Unfortunately, there is a very low probability of the mismatch until we have effectively seen every device. As our linking service expands, that percentage gets lower and lower. In our experience, the user experience and analytics insight benefit far outweighs the consequence of a mismatch because they are so rare. We encourage our developers not to bundle sensitive data into the links if they use this base case.
If a developer does want 100% match, we have a separate option that can be used with a slightly degraded user experience which pops the browser open really quickly to check the cookie, then returning to the app with the URI scheme.
Dmitri from Branch here. When a user has already had a fingerprint matched once, we can do future matches with much higher certainty, so as more and more users click links and are matched, the chance decreases.
Additionally, as Alex said, though most uses of the links don't require a 100% match rate ("any growth is good"), we do have an option for links which require a 100% match.
After seeing the proof, I was still confused what I would receive, and thought maybe the blocks were placeholders for the text that would appear in the final print. You should definitely make this more clear, because the phrasing on the site gives the impression you'll get the actual code.
Without a doubt you'll get lots of requests for refunds if this isn't adjusted.
I've been running into the same issues. I'm planning on moving away from Simple soon. Not being able to deposit a check without mailing it in (no mobile app for Windows Phone, a problem most of their customers won't have), nor deposit cash, nor write checks (even e-checks). There are just too many limits on what I can do.
Now I have to find a bank that can do all of that, but doesn't have even worse issues.
I've been reading So Good They Can't Ignore You and there's an interesting section on this phenomenon:
“The Baffling Popularity of Randomized Linear Network Coding
As I write this chapter, I’m attending a computer science conference in San Jose, California. Earlier today, something interesting happened. I attended a session in which four different professors from four different universities presented their latest research. Surprisingly, all four presentations tackled the same narrow problem—information dissemination in networks—using the same narrow technique—randomized linear network coding. It was as if my research community woke up one morning and collectively and spontaneously decided to tackle the same esoteric problem.
This example of joint discovery surprised me, but it would not have surprised the science writer Steven Johnson. In his engaging 2010 book, Where Good Ideas Come From, Johnson explains that such “multiples” are frequent in the history of science. Consider the discovery of sunspots in 1611: As Johnson notes, four scientists, from four different countries, all identified the phenomenon during that same year. The first electrical battery? Invented twice in the mid-eighteenth century. Oxygen? Isolated independently in 1772 and 1774. In one study cited by Johnson, researchers from Columbia University found just shy of 150 different examples of prominent scientific breakthroughs made by multiple researchers at near the same time.”
Excerpt From: Newport, Cal. “So Good They Can't Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love.”
His thesis on this is basically that these discoveries depend on a lot of other things occurring first and that once those things have occurred, anyone looking in the right place will see it.
With all of that said, I remain skeptical, at least in the Heartbleed case (they're just SOO close together). tptacek has more experience in these things than me of course, so I'll defer to his thoughts.