I hate sites that allow you to subscribe without talking to someone, but don't allow you to unsubscribe without picking up the phone. I'm surprised it's not downright illegal. I've found Privacy.com is a good service for these kinds of subscriptions, because you can just cancel the card to avoid keep getting charged. Not sure if anyone has a better solution.
: https://privacy.com/ (I am not associated with this site, just a user)
>You grant us and our subsidiaries, affiliates, and successors a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, transferable, and sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, prepare derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display your Content throughout the world in any media in order to provide and promote the Services. You retain all rights in your Content, subject to the rights you granted to us in these General Terms. You may modify or remove your Content via your Privacy Account or by terminating your Privacy Account, but your Content may persist in historical, archived or cached copies and versions thereof available on or through the Services.
That said, I'm a happy user of Privacy.com It's great.
There is no way to know whether credit card transactions are creative works or facts until someone tries to claim copyright over one in court, however, to my knowledge that has not happened yet.
I've felt inclined to resubscribe a couple times when hitting their paywall, but remembering their consumer-hostile cancellation process has stopped me. I don't mind paying for things, but you need to treat your customers right.
Somehow that doesn't really surprise me, but it does disgust me. And reminds me not to enter into any kind of customer relationship with them.
Click on unsubscribe button.
You're not unsubscribed yet! Want to do a $15 dollar plan so you avoid a reactivation fee? ...no, hit button
You're almost unsubscribed! Can you tell us why?
"Cuz I'm not using it, do it."
Now you're in a chat queue to talk to a chat representative before we let you go.
You're number 8 in line.
A lot of these types of services sound really good until you actually dig into what their terms are. I don't see why I should trust a business that doesn't trust me.
This way, a store gets a one-use card I can easily pause/limit/close, and if privacy.com screw up they're limited in how much they can draw.
Some companies will send you to collections and ding your credit score for "missed payments", whether it's due to a cancelled card or any other reason.
1: One should be able to block their charges without cancelling a card - by what logic should they be able to take your money without permission? (This is not entirely a rhetorical question - can't you dispute credit card charges?)
2: A subscription is a sort of contract, so even if you block payments, they could claim you owe them anyway. But if it's a contract, why does one party have all the power in deciding how it may be cancelled? And what prevents them from making you jump through even more hoops, till cancelling is literally impossible?
It actually is illegal in some states (or is it Europe? Whatever). Email/chat count as valid "unsubscribe online" solutions.
I suppose most 10-20/month fees wouldn't bother to collect, but they might pester you a bit with automated emails.
No one is obviously taking these jobs and many of them seem to be fairly non-sensical in their description and requirements. But these salary asks get calculated into averages when Dice/Zip Recruiter/Whoever put together their recommended compensation suggestions.
And the cycle starts over.
It's also probably why many immigrants work for low wages; because they're too used to the amount of money they would have made in their home country to realise that even double/triple that may be significantly less than market rate in their new location.
I spent my first few years working for peanuts. The wake-up moment came when I decided to quit, because I believed I was too incompetent for my job (I had a heavy case of impostor syndrome back then), and my boss misunderstood my words, and instead doubled my salary. Then I started to suspect that if there was already enough space to double my salary, perhaps there is more. Turned out that yes, there was a lot of space to grow. Soon I was making about 10 times my original salary... in a different company.
(Today you could probably find that information online; if not precisely, then at least within an order of magnitude. But this happened decades ago.)
So I took the job, he didn't. Years later he got me ANOTHER interview at his company, they offered me 60k, knowing I was literally making twice that. It was really clear that they wanted to make me an offer that I wouldn't take.
Kudos. That's a good one.
There's always money to be made from market inefficiencies.
He wasn't honest with the companies that the work product was not his.
When dealing with companies, so many of them strongly specialize in methods of dishonestly that aren't quite illegal and in using information differences to their advantage, purposefully choosing to avoid any chance of disclosure. To that extent, I have a hard time as seeing the morals as questionable and instead seeing it as someone beating companies at their own game, assuming he never directly lied that it was his own work. Companies almost never tell you what they view the real value of your work to be, which is also hiding a form of information that the other party would have found relevant in negotiation the trade of money for work.
I can see how someone who was doing this might excuse it to themselves as simply exploiting a perceived inefficiency in the system, but nobody other than the person actually doing it would buy that excuse. Even the phrase itself (I was just taking advantage of an inefficiency in the system!) is tainted by associations with white collar crime. That's a phrase that makes people sound like they think they've done something wrong and are trying to spin it, even when they've done nothing wrong.
It's like the time my friend Tyler discovered that when you do 'shutdown -h now', if your username is Tyler, it says, "Hello Mr. Tyler, going down.....?"
Although it seems that this no longer works on most modern Linuxes - not since the shutdown command was taken over by systemd. Another thing to curse it for.
Of course not, because then the people who pay them money would get fewer results in their searches! And they don't care if you delete it because they keep all the data anyway.
Like this blog post points out, there’s a ton of postings out there with these absurdly low pay expectations. And yet, companies can, and do, struggle to fill $120,000 a year jobs.
It can simultaneously be the case that the majority of the market is willing to pay peanuts AND the average developer routinely signs for far, far more than that.
The majority of the market simply never finds any takers whatsoever for their “genius social media idea I own it you have to sign an NDA for, you do all the work, $15/hr”.
Companies must transact for labour at a rate that transfers wealth to them. On average, employees must be able generate more value to a firm than their wages, otherwise employing people would be a net negative to a firm.
That's not what I said at all. The first sentence is a constraint on firm survival, not a statement about where wealth is derived.
Never followed by a '+' though.
Until Fred Brooks shows up and slaps you.
Also it feels like this would be a lot more effort than just working one well-paying job. Imagine all the context switching...
Are they still a thing?
It reminds me of "Falsehoods programmers believe about names" https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
I wouldn't expect to get paid in Argentine Pesos in NYC... would you expect to get paid in Rubles in Sydney Australia?