41–50 of 272 posts
That voids Bank of America's security guarantee.[1] If you provide info for an ACH transfer, and the other party abuses that info, it's reversible. If you provide login info and the other party abuses that info, it's not.
[1] https://www.bankofamerica.com/online-banking/online-banking-...
As someone who occasionally does recruiting for developers and always do some quick searches for GitHub profiles. You'd be dropped as a potential candidate on our team if we stumbled upon this, "After he signed and I began building he decided to pivot and not pay me." Just screams unprofessionalism in my opinion.
This thing wants the password for your bank account? WTF? That's way more than it needs. Enough info to authorize an ACH transfer, maybe. But the login password for your bank account? No way. That voids Bank of America's security guarantee.[1] If you provide info for an ACH transfer, and the other party abuses that info, it's reversible. If you provide login info and the other party abuses that info, it's not. [1] ht…
I don’t like it either, but I’m not sure how you could get archaic banks and low-tech consumers to adopt something better.
As someone who occasionally does recruiting for developers and always do some quick searches for GitHub profiles. You'd be dropped as a potential candidate on our team if we stumbled upon this, "After he signed and I began building he decided to pivot and not pay me." Just screams unprofessionalism in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again. a) So would any competitor to the client. b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway.
> b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway. The AGPL covers using code in servers. They would have to provide code for any server side changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway. The AGPL covers using code in servers. They would have to provide code for any server side changes.
Only if anybody could verify such use...
As someone who occasionally does recruiting for developers and always do some quick searches for GitHub profiles. You'd be dropped as a potential candidate on our team if we stumbled upon this, "After he signed and I began building he decided to pivot and not pay me." Just screams unprofessionalism in my opinion.
I think there is a different way to phrase this, something like “this is the result of a collaboration that didn’t end up working out” or whatever. I get that it’s kind of mealy mouthed, but it avoids any aura of conflict in the evaluation.
This thing wants the password for your bank account? WTF? That's way more than it needs. Enough info to authorize an ACH transfer, maybe. But the login password for your bank account? No way. That voids Bank of America's security guarantee.[1] If you provide info for an ACH transfer, and the other party abuses that info, it's reversible. If you provide login info and the other party abuses that info, it's not. [1] ht…
The instructions asked me to provide account, card number and OTP login code... then it’s just a matter of scraping all my past 10 years transactions and keep the session alive to snoop on exactly how many condoms I buy...
Criminals
This thing wants the password for your bank account? WTF? That's way more than it needs. Enough info to authorize an ACH transfer, maybe. But the login password for your bank account? No way. That voids Bank of America's security guarantee.[1] If you provide info for an ACH transfer, and the other party abuses that info, it's reversible. If you provide login info and the other party abuses that info, it's not. [1] ht…
INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.
Also NAL, but my understanding is that if no "consideration" (something of value) changes hands, the contract is null and void. This is why people sell things for $1 instead of giving them away, or why executives take $1 salaries instead of working for free. Thus, if he really never received anything of value for the work, it's as if the contract never happened, and ownership of the IP remains with the person who cre…