4 ms·
That’s definitely a thing too often. The “middlebrow rejection” or something like that. But in this case the OP got a message saying they had exceeded the limit
by ianai 5y ago
That’s definitely a thing too often. The “middlebrow rejection” or something like that. But in this case the OP got a message saying they had exceeded the limit and would get a refund. Then they repeated the transaction at the limit for a total of 20k.
From reading comments here it sounds like the author both misinterpreted things and also compulsively over deposited to test the governments software.
Testing government systems as an outsider is a really bad idea.
- cmeacham98 5y agoMaybe I was primed by the author because I was reading their article, but I understood it the same way they did - the entire $10k was rejected because it put them over the limit. I probably would have tried the same $9975 transaction they did.
- ianai 5y agoDidn’t they see at that point they were already down 10k? That’s what I thought they meant, from reading it.
- MarcoZavala 5y ago
- sacrosancty 5y agoMaybe I still don't understand but why didn't he get any I-bonds for either the $10k or the $9975 if they're only refunding the excess? What are you supposed to do if you over-pay? Wait for your refund before buying again?
- scarface74 5y agoAccording to their system yes. It’s a bad case of eventual consistency.
- Jenk 5y agoI like to think of it as an extension of Cunningham's Law[0] > Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." That is "post anything online and someone will point out you are doing it wrong" [0]: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law