431–440 of 890 posts
I went through the effort of canceling my NYT subscription this morning, and thankfully they have an option to cancel "using your account," which avoids a pointless phone call or virtual chat. It's the third option listed, of course, and there are a couple of guilt-trippy pages you have to slide past, but in all it took me 2 minutes to do.
I use Privacy.com and generate virtual credit card numbers. I cancel the credit card at the time of canceling the service (or at least trying to cancel the service).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like it better if the word "shall" was used instead of "should."
Aren’t that the same? I thought ‘must’ would be more appropriate.
There are probably some subtle connotational differences between "shall" and "must" that the average reader would not care about (and which I don't feel like figuring out)
> including an option that’s “at least as easy” as the one to subscribe Weirdly enough this sounds like a loophole. I can already see some companies trying to bullshit their way through an investigation: "Oh sure, we don't provide online cancellation, because our way to cancel is even easier than online:" * presents a way to cancel that is in practice more difficult than online *. I think either mandating that cancel…
> mandating that cancelling must be possible using the same workflow as subscription I'd rather not put into the law that strict a requirement on our UI design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure where you are, but if that’s in fact the case, your city would be violating the law in at least California, and likely several other states.
Not GP, but I've seen it in the Boston area.
The road is signed probably for 30 because that's what is was historically or that's what they got after evaluating what the confusing web of rules and regulations says it should be.
The lights are set up for 40-50 because the person responsible for tuning the light a) looked at existing traffic data and set the light to that or b) assessed the properties of the road using totally different measures and determined that's the speed traffic would go.
And the city doesn't change the sign to reflect the reality of the traffic because a) they'd have to re-navigate the web of rules to do that and b) shirking potential revenue is a fast track to a dead end job for bureaucrats in that state c) doing nothing is easy.
It's about trying to cancel your cable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5DeDLI8_IM
I totally agree that call to cancel is a PITA and companies should be called on the carpet for it. The prime example of this is when I tried to cancel my Consumer Reports subscription a few years ago and it required me to Snail Mail a cancellation. What hypocrisy. But government intervention and more red tape is not the answer. Public shaming and taking your business elsewhere works better and maintains freedom. Othe…
This was not borne out in practice. I, too, wish more consumers were discerning and picky, and I, too, dislike regulation, but this part of the argument against it isn't valid.
In Portugal the law makes it so you can cancel any service using the same means that you used to subscribe it, so if they support subscribing online, unsubscribing also has to be doable the same way; same goes for via phone, personal or whatnot. It makes sense, prevents service providers from making it too difficult to terminate a contract.
Portugal is logical on some stuff. Another example is prostitution is legal but you can only advertise yourself. I wonder what other countries have prostitution set up like this. Or the speed traps that just trigger a red light. Decriminalization of all drugs obviously too.
This is the best. You trigger a red light because you're speeding, and everybody around you just glares at you. Including the old woman walking on the side of the street.
It's like public shaming.
Thanks bud, because of you, now we all have to sit at this red light and wait. Good job.
That works so much better than the hidden speed camera ticket I get in the mail 6 months later, when I'm not even in Portugal anymore.
One is about slowing you down, the other is about revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like it better if the word "shall" was used instead of "should."
Aren’t that the same? I thought ‘must’ would be more appropriate.
"shall" indicates a requirement
"should" indicates a recommendation
"may" is used to indicate that something is permitted
"can" is used to indicate that something is possible, for example, that an organization or individual is able to do something
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Additionally, your suggestion of "must" has valid reasons for being preferred in contracts over "shall":
https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shal...