61–70 of 512 posts
I don't think this is a defense against bots. Virtual keyboards were created primarily as a defense against keyloggers, IMHO.
I don't think this is generally worth it as a security measure, but the goal is not to protect against automation. Instead, custom on-screen keyboards are attempts to thwart keyloggers.
> This pseudo-security measure actually only slows down humans, not bots, because you can still edit the value of the text field using Javascript I don't think this is a defense against bots. Virtual keyboards were created primarily as a defense against keyloggers, IMHO.
TLDR: this is indeed BS security theatre along the same lines of blocking password managers.
The venn diagram of internet users that read about super specific financial products, decide to buy them, while not even understanding the need to keep an emergency fund such that a move like this leaves them with under $200 in their account seems to be growing. It seems to be a weird mix of wall street cosplay and financial ineptitude.
If I ever feel an urge to try out test cases on banking apps, hopefully I'll think of this story and stop.
This is what gets me. I would *never* send $10k just to see what happens in that scenario. Why would I want to risk that something goes awry???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very high risk? A bigger war than WWII? They are losing? Citation needed and who is they if you don't mean us.
OP wrote (admittedly wordy), “metrics like debt to GDP indicate they're currently fighting a bigger war than WWII,” Meaning that the GDP trends as if we’re in a WW3 situation and loosing, not that we are. I.E the GDP/debt metric appears to be as bad as if we were loosing a war when in fact we’re not even fighting one. Ironically I disagree with both points. Yes the economy is bad, yes it will get worse but: - I don't…
Alternative title: "I purposefully tried to make a transaction that breaks the rules, it didn't end well."
So if someone makes an honest mistake and types and extra number, it's OK to both 1) don't process any amount and 2) hold the money for two months. That doesn't feel right to me. E.g. I buy shares and mistype the ticker or buy extra. It processes but then I notice my mistake and I can either fix it by selling, or decide ir doesn't matter and keep the shares. What doesn't make any sense is the broker keeping the money…
Author admits they screwed up, decided to share the screwup, and who hasnt been trough that exact dunder blunder?
Fun short read 8/10.
The venn diagram of internet users that read about super specific financial products, decide to buy them, while not even understanding the need to keep an emergency fund such that a move like this leaves them with under $200 in their account seems to be growing. It seems to be a weird mix of wall street cosplay and financial ineptitude.
The problem is, giving financial advice en-masse is very expensive and risky for a company. You need to ask a lot of questions about the users situation (assets, debt, income, dependants, etc) to make an informed decision. If you give bad financial advice, your putting yourself at big legal risk. The language has to be very specific (aka hard to understand for normal humans). And often the advice comes out as rather un-opinionated and general, which for most people means it's hard to actually action and put in place. All in all, it's a big investment, big cost, stresses out your legal team - which means less companies choose to do it, which in turn make it less accessible.
The alternative camp is very clearly just choosing to give 0 advice. Just giving access to investment products, with a full hands off 'make your own choices man' approach. Think robinhood. This is where people make mistakes.
The weird thing is while legitimate companies are afraid of giving advice, anyone with a social media presence can get online and talk whatever smack they want, with very little worry of blowback. One of the biggest mistakes I see is somebody from one country (say AU) watching a youtuber talking about another country (say US) like it's a universal truth. Different financial systems have their own metas depending on government retirement schemes, importance of credit scores, mortgage systems etc. Most useful and practical advice is country specific.
Legislation has just fully failed to protect consumers from bad advice, by making the barrier to entry so high for legitimate companies looking to inform at scale that it's not financially viable - compared to just doing the hands off 'not our problem man' approach. They've also done nothing to stop people taking advice from randoms online (not that they really could). Unfortunately visiting a personalised financial advisor in the same way you'd visit a doctor, is just expensive and not an option for most.