iOS or Android. And if you don't, then do. iOS has a 13% market share anyways.
Signal is open source. If you want to develop and host your own Signal, go right ahead. You’d just be opening yourself up to the same problem facing the Signal Foundation.
As it is, the Signal Foundation would suddenly be open to lawsuits, and they’re the main developers of Signal.
He's not wrong either. That UI is older than Windows 95 (which stole and misused some of its look and UI elements, that is an iconify control dammit) but it still looks fresh, simple, and get-the-job-done. As well as ignoring the "flat" trend and the "pretend to be a touch UI" trend.
The "Maximize" icon in Windows is clearly a stylized depiction of a window with a toolbar, sized to fit the button on which it is. I don't know if it's the perfect icon for this action, but it makes a lot of sense. Why should it stand for iconification, even if Windows still had that feature (last time it did was Win 3.11)
In the context of Nextspace, Nextstep, or Windowmaker, it stands for Iconificaiton because it is "clearly a stylized depiction of" the icon that appears when a window is iconified.
Compare the iconify button with the icons representing iconified windows below:
I wish something like this existed that could additionally proxy FCM notifications. Allowing push notifications without any Google involvement is the ideal long term goal, but one transitional path I dream about would be forcing Google to proxy all their notifications through a host of your choice (ideally that you control).
I think I have about 30 false start projects with names like PushMux and rough outlines on potential ways to accomplish it.
Tangentially, I also dream of having true one-way push notifications. Send a minimal notification to the target device via FLEX/POCSAG or even one-way Iridium, and allow the device to connect to the internet as needed to fetch the rest of the notification.
Qualcomm alone covers 40%, and they're arguably the most likely to correctly implement their MMU (nevermind they've seen quite a few vulnerabilities in their MMU implementations over the years..)
Meditek uses a similar architecture, and I sure as hell don't trust their MMU.
Outside of Apple, Librem and Pine are just about the only way you're getting a USB attached baseband.
You start off trying to claim the entire class of vulnerability isn't possible because a few vendors made sane architectural decisions. When it's pointed out those sane vendors are in the minority, and there are real world examples of the terrible shared memory architecture being exploited, you scoff at the example being for a single device.
Nobody is claiming baseband == root, only that the terrible architecture prevalent in Android phones (the devices that make up the majority of the market) combined with the terrible software practices of SoC vendors results in a situation far more likely to be exploitable than shunting the baseband off on a non-dma capable bus.
Ticketmaster's phone support tells you to open a live chat, then hangs up on you. When you open a live chat you get a canned response that the show is postponed and to go away until it's either canceled or rescheduled... then auto ends chat.
If nothing else, I can at least enjoy the minor irony that is getting fucked by the machine over a few Rage Against the Machine tickets.