41–50 of 80 posts
And of course I realize the OP could have done both, but I am trying to balance rolling on coke with drinking whiskey so please accept my acknowledgment
Few weeks ago my bank force me to use password and SMS code for transactions because of EU regulations. But if I would use app (which I won't), I don't have to use any passwords. Which EU regulation tell banks to use SMS and password to make transactions without app?
A Google search will surface help pages from most European financial regulators and payment processors and banks. For instance, [1-3].
The rollout was delayed a couple of times so cutoff dates mentioned on older pages may well have shifted. In the UK, the cutoff date was 14 March 2022.
[1] https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/strong-customer-authentication
[2] https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/our-expertise/cards/card-paymen...
[3] https://www.visa.co.uk/partner-with-us/payment-technology/st...
In the time it took the OP to screenshot this and post it across several social media channels, they could’ve closed their account and joined a bank without such BS restrictions. But gotta get those upvotes. And of course I realize the OP could have done both, but I am trying to balance rolling on coke with drinking whiskey so please accept my acknowledgment
This is pretty lame BS. I am literally right in the middle of building a public web app ( also for a bank) that does not have any sort of arbitrary user agent constraints. As long as your browser supports reasonably-modern things like flexbox and media queries, my app is just going to work on your machine. Even if it doesn't support these things, I don't see any reason to artificially get in the way of something you…
CIBC (another bank here) has been doing this for at least 15 years by offering seemingly 'cheaper' banking services using the same systems but different brands (eg PC financial). The downmarket brand seems cheaper on the surface but they take away all the costly things the flagship brand gives away (eg in-person banking, no fee transactions, etc) and charge [more] for them.
Our telcos here do the same thing with MVNOs (eg Rogers, the flagship brand, owns Chatr, for poor ppl).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Falling market share in a growing market doesn't necessarily mean falling total usage. Additionally, the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. Not a market you necessarily want to ignore.
> the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. That’s some weird projection that made me laugh. I used to use firefox everyday until it became too annoying and I moved on to another browser and never looked back. Firefox used to be great but those days are long gone.
Serious question: I love FF because of many reasons, but "additional voice at the web standard group" is quite far down the list for me. The top reasons I'm using FF right now are the features, namely high customizability on everything, TreeStyleTab, Picture in Picture mode with subtitle support, container tabs, all the privacy stuffs, and so on. How hard is it to have all these features with another engine like Webk…
I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
Seems like you forgot what it was like when Internet Explorer was the dominating browser.
I really have no sympathy for a $100/h web developer that has no time to check with Firefox every once in a while that their Chromeism works over there as well. It's not like Firefox is a buggy browser that requires tons of work.
It's pure laziness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bank. If a customer uses Firefox and loses money because of a Firefox bug or incompatibility, who do you think will be liable? The customer? No way. The bank is on the hook because it's their website that resulted in the loss. So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality. When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sen…
not at the bank i work for. they have some sites that only work in chrome, some that only work in edge, some that only work in internet explorer, and absolutely nobody cares except for some pedantic nerds like me. fixing the problems would cost more than any potential errors they might have.
Anecdotally, if you use firefox on android to sign in to a wells fargo account you will get a shitload more captchas and extra verification steps to actually login than if you use chrome, or their officially published app. This is not how the web was supposed to be.