Fuck you, Wikipedia
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I said ads. Not screen-hijacking, virus-installing, CPU-stealing half-assed pieces of shit that don't even work right half the time and land you on a page unrelated to what it showed.
So if your and everyone else's theory about Wikimedia Foundation being greedy
Huh? That's the first time I hear it. Nobody here said anything about them being particularly greedy. It's all about honesty. Their sobby popups almost qualify as charity fraud.
Try this: go to TVTropes, disable all ad blocking, and say if these ads are something to lose sleep over.
No thanks, I am not disabling any ad blocking, much less all of it.
Admit it -- you would accept ads over donation just because you can block ads and be done with it.
I have a quite comprehensive whitelist. I hate bad ads, but I don't mind good ads. Your reaction to the idea of disabling ad blocking on TVTropes (which has some of the least intrusive ads ever) reeks of serious paranoia.
Problem is that if everyone else does the same
And here's your problem: it turns out most people don't block ads. Especially among Americans it's rare.
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Did you stop to actually dig up the financial statements and see how much money they actually spend on these things you listed, and how much goes to what's best described as total waste?
Is there an itemized financial report I can read somewhere which shows their spending on "total waste"?
With your reading comprehension and inability to process such simple words as "best described as", I doubt there's any financial report you can read.
Why don't you make a site so big, useful, and popular where so many people all around the globe contribute out of their free will?
Why don't YOU make one? What kind of argument is that even? I never made anything with billion monthly views so I'm not allowed to have opinion on charity marketing?
It's all envy and sour grapes, that's what it is.
I think you're confusing basic human decency for sour grapes.
-
@hungrier said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@PleegWat said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@anonymous234 said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
"Donate $45.35 today! Just the price of a cup of coffee!"
C|N>K
I'm not familiar with this Game of Thrones fan theory
(ignoring @PleegWat's reply) A new unicode character that's not supported in the browser yet?
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I wouldn't mind ads, though.
I wouldn't mind on desktop — because I have pretty much every ad thoroughly blocked; I'd never see them. Mobile is different. May everyone who creates the ads, buys the ads, sells the ads, distributes the ads, or touches the ads in any way anywhere in the process drown in that NSFW fountain at the party in San Francisco, and may the contents of which be infected with every STD known and a few unknown ones just for added excitement.
-
@hungrier said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Why don't you make a site so big, useful, and popular where so many people all around the globe contribute out of their free will?
"Don't criticize if you haven't done it yourself" is the dumbest form of internet argumentation
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Mobile is different.
Firefox Fast & Private Browser - Apps on Google Play
Only non-profit-backed browser that is secure, private & fast
-
@Gąska How well does it cope with having more tabs open on a phone than a sane person would have on several high-end desktops?
-
@HardwareGeek no worse than Chrome, I'd assume. Especially after you install uBlock Origin to block
crypto minersresourse-intensive ads.It's free. Try it.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Is there an itemized financial report I can read somewhere which shows their spending on "total waste"?
If they're 501c, then that's literally required.... yeah?
-
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Your reaction to the idea of disabling ad blocking on TVTropes (which has some of the least intrusive ads ever) reeks of serious paranoia.
Have you ever browsed it on mobile? Redirect attacks and other malware-posing-as-ads run rampant.
-
@hungrier said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Why don't you make a site so big, useful, and popular where so many people all around the globe contribute out of their free will?
"Don't criticize if you haven't done it yourself" is the dumbest form of internet argumentation
Says the man who can't make a specious argument of his own.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska How well does it cope with having more tabs open on a phone than a sane person would have on several high-end desktops?
Mobile Chrome gives me a smiley face:
I only know for sure that my tab count on my phone is between 102 and 103.
Filed under: Bitches love smiley faces.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Gąska said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Your reaction to the idea of disabling ad blocking on TVTropes (which has some of the least intrusive ads ever) reeks of serious paranoia.
Have you ever browsed it on mobile?
Yes, all the time.
Redirect attacks and other malware-posing-as-ads run rampant.
Really? Never noticed that.
-
@error said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Mobile Chrome gives me a smiley face:
Oh, I'm very well aware of that, believe me. Yes, indeed.
The question was about mobile Firefox, and I was asking about its performance with many tabs open, not how it tells you you have too many.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
That's exactly the case here because none of you knows shit about running an organization the scale of Wikimedia Foundation yet you pretend to be fucking financial experts and scoff at people doing real, recognizable, respected, work
Oh please
Just fuck off with your silly bullshit.However, you did raise the bar when you said that they have too much people, that they do basically nothing, and that most of the stuff they are paying for are a waste of money.
Because it's true.
The Wikimedia Foundation has more than 300 employees. How many of them create content for Wikipedia -- ZERO.
The Wikimedia Foundation has annual revenue of more than $100 Million. How much of that is paid to the people who create the content found on Wikipedia -- ZERO.
Did any of you stop to consider the costs of:
Hosting --
Wikimedia's hosting costs are a couple million a year. That's a documented fact.
Activism -- public relationships, partnerships with companies such as >Google, raising awareness
Unnecessary bullshit. A bunch of people trying to come up with new creative ways to spend more money so they can justify their existence.
Legal -- costs of fighting against censorship, against new bad laws, and for >open licenses
More creative spending bullshit -- that doesn't require hundreds of millions of dollars.
And lets not forget office space in San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in the country. What Wikimedia does -- the legitimate parts -- could be done literally from anywhere. Of course, small modest accommodations wouldn't be sexy enough for the massive egos and prima donnas at Wikimedia.
Do you think they need just 3 or perhaps 30 people to run everything or what?
If you can't do what Wikimedia does -- the legitimate parts -- with 30-40 people, and I'm being overly generous here, you are criminally incompetent.
And yes, I have substantial business experience to back that up. Something which YOU obviously do not have, because you obviously believe that just because a website is heavily accessed it requires the same manpower and resources as a factory that manufactures millions of tons of physical products.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Jimmy Wales used to brag about how little it took to run Wikipedia. Since then, everything has only gotten faster and more powerful. The Interwebs scales very nicely. And the fact remains, Wikimedia wastes 90% of it's money on vanity and unnecessary bullshit.
.
The great Red Foreman said it best:
-
@error said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@hungrier said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Why don't you make a site so big, useful, and popular where so many people all around the globe contribute out of their free will?
"Don't criticize if you haven't done it yourself" is the dumbest form of internet argumentation
Says the man who can't make a specious argument of his own.
[citation needed]
-
@error_bot define specious
-
Merriam-Webster said:
specious
spe*cious
\ˈspē-shəs\ adjectiveMiddle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species(1513)1 (obsolete) : showy
2 :having deceptive attraction or allure
3 :having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic - specious reasoning
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
- How much of Wikimedia's spending was from YOUR money?
Not a penny.
- How much of your bank's spending on "vanity and unnecessary bullshit" was from YOUR money?
Not much. Let's see, there's a small annual fee for my credit card, occasionally a little interest on said credit card balance (I rarely use it, so rarely have a balance to accrue interest), even more rarely a fee for an overdraft or some other out-of-the-ordinary occurrence, and partially offset by the interest they pay me on my savings account (ridiculously small, but at least it's not negative). They provide a service to me which costs me less than the value of the service; it is mostly funded by the interest they earn from the money I and others deposit with them, not by me giving them money.
In other words, you are pissed at a non-profit organization which is spending someone else's money from totally optional donations, and you are not mad at your bank for spending YOUR money
My bank is a for-profit corporation, and they are very profitable. If they want to spend some of that profit (or what would be profit if they didn't spend it) on "luxuries," it's really no skin off my back. (What, I might get $0.11/month interest on my savings account if they cut costs instead of $0.10? Yeah, I'm going to cry a river over that.)
Their "lavish buildings" and "luxury enteriers" (whatever those are; did you mean interiors?) are not all that lavish and luxurious. The days when banks built buildings like this are long gone, at least in the US. Yeah, they have a glass skyscraper for their HQ, but most of their branches are more likely to look like this former fast-food restaurant. Actually, that building, wherever it is, looks more stylish than most branches of my bank (none of which turned up in my image search, but I wasn't searching specifically for my bank).
My bank is a corporation with stockholders who will complain if the bank spends too much money irresponsibly, because it's THEIR money the bank is spending, not mine. I'm just a customer. As long as the bank continues to provide banking services at reasonable fees, which are less than the value of the service to me, I have no particular concern with how they spend their income.
Wikimedia, OTOH, is a non-profit that is always begging for money, trying to guilt-trip people into donating because Wikipedia might shut down if they don't. As a potential donor, I have two primary questions about any organization I might consider donating to.
- Is their goal something I agree with and support?
- Is my money going to be used for the purpose I donate it? This includes things like how much goes toward administrative overhead, waste, or other goals that I don't support.
Wikimedia passes test 1, kinda; running Wikipedia is something I agree with, but not something I care enough about to give them money. But if they're wasting money on extravagant unrelated expenditures or hoarding it so they don't really need additional funds at this time, that fails test 2.
Failing test 2 is sufficient for a solid "No;" combine it with a very lukewarm result from test 1, and the answer is "HELL NO!"
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
My bank is a corporation with stockholders who will complain if the bank spends too much money irresponsibly, because it's THEIR money the bank is spending, not mine.
In theory. In practice, how many shareholders are there with a large enough stake to get any attention paid to their complaints, and how many of those are not already people with decision-maker level roles at the corporation? (In any publicly-traded entity, not just this bank.)
-
@Mason_Wheeler True, the vast majority of the stock is held by big, institutional investors. If I were a stockholder, I'd have zero influence on how the company is run. But those big, institutional investors tend to be pretty protective of their investments (at least I think they do), because it's all about the bottom line.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
How much of Wikimedia's spending was from YOUR money?
The ten bucks I gave them when I was a gullible teenager and didn't know any better.
-
@Deadfast ditto. But that was from my taxes (Poland allows 1% of your taxes to go to a non-profit of your choice; I only worked for 4 months that year).
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
it is mostly funded by the interest they earn from the money I and others deposit with them, not by me giving them money.
If the interest being earned by the bank is not paid into the accounts of the depositors, then it is actually them spending money that could have been yours (assuming you have deposits).
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
In any case, being enraged that they are spending money even if you did not give them any, while turning a blind eye to the legalized loansharks you are forced to do business with is akin to not seeing the forest from the trees.
Stop being retarded. People are upset about the sob stories they shove in your face pretending that they're starving African children who just want to get that damn fly out of their eye but they just don't have the energy because no one would pay the equivalent of a cup of coffee per week to provide emergency sustenance and OH MY GOD the gas pain in that bloated belly you.
Why are you sticking up for those guys?
Bank is earning big money from investing your money that sits on your savings (and checking) accounts.
Same for any credits and loans.
So it is quite literally skin off your back.Do you feel bad for paying for food, too? Seriously, you are going full retard here, even for you.
-
@TheCPUWizard said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
it is mostly funded by the interest they earn from the money I and others deposit with them, not by me giving them money.
If the interest being earned by the bank is not paid into the accounts of the depositors, then it is actually them spending money that could have been yours (assuming you have deposits).
I already addressed that. If they used that money to pay higher interest to depositors, given the abysmal interest rates being paid by all banks in this economy, I might earn an extra $0.01/month. BFD.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Also, the donation plea gets shown ONCE A YEAR.
Just a remark: I haven't seen their banners for quite a while, but at one time they would actually pop up again after a couple of months. No idea if it was just randomized at some point and thus meant that you could see them more frequently than expected (see birthday paradox), but it sure was more often than just once a year.
Creating an account and logging in would nearly always remove them though, so in a way they do give back to their editors.
-
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Also, the donation plea gets shown ONCE A YEAR.
Bullshit. It appears more often than that.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The farmers who grow the food I am paying for aren't fucking millionaires
With the slow death of the small farmer, unless you are very picky, you are very likely buying food from those mega-farms and those are owned by millionaire (in some cases billionaires).
and they aren't profiting of someone else's misfortune
While you can always find a sob story of a bank screwing someone over. The reality is that banks make more money if their clients are prosperous, so it is in their best interest for their customers to succeed.
not to mention that everyone can grow their own food
That is simply patently untrue. Most people can grow some food and supplement (to varying degrees) their normal purchases, very few people have the ability to grow their own food entirely (or even substantially).
but they can't run their own bank.
This is relevant how?
Bank is earning big money from investing your money that sits on your savings (and checking) accounts.
Same for any credits and loans.
So it is quite literally skin off your back.
Please explain how it is literally skin off of my back?
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
I have better things to be enraged about.
Me too but I've seen the banners more than once in 2019.
-
You're still an asshole but I upvoted you because that comic made me actually laugh out loud.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The farmers who grow the food I am paying for aren't fucking millionaires
You should watch Food, Inc. Some of them are essentially indentured servants.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
You got that part wrong dude -- banks make the most money from those with poor impulse control, and from those who have the lowest income.
As a matter of fact, it is always people with the lowest income who are likely to be indebted to the bank by means of overdraft or revolving credit, and paying outrageous interest rates on their debt. That's how banks make the large chunk of their money.
Here in Serbia a higher than average pension is 300 EUR (yes, there are even lower ones).
Of course, you can't survive with that kind of money at all. So, most pensioners are persistently in overdraft by at least as much as their pension is, and the banks encourage them to get indebted more by issuing them revolving credit cards. Interest rate on overdraft can be as high as 38% annually which means that each one of them makes 114 EUR per year for their bank in pure profit because they cannot afford to get out of said overdraft, let alone get to the point where they can make any savings.Outside of that math not working, I was arguing from a US perspective. Which admittedly I did not preface. I can't rightly say how it works outside of the US.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
As for the USA you had your own version of banks robbing people blind back in 2008 if I remember correctly.
You do not. The US government decided that poor people needed houses so they heavily encouraged banks to take on bad loans to let these people have houses. This went poorly. The banks didn't want these loans, because they don't make enough money from poor people to justify the risk.
They were deemed too big to fail, bailed out by tax money and quite a lot of golden parachutes popped open.
The US government had told the banks to back the bad loans and that the US government would back them, as far as the banks were concerned, they had entered into a deal with the government prior to the crash. So they kinda had to bail them out, as the government caused the problem. Other entities that were heavily invested in the markets also ate shit and they did get bailed out, which is a boondoggle of epic proportion.
What happened to the victims?
Well, most of the people that should have never qualified for a house to begin with lost their houses and ruined any credit that they might have built up. This caused a series of other ripple effects as well.
This was not the direct fault of the banks (though they played their part). I am not going to say that they were blameless in this (they weren't) but at the end of the day, the vast majority of the sub-prime loans that were the root of the issue would have been denied by the banks if it were not for the government intervening.
-
@Dragoon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The reality is that banks make more money if their clients are prosperous, so it is in their best interest for their customers to succeed.
If so, why does the "structuring withdrawals to maximize overdraft fees" scam exist?
In 2017, banks made $34B on overdraft fees alone. That's 34 billion dollars taken from people who literally have no money. Seems to me they consider it to be in their best interest for their customers to be destitute!
-
@Dragoon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Most people can grow some food and supplement (to varying degrees) their normal purchases
Many apartment and other urban dwellers can't even do that.
My apartment has a deck on which I have many potted plants, including some tomatoes, strawberries, herbs, and other edible things. Although I was able to pick some fresh herbs when I wanted something to cook with, only about 4 or 5 tomatoes (from a half-dozen plants) developed, and I was only able to harvest 2 or 3 (birds or squirrels got the others). I never saw a single strawberry. It's just too shady (and squirrely, but mostly shady). It's possible some of the potatoes I planted (sprouted before I could cook them, so stuck them in a pot) developed, but I doubt it; the squirrels were pretty enthusiastic at digging stuff out of pots.
-
@Dragoon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Well, most of the people that should have never qualified for a house to begin with lost their houses and ruined any credit that they might have built up.
That happened to well-qualified buyers, too. My wife and I had bought our house about a dozen years before things went bad. Before the crash, we had significant equity in our house and good credit. Unfortunately, I was unemployed for almost the entire recession. We ate up all our savings, including retirement savings (paying substantial tax penalties to Uncle Sam for it), but managed to keep up payments for almost 2 1/2 years. But finally we ran out of money. We called both the bank that held our mortgage and the bank that held our equity LOC and explained the situation; soon we were going to start getting behind. The bank that held our LOC (call them bank A) was very cooperative; 5 minutes on the phone, and they changed our loan to interest-only, cutting the payment by >70%. We had also refinanced the mortgage through bank A, but they had sold the loan to B, who sold it to ShitiBank. (I had previous bad experience with ShitiBank and would never, under any circumstances, willingly done business with them again, but I had no control over the bank's sale of the loan.)
ShitiBank refused to even discuss it with us until we were already delinquent. They flat-out lied to us about our eligibility for Federal assistance. They did eventually give us a forbearance, but not until we were already in default. They eventually initiated foreclosure (and to add insult to injury, scheduled the auction on my wife's birthday). We explored bankruptcy, which would have blocked the foreclosure, but we didn't have the money to pay the filing fee and mandatory pre-bankruptcy counseling, so we reluctantly put the house on the market, priced to sell quickly, before the foreclosure auction, and found a buyer. ShitiBank wouldn't even agree to postpone the auction, so the sale could proceed, until 22:00 the night before it was scheduled to be auctioned at 08:00.
Sure, high-risk loans were a major part of the problem. But there are definitely greedy banks out there who deliberately made things worse for long-time homeowners who found themselves in difficult circumstances.
(Admittedly, we weren't blameless in the situation. If we had controlled our spending better while I was unemployed, we could have continued making payments for a few more months, which might have delayed the foreclosure and forced sale; a month and a half later, I had a job and could have resumed making payments. Also, my (now ex-)wife is a tough negotiator; she's a bulldog who won't let go until she's gotten at least some kind of concession, if there's any possible concession to be had, while I'm a wimp, but at some point she'd had enough and left the rest of the negotiating to me without telling me she expected me to take over. If she'd continued negotiating, we might have been able to stretch the forbearance another couple of months.)
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Many apartment and other urban dwellers can't even do that.
Yeah, I should have expanded. I was going more with their physical ability to actually grow food, not even the availability of the actual resources, which further reduces the number of people who could actually support themselves.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
If so, why does the "structuring withdrawals to maximize overdraft fees" scam exist?
I didn't say banks don't make money off of poor people, I said they make more money off of prosperous people.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
If so, why does the "structuring withdrawals to maximize overdraft fees" scam exist?
Does it? My bank processes all credits for the day before debits, such that even if I ended up in the red for some amount of time, so long as I transferred in enough to get back in the black everything was fine at 3am the following morning.
On the other side, I accidentally stayed in the red because I wasn't paying attention twice in the last month (something that's only happened once ever previously. I blame unexpectedly not getting paid for this issue.) and the overdraft protection fee was $12 (that was waived because I'm a "premium member" automatically).
What banks are doing this?
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
How much of your bank's spending on "vanity and unnecessary bullshit" was from YOUR money?
Probably none. They create their own money all the time.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
If so, why does the "structuring withdrawals to maximize overdraft fees" scam exist?
Does it? My bank processes all credits for the day before debits, such that even if I ended up in the red for some amount of time, so long as I transferred in enough to get back in the black everything was fine at 3am the following morning.
On the other side, I accidentally stayed in the red because I wasn't paying attention twice in the last month (something that's only happened once ever previously. I blame unexpectedly not getting paid for this issue.) and the overdraft protection fee was $12 (that was waived because I'm a "premium member" automatically).
What banks are doing this?
Are you sure you're at a bank and not a credit union?
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
People are upset about the sob stories they shove in your face...
What exactly is shoved in your face?!?
The fuck? Did you ever look at the OP?
Is someone holding you at a gun point and making you visit Wikipedia near the end of the year around the time they show their donation plea?
No one is sitting there with a gun in your ear making you post nonsense, either, but here we are.
Also, the donation plea gets shown ONCE A YEAR.
And?
On the other hand, you have banks who outright admit they are raping your ass:
And you still do business with them. Also, you are not enraged.
No, I'm plenty enraged by your retarded straw men. I shouldn't be, true. But they really are dumb.
Using Wikipedia is totally optional unlike using the bank -- if you are so enraged about how Wikimedia spends money then why are you justifying their spending by visiting the site they are hosting?
I'm not a retard so I don't imagine financial rapine where it doesn't exist.
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Why are you sticking up for those guys?
I am sticking up against blatant hypocrisy, not for them.
No, your thumb sucking bankster rants are non sequiturs.
I don't give a shit about Wikimedia personally, but you are all using their sites and the software framework they made and then come here to whine about their spending and moan about donation plea shown to you once a year.
Why not?
Just stop using their services, and then you will have a moral high ground to whine as much as you want however silly that may be.
My moral ground is plenty high here, no matter where the bank doll touched you.
@boomzilla said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Do you feel bad for paying for food, too?
Don't be ridiculous. The farmers who grow the food I am paying for aren't fucking millionaires, and they aren't profiting of someone else's misfortune, not to mention that everyone can grow their own food but they can't run their own bank.
Dumb, drunk and envious is no way to go through life, son.
-
@Dragoon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The farmers who grow the food I am paying for aren't fucking millionaires
With the slow death of the small farmer, unless you are very picky, you are very likely buying food from those mega-farms and those are owned by millionaire (in some cases billionaires).
Who earn their money by producing so much affordable food!
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Dragoon said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
The reality is that banks make more money if their clients are prosperous, so it is in their best interest for their customers to succeed.
You got that part wrong dude -- banks make the most money from those with poor impulse control, and from those who have the lowest income.
It's true, that's where the money is!
As a matter of fact, it is always people with the lowest income who are likely to be indebted to the bank by means of overdraft or revolving credit, and paying outrageous interest rates on their debt. That's how banks make the large chunk of their money.
No one is saying that they make no money off of stuff like that, but you should temper your bullshit with some reality.
ec 201914 Trends in the Noninterest Income of Banks
A large fraction of banks’ revenue comes from noninterest income, which includes items such as overdraft fees and ATM charges. We investigate whether this source of income has increased since the financial crisis, given that banks’ interest income may have been impacted by the low interest rate...
@loopback0 said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Me too but I've seen the banners more than once in 2019.
Here's an idea -- right click on banner -> uBlock Origin -> Block element. Tada! You never get to see it again (at least until they change the CSS).
Go put some sugar in your coffee.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Dragoon The exact amount is not really important -- what is important is that it is a hefty sum for lending small amount of money to a poor person.
As for the USA you had your own version of banks robbing people blind back in 2008 if I remember correctly. They were deemed too big to fail, bailed out by tax money and quite a lot of golden parachutes popped open.
What happened to the victims?
We continue to pay taxes.
-
@levicki said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@error said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Some of them are essentially indentured servants.
Aren't we all?
Not all of us, no.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
If so, why does the "structuring withdrawals to maximize overdraft fees" scam exist?
Does it? My bank processes all credits for the day before debits, such that even if I ended up in the red for some amount of time, so long as I transferred in enough to get back in the black everything was fine at 3am the following morning.
Many (most? all?) banks didn't use to do that. They'd process transactions in the order received, and if you were in the red for even one minute, they'd impose the NSF fee.
On the other side, I accidentally stayed in the red because I wasn't paying attention twice in the last month (something that's only happened once ever previously. I blame unexpectedly not getting paid for this issue.) and the overdraft protection fee was $12 (that was waived because I'm a "premium member" automatically).
Do that a few more times, or without overdraft protection, and the fee will rise significantly, and they'll be far less likely to waive it.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
Do that a few more times, or without overdraft protection, and the fee will rise significantly, and they'll be far less likely to waive it.
Well yeah, why would a bank waive the fee on a repeat offender?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Fuck you, Wikipedia:
In 2017, banks made $34B on overdraft fees alone. That's 34 billion dollars taken from people who literally have no money. Seems to me they consider it to be in their best interest for their customers to be destitute!
How many billions did they make from other sources?
