Can't comment on this case, but I used to work for a company that did similar verifications.
The omission of the exact reason is intentional - as an example, I distinctly remember seeing the same mistake appearing on photoshoped passport scans over and over again. If the exact reason would be told, bad actors could exploit it more easily.
With that said, this policy also causes false positives. The goal is to exclude as many bad actors as possible, while minimizing the number of false positives. But there will be always false positives unfortunately.
> The omission of the exact reason is intentional - as an example, I distinctly remember seeing the same mistake appearing on photoshoped passport scans over and over again. If the exact reason would be told, bad actors could exploit it more easily.
Yes. We get it. And without doing that companies like upwork would have it prohibitively expensive to stay in business. And maybe for a good reason. That’s exactly the difference between any semi-large consulting agency and something like upwork. The former has people on payroll who can vet the client and the supplier, but due to that, there’s only so much business they can turn around. And then there are those companies like upwork who pride themselves with shit like “how we support 50k suppliers per one support staff member” (I came up with this particular one but it’s pretty reasonable for that to happen).
I mean, come on, it’s like your local traffic law enforcement agency sent you a letter:
Your driver’s license is now suspended and we are sorry to inform you that you have no recourse, you can never ever drive again. We cannot tell you why. All communication from you will be ignored. G’day.
Same, no? How the f** is that legal. The fraud is NOT my problem, it’s upworks problem. Get us on a level playing field. Provide a method for your client and supplier to sort it out using a transparent legal path. Same with google, facebook, twitter, whatever. And if the company cannot provide that, well, maybe their business is dubious. They can ruin you on a whim! And you have no recourse!
Kinda the same with Twitter (and likely Facebook) bans.
You did something against our terms and now you're banned. We will not tell you what was the offending Tweet though ...
I was hoping Elon Musk would change this, but I don't believe anything changed regarding this issue yet. I think there's probably some legal reasons why companies follow this approach.
Stock prices reflect a prediction about future profitability or company value, not how nice the company is. The stock going up shows that people who invest in Meta think layoffs will increase profits. That's all.
So are Tesla, Nvidia, Uber, Shopify, Cloudflare, Spotify, Roku, Zillow, and Coinbase to name a few. It’s almost like nearly all tech stocks have bounced.
Because investors are expecting the Fed to cut rates this year, which benefits growth stocks much more than value stocks, since future cash flows are discounted by less. If the expected rate cuts don't materialize, this group of stocks is likely to crash hard again.
The enshittification cycle has always been here, but progress continues. It just feels like things are getting worse as the programs we grew up on enter the shit-zone part of their lifecycle.
They are super successful at gathering donations, right? I think their goal is fundamentally well-scoped to the sort budget they can hope to get just from donations.
I mean most of the value there is in text written by volunteers, which must not be so expensive to host (compared to, say, an image hosting site for example).
Shouldn't people names be anonymised in this case? At least in my country it's the law. Often it's just a theater since either everyone knows the alleged perpetrator, or tabloids do sketchy stuff like "Jane D., daughter of a famous actor John Doe").
Interesting example since I’d bet a majority of independent restaurants are sourcing the ingredients from Sysco. Anyway, restaurants, maybe not, but I usually prefer dealing with large companies because they are more reliable.
How would this work in a rice cooker?