I often have a hard time networking because I was raised by two very serious people who took their jobs very seriously. I made the mistake of moving to Chicago where it seems like the accepted way to "make friends" at work is for everyone to pick someone to be "Dwight Shrute" and they bond by crapping all over them as much as they can.
I can't begin to tell you how utterly distasteful, unprofessional, and pretty shocking this I find this considering I work in a field full of nerds.
I have no qualms about leaving workplaces with toxic cultures like this (about 90% in Chicago). I have no desire to recommend or be recommended by people who's idea of bonding is forming a clique of bullies, find job security in doing as little training and professional development for new employees as they can get away with, and excuse their own poor performance by drinking until they can't remember their own name.
My work speaks for itself and has been enough to get me in the door wherever I want to go at the salaray I deserve.
No, there's a pretty darn crucial difference which is the reviews/reputation that you can view before you conduct the transaction. Someone with 5192 sells and 99% good reviews is probably not going to outright eat your money, but you have no idea if that's the type of person you're dealing with if you're using craigslist.
For all we know, that person blatantly ripped off 50 people. 99% sounds great, but at the volumes these massive sellers operate, a lot of people fall into that one percent.
On the other hand, if you use that criteria you exclude basically everyone who is not a commercial seller, which is one of the main points of craigslist-type sites.
> On the other hand, if you use that criteria you exclude basically everyone who is not a commercial seller, which is one of the main points of craigslist-type sites.
I was merely exaggerating criteria to get across a point regarding a very critical fundamental difference between eBay vs. Craigslist, not trying to list a comprehensive set of criteria for choosing reputable sellers. Evidently this wasn't clear, so to clarify: I also think someone who's merely sold 10-15 items of comparable prices over the past 4-5 years ago can also be sufficiently trustworthy if their reviews are 100% positive. And again, none of this is to say these criteria could not be relaxed or tightened depending on the situation, item price, etc... and, in general, you should also incorporate your common sense (which I would hope could go without saying).
No, I don't think they can. They can "game" maybe 15 reviews, but I have yet to be scammed by (or even hear of someone being scammed by) someone with thousands of reviews when they're almost all positive. It's kind of absurd to suggest the system is similar to that of craigslist where you generally have no data points whatsoever.
Something I heard about recently was businesses offering to buy accounts from legit users, priced based on how old the account is and % rating. Obviously that's something that could be abused by a scammer (buy trustworthy account and sell as many empty laptop boxes as you can before you get closed down).
I think it was ads popping up on FB asking to buy eBay accounts that made me aware of it but can't find anything right now on a quick Google search.
A couple of days ago I saw some tablets being sold for about 1/10th of their normal price by a seller with an old account and good feedback. But looking into it more I found that their only current sales listings were duplicates of the same tablet offer, and looking at past feedback it was mainly buys rather than sells and usually for household items and stuff that seemed personal rather than business related. Not exactly conclusive but it smelt funny enough that I didn't risk a purchase (I realise lots of people will just say that the low price makes it obvious, too good to be true means it isn't true etc... my own life experience has shown otherwise and I've probably had some bargains that those people would have missed out on).
I just tried to find the listing again and it seems to have disappeared - I feel it might have been a scam.
I enjoy using eBay as a buyer, been using it for 10 years and hundreds of purchases, only sold a few times but it's always been ok for me. There have been a few hiccoughs but I've always found some kind of resolution in the end. If the purchase is even slightly significant I check the seller's feedback out carefully. Really I think that's all that needs to be done but some people either don't know this, can't be bothered to, or don't want to spend their time in that way.
I seem to remember that the old-school method was to auction off a bunch of small-ticket items like shareware/freeware CDs, bumper stickers, etc. to build up positive reviews.
Another commonly reported one is paying for an item by Paypal then collecting. Once you have the goods you report the item as undelivered[0]. eBay ask for proof of delivery that you can't supply, so automatically refund.
Has been happening for years, but has become more prevalent recently.
Last time I risked selling on eBay I spent a good part of the listing opting out of eBay Ts&Cs: Cash only, collection only, Paypal will be instantly refunded etc. Probably meant eBay could have cancelled the listing, but it worked.
Proof of delivery? Registered mail or even tracking will do it (at least in Australia, dunno what Royal Mail give you). I can send a package that requires a signature at the other end.
That's if you send it, when there's a few different services with proof of delivery and some with insurance. I was calling out when the buyer visits your house/premises and collects in person, then claims to eBay the item was not received.
I'm not saying it should be this adversarial, but why not take a few photos with the buyer and the goods, them have them inspect the goods and sign a form with the date they received it and and a report on the condition?
I wouldn't think it's that weird since anyone who's rented an apartment has to do the same.
I beg to differ. In my experience (a small sample set of 1), Ebay sided with me, the seller, and not the buyer.
A gentleman from Italy purchased an old book I was selling. He disputed the transaction, saying the book had never arrived; however, the Italian post said they had delivered the book.
I mean at that point when the post office agrees they had the package, they literally cannot logically blame you, because you could not have had any fault in this decision. What else were you supposed to do, fly over and hand it over to them in person? The onus can only logically be on the receiver to make sure they get the package the post office delivers, not on you.
I understand the trouble starts when there's plausible deniability and no witness around. How do you prove they shipped rocks? How do they prove they didn't? At that point it really could be either person's fault, and their policy seems to be to blame it on the seller. That's what people mean when they say eBay "always" sides with the buyer. They don't mean that this is literally true even when it clearly doesn't make sense.
Yup. PP will freeze your whole transaction without notice if the buyer flags you for any reason without explanation and you can forget arbitration. Good Lucky.
Then file a refund request. Ebay will eventually refund it if the seller can't provide a tracking.
You can also spin it any number of other ways like if you get the item and the seller requests you to return the item then you just ship back a broken version.
The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative.
It would be nice if we could all go to college to chase our childhood dreams, but the reality is that most of us need to prepare to support ourselves and, someday, a family. That's why I'm a software engineer and not a novelist, and that's why I got a CS degree and not a BFA in English.
Are the humanities "worthwhile?" Certainly. But should the average person drop $100,000 on a humanities degree? Absolutely not. And the fact that we're willing to bury children under that kind of debt so that they can get a Master's in French Opera or whatever is a crime.
"The market might not be fit to decide what education is worthwhile, but it will certainly figure out what degrees are lucrative."
And those are completely separate things, and should not be conflated. Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.
> Basically, you're saying that only the rich should be able to study non-STEM stuff.
I'm saying that only rich people are able to study non-STEM stuff. I mean sure, a disadvantaged person can study literature or interpretive dance or whatever, but that choice will make them a debt slave with no significantly increased earning potential.
You don't need to go to college to improve yourself as a human being. You can be well-read and appreciative of the arts without paying $100,000. And for the vast majority of people, that is the only sensible course of action.
Grants, partial and full-ride scholarships, community colleges, etc. will all still exist, but while it will definitely limit the number of people taking out expensive loans to get advanced degrees for low-paying jobs, it probably would not exclude those who either had existing money, or who could keep the loan amounts to within repayable limits, by getting a cheaper undergrad, or what have you.
The important thing here is that with regards to US student loans, the market is already deciding everything, but it's backed up by the government having made it impossible to escape student loans by declaring bankruptcy.
That system could potentially be a lot less unfair and a lot lower cost if the government didn't put its thumb on the scales in favour of lenders. This would be true even if the system was still unfair.
There's probably a deeper conversation to be had once the system is closer to neutral, but the point is that it isn't anything like neutral: it's blatantly biased against students.
Or do what I did and work for a company with Remote in its DNA and move somewhere so cheap you realize a 100% increase in salary from cost of living decrease.
Just think of how amazing the museum will be for your great grandkids when we completely dismantle them when, inevitably, their stated mission goals supersede common sense and a responsible relationship to the American public.
I doubt any of the privacy invasions are going anytime soon.
The big tech cos pull in ~100B in revenue precisely because they can capitalize on the data.
As long as there is crazy amount of money to be made, it will keep on getting worse. Having hope on the US govt to do anytime is wishful thinking. Govt and corporations are hell bent on knowing everything about you. It gives them the power.
If the glass is half full of citizen traffic and half full of non-citizen traffic and the NSA drinks ALL of it and I don't think they should be drinking ANY of it does that make me an optimist or a pessimist?
I can't begin to tell you how utterly distasteful, unprofessional, and pretty shocking this I find this considering I work in a field full of nerds.
I have no qualms about leaving workplaces with toxic cultures like this (about 90% in Chicago). I have no desire to recommend or be recommended by people who's idea of bonding is forming a clique of bullies, find job security in doing as little training and professional development for new employees as they can get away with, and excuse their own poor performance by drinking until they can't remember their own name.
My work speaks for itself and has been enough to get me in the door wherever I want to go at the salaray I deserve.