ciferecaNinjo

was finally able to reach that video. Love it! Indeed the song showcases hypocrisy which is what the collage tries to expose.

But you don't have a human right to have it converted into cash at your leisure (and the bank's effort) whenever you please.

When a consumer opts to close their account, the banking relationship can only be ended when the balance is zero (when neither party owes the other). You seem to be saying the UDHR does not entitle people to end the banking relationship at a time of their choosing, correct? In which case the banking relationship continues until the service fees eat away at the remaining balance, against the will of the customer. This is just another way to separate someone from their property.

Your argument is like buying gold for $20 and then complaining about human rights violations if the seller doesn't buy it back for $20 whenever you wish.

Banking customers who open an account in the national currency have a reasonable expectation that the value of their account remain pinned to the value of the national currency. Exchanging that for a precious metal and having an expectation that value not decline would be absurd and I do not see how this analogy makes any sense.

If you see a value limit enshrined in the UDHR, feel free to quote it here.

The bank isn't depriving you of your property, you agreed to convert your cash into a legally binding right to access cash in the future

It’s not one or the other. It’s both at the same time. Consumers are deprived of their property as a consequence of that agreement. The bank in case 1 currently says: to get your €19.99 back, either open another bank account or fuck off (in so many words).

From there, it comes down to whether you can sign away your human rights.

This depends on the country.

In the US: legal tender has different charactoristics depending on whether it is point of sale (PoS) or debt. W.r.t PoS, legal tender ensures the seller can accept it if they want, but have the option. W.r.t debts, legal tender entitles debtors to be able to use it for payment.

In Belgium: there is no distinction between PoS and debts. It’s as CanadaPlus says.. Legal tender must be accepted either way. But there are some exceptions: if the seller and buyer are not in the same physical place at the same time, there is no obligation to accept cash. Sellers/creditors can also reject banknotes that are disproportionate to the transaction amount. The bizarre thing about Belgium is there are various circumstances where a debtor only has cash but a creditor can refuse it, e.g. if they have no physical presence. In practice it’s even worse because some business simply break the law by refusing cash, and it’s not enforced.

Indeed, a banker’s draft almost always involves a fee. Though it’s possible that some high value accounts in places like the US would come with some perks like a few gratis banker’s drafts per year. Certainly it’s not the norm anywhere that I am aware of.

And from there, cashing the banker’s draft is a problem. @protist@mander.xyz is apparently thinking in terms of the U.S. case where there are (predatory) high-fee “checks cashed” shops all over, where at least you can get a check cashed. I think a European with a cheque is on shaky territory as it is -- unlikely to get a cheque of any kind, and also unlikely to deposit one, and in if a European has no bank account it’s likely impossible for them to spend a cheque.

The premise of the question is when the bank refuses you access to your money, which manifests in a number of circumstances. Receiving a check from the bank is useful only in scenario 1, and only possible in parts of the world that still have checks.

Hoof.. behaw. They became tor hostile. I actually have an account there I can no longer reach.

I don’t know when (if ever) I will be able to view that. Youtube has been blocking Tor and DoS attacking Invidious lately. It’s unclear when the open free world will get access to Youtube content again.

I guess I don’t get the reference. I recall a Bullwinkle cartoon when I was a kid. Is it related?

Yikes. I am disturbed to hear that. I was as well appalled with what I saw in a recent visit to a university. It’s baffling that someone could acquire those degrees without grasping the discipline. Obviously it ties in with the fall of software quality that began around the same time the DoD lifted the Ada mandate. But indeed, you would have to mention your credentials because nothing else you’ve written indicates having any tech background at all.

How have I made your point at all?

You have acknowledged the importance of having multiple points of failure. It’s a good start because the defect at hand is software with a single point of failure.

You're a bit incoherent with what you're talking about.

I suppose I assumed I was talking to someone with a bit of engineering history. It’s becoming clear that you don’t grasp software design. You’ve apparently not had any formal training in engineering and likely (at best) you’ve just picked up how to write a bit of code along the way. Software engineering so much more than that. You are really missing the big picture.

This has nothing to do with software design or anything else along those lines.

What an absurd claim to make. Of course it does. When software fails to to protect the data it’s entrusted with, it’s broken. Either the design is broken, or the implementation is broken (but design in the case at hand). Data integrity is paramount to infosec and critical to the duty of an application. Integrity is basically infosec 101. If you ever enter an infosec program, it’s the very first concept you’ll be taught. Then later on you might be taught that a good software design is built with security integrated into the design in early stages, as opposed to being an afterthought. Another concept you’ve not yet encounted is the principle of security in depth, which basically means it’s a bad idea to rely on a single mechanism. E.g. if you rely on the user to make a backup copy but then fail to protect the primary copy, you’ve failed to create security in depth, which requires having BOTH a primary copy AND a secondary copy.

This is a simple thing. If your data is valuable you secure it yourself.

That has nothing to do with the software defect being reported. While indeed it is a good idea to create backups, this does not excuse or obviate a poor software design that entails data loss and ultimately triggers a need for data recovery. When a software defect triggers the need for data recovery, in effect you have lost one of the redundant points of failure you advocated for.

When you reach the university level, hopefully you will be given a human factors class of some kind. Or if your first tech job is in aerospace or a notably non-sloppy project, you’ll hopefully at least learn human factors on the job. If you write software that’s intolerant to human errors and which fails to account for human characteristics, you’ve created a poor design (or most likely, no design.. just straight to code). When you blame the user, you’ve not only failed as an engineer but also in accountablity. If a user suffers from data loss because your software failed to protect the data, and you blame the user, any respectable org will either sack you or correct you. It is the duty of tech creators to assume that humans fuck up and to produce tools that is resilient to that. (maybe not in the gaming industry but just about any other type of project)

Good software is better than your underdeveloped understanding of technology reveals.

Thinking that a federated service is going to have a uniform or homogenous approach to things is folly

Where do you get /uniform/ from? Where do you get /homogenous approach/ from? Mbin has a software defect that Lemmy does not. Reporting mbin’s defect in no way derives and expectation that mbin mirror Lemmy. Lemmy is merely an example of a tool that does not have the particular defect herein. Lemmy demonstrates one possible way to protect against data loss. There are many different ways mbin can solve this problem, but it has wholly failed because it did fuck all. It did nothing to protect from data loss.

on your end and a failure of understanding what the technology is.

It’s a failure on your part to understand how to design quality software. Judging from the quality of apps over the past couple decades, it seems kids are no longer getting instruction on how to build quality technology and you have been conditioned by this shift in recent decades toward poorly designed technology. It’s really sad to see.