FDSGSG

88 ms·

961.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
This is incorrect and not how paypal handles refunds. This is merchant 101: always refund suspicious payments before your payment processor has to do it, it'd be really bizarre if Paypal was somehow the only exception in the industry
962.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
I do payment processing for my SaaS products. Have used PP in the past, currently I only use stripe and bitcoin to receive payments.
963.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
In fact, it's a bit weird he didn't immediately refund the unexpected payment. Was he hoping to exploit the mistake and keep the money?
964.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> Sellers hate it I think this is almost exclusively small, inexperienced merchants.
965.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Can you name some payment processors which do care about their smaller merchants?
966.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>few days later I get a mail from the selling company asking why I locked their account for fraud protection or some such How come most of these stories seem to involve obviously incompetent merchants?
967.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>It took almost forever to get them to figure out that I was not asking for a refund. I was asking for somebody to explain what happened, apologize, and take steps for it not to happen again. This is not the payment processors job, this
968.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Do you work for merchantinc.com? They seem to own and operate paypalsucks.org and have a history of advertising themselves with forum spam similar to your comment.
969.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
PayPal, and the rest of the industry.
970.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> even with such high taxes are still insufficient as most of such countries are in the red This seems self-contradictory, how are the taxes insufficient if only most of such countries are in the red?
971.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Why would the customs not collect sales tax on gifts? They certainly do in the EU.
972.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
I've actually been to both, I'd definitely call Vegas underwhelming, not Macao.
973.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> sounds like things have changed Nope, compared to fixed-wing aircraft these things are still horribly unsafe.
974.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
This is a super disingenuous comparison.
975.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>other than a reason for Russia to do the same? lmao why would Russia need this reason?
976.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
There are so many cops going around with stingrays I sort of doubt that the FCC can be too aggressive about this stuff. I'd guess that the interference would have to be relatively major for them to show up very fast.
977.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Within minutes? Seems optimistic.
978.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Who cares? This isn't supposed to stop anyone from intentionally doing bad things, this is supposed to make people stop and think "Huh, maybe I'm just not supposed to forward this email" It's really bizarre that so
979.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>All it does is fool a bunch of less-tech-savvy people into a false sense of security. Nonsense, it does a great job of discouraging people from forwarding, copying, printing or downloading the emails contents. Sure, it'll do nothin
980.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>reading way too far into it Dunno, your earlier comments seem to imply otherwise: >we'd like to know that its not heavily degrading to the existing purpose... which is why we'd like numbers
981.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Why do you think that this specific change would make ssh not "work at all" as opposed to the hundreds of other changes that happen? Do you even pay close attention to those changes? I for sure don't. Why are you concerned ab
982.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> presumably a lot of work How come?
983.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
If you suspect I am participating in a disinformation campaign you should email hn@ycombinator.com rather than post these silly insinuations. I'm not going to waste my time trying to provide you with facts disputing a claim that has ze
984.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Are they actually blocking outgoing packets to the IPs or injecting RSTs or blocking incoming packets from those IPs? I don't have a Chinese connection to test from right now.
985.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
I wouldn't bet on him getting extradited, in the end it'll be a political decision and historically the UK press hasn't exactly been kind on the UK/US extradition treaty.
986.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
GFW has many ways of blocking things, I would assume that they just aren't blocking all traffic to telegram IPs.
987.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
That doesn't really change anything I said, pointing out the correlation is very different from tracing the attacks. A better headline for this story would've been "Telegram Faces Cyber Attack During Hong Kong Protests"
988.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
While it's very likely these attacks are related to HK protests, it's simply not true that Telegram has "traced" this attack to China. "IP addresses coming mostly from China" accurately describes most botnets,
989.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
What a weird title. Telegram says this is mostly affecting the Americas https://twitter.com/telegram/status/1138768124914929664 The article itself says "IP addresses coming mostly from China" which would
990.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> Thankfully, the EU disagrees with you The EU doesn't disagree with me. Some people involved may be asking questions, but that doesn't mean that the EU disagrees with me. If the EU disagreed with me we'd know, as they&#

More ›