Does working as a security guard and having the company that contracted your company trying to get you to basically be their own personal police force count? I worked for a security company hired by Longs and the loss prevention manager of the Longs kept trying to get us to do things that, in California anyway, are illegal as a security guard. Such as digging through someone’s personal belongings. We can ask to look inside, but not touch, and we really can’t force them to comply. We could not arrest people. We couldn’t have weapons (not even allowed to carry a pocket knife while on duty with our guard cards). Little Napoleonic complex motherfucker didn’t care. He would insist that it was legal and we would just tell him to talk to our boss because he isn’t our supervisor, manager or even part of our company.
I used to work retail loss prevention and had several of the exact opposite- we’d get contract security to supplement our staff as a visual deterrent and they would then think they were given carte blanche to hassle whoever the fuck they wanted. It really didn’t take long to realize that as long as I treated shoplifters with respect, more often than not they would come with, take care of the paperwork, get their ticket from the real cops and then be on their way unless the jurisdiction required they get booked. But there would always be that one fuckhead trying to steal thousands of dollars worth of shit and then act like we had no right to stop or detain them . I know it varies by where you live, but we were fully allowed to make citizens arrests and would do so daily. In 21 years I got subpoenaed four times and testified once. Never lost one case.
Working in a financial call centre, a certain type of person considered us to have stolen their money if they sent us an funds for an investment and refused to send anti-money laundering documents with it, because we also couldn’t return the money without them. Sorry, buddy.
That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.
No, since people can just wire you money. Then, if you return it, they can attempt to use that transaction to prove dirty money is clean. If it is clean in the first place, they should be able to provide documentation.
I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.
If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.
OK, well I disagree that it ‘doesn’t obfuscate anything’. Additional transactions are in a launder’s interest.
But also consider that If unknown monies can just be returned, then a launderer can keep trying, with multiple institutions in multiple ways, until they are successful in investing it.
Speaking for the UK, that’s every financial institution. The whole point is that everyone is required to complete checks to make sure you are who you say you are, if you refuse them then that is an indicator of money laundering. Even just receiving and returning money helps a money launderer establish a paper trail and assists in layering to legitimise the money they gave you. That’s a big no-no, obviously, so it can’t simply be returned without risking significant legal implications from the regulator. All expectations are set up front on this when beginning transactions.
I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.
It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.
Okay, do you work in the UK financial services industry, or an associated regulatory body? Because this was an infrequent circumstance that came as a result of the inattentiveness and belligerence of specific customers. There’s no industry wide issue and this was whilst working for one of the largest investment platforms in the UK.
If you don’t like how things work, then that’s fine, but it was working as intended and would have been no issue if the client had just followed the required, and explained, process. I feel it goes without saying that it is very important to maintain anti-money laundering processes in our financial systems, both legally and conceptually.
I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.
I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.
However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.
If you receive money without verification and return it no questions asked, then you are opening yourself up as an avenue by which people can launder money. Every receipt and retransfer of that money legitimises that money further and makes you party to the crime. The money is in limbo and can be returned as soon as the regulatory needs are met, but to do otherwise just voids the whole process.
At this point they are depriving themselves of the money by refusing to verify themselves, it’s a basic identify and address check. This is an investment company, they weren’t sending us their rent money, they wanted to invest it. They were just pissed that we expected them to follow the same process that every client needs to follow when investing.
It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).
Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.
What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.
They’re herb cigarettes. Think about how long scenes take to shoot, it could be days for a single scene. They’d be smoking multiple packs in a day of nonstop smoking. Even actual smokers wouldn’t enjoy it.
It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.
The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.
The customer called it racist. The person you were responding to said that discrimination would be a better descriptor, but also that the customer was still silly for thinking they had a case because of it, regardless of what words the customer used.
It takes a certain kind of person to get upset that a store isn’t treating you like an employee. What’s next, demanding access to the private areas? Wait, people already do that too :(
The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.
Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.
That’s not the point. If everyone believes their one vote doesn’t matter then yes, continue on with this futile thinking as it will surely not make a difference.
Ideally, it is one divided by population. In practice, because of the electoral college, and because money is speech are corporation are people, it is still way way less than 0.000’000’003
They will federate with Threads. If I continue posting on lemmy.world, Threads will benefit from it and Threads users would never join Lemmy because they could subscribe to our communities. But I also don’t want to split my niche communities
According to Lemmy documentation, if they don’t block a server, it means they are federating (aka talking using ActivityPub protocol) with that server.
Lemmy has three types of federation:
Allowlist: Explicitly list instances to connect to.
BlockList: Explicitly list instances to not connect to. Federation is open to all other instances.
Open: Federate with all potential instances.
Federation is enabled by default.
It means Meta could in theory talking right now with instances not blocking them as part of their testing.
I don’t know why they could not just block in the first place, then unblock/allow later if it makes sense.
Hm, my understanding from Lemmy.world’s post was “guys, we’re years away from it if it ever happens, maybe we should chill until we learn more?”
My personal bet is that Threads will never actually implement ActivityPub anyway. The announcement of it sounds great for shareholders to see a differentiation with Twitter on the short term, but making it really has so many uncontrollable scale hurdles that I’d bet it will be given up before it’s real.
But whether my guess is correct or not, Lemmy.world admin’s point is factually correct: right now, this whole thing is just a lot of hot air.
(Also, I’m intrigued, I think you might be the only person, when moving instance out of disagreement with an admin, to join one where the admins are known to be Uyghur genocide deniers and pro-North-Korea. With the point of Lemmy to have very diverse viewpoints, obviously that’s all your choice and you should be where you think you should be, but of all instances out there to join to seek alignment with admins, I wouldn’t have thought Lemmy.ml would be one people would turn to a lot, since it’s been controversial exactly for that, and there are many many others. Heh, you do you.)
the admins are known to be Uyghur genocide deniers and pro-North-Korea
Do you have a link for this? I want to read it. I picked lemmy.ml because it was used by Memmy app community, has decent userbase, and they block threads.net. This is the description on join-lemmy.org/instances : “A community of privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers”
my understanding from Lemmy.world’s post was “guys, we’re years away from it if it ever happens, maybe we should chill until we learn more?”
Did they post their official’s stance on it? All I saw was a post by ruud, the instance owner on Mastodon
As I explained in another comment, if they don’t block a server, they are federating with it. Meta could be testing as we speak
Yeah, I initially thought it was a rumor, but then I was shown the receipts, and unfortunately it’s true: lemmy.world/comment/562635 It is really disappointing…
About the Lemmy.world situation, here’s where I draw my understanding from: lemmy.world/post/1274909 Meta said they wouldn’t even start looking at it before being at 1 billion users, so they are not going to be testing anything any time soon; which is also why I’m not buying too strongly that they actually intend to do it. I commented on the post with my thinking. Once they’re that far along (if they even get there), they will have proven their currently implemented strategy, that they don’t actually need to federate with anything to do the Twitter-but-better that they clearly set out to do. I’m totally guessing though so I could be wrong.
So, they’re spiking on it, which isn’t particularly surprising at this stage. In fact they have to since they’re a public company, they can’t make announcements that they’re spending R&D on something, and not spend it, that would be SEC fraud. I’m still not buying that it’s in their interest enough that they would actually put it out there. This feels like such a heavy engineering lift, for little upside besides the compelling differentiation story to tell.
Also, based on their communications so far, they mean to federate with Mastodon, but they don’t care much about Lemmy. Which makes sense, their shareholders have massively heard of Mastodon, but not Lemmy. Even if they release something, I bet it will be federation with some specific Mastodon servers that they know will treat them well.
Maybe I’m wrong, that’s completely possible. If they start federating with Lemmy.world, I’m squarely in the “then we should defederate now” camp. But at this point this feels like so much hot air and speculation, that I’m not even sure why it’s being talked about so much.
Edit: regarding people’s interest in this, many projects/people have been burnt before by megacorps so its definitely worth having our guard up to anticipate what might happen in the future
How little food intake is enough to sustain extensive (physical) activity.
The little birds running on the beach with every wave, eating mini things. How can those be enough to sustain that much running? And it’ll have to sustain them when they’re not eating too.
A human can not eat for several days and still stay active. An incredible adaptation. I food conversion, storage, and priority dissolution in a complex system.
I think about this a lot too! It feels wrong that so little material can allow so much work to be done. Feels like moving a mars bar should take a significant amount of the mars bars energy to move stuff around, but you could do a lap around the block and still not deplete what it gave.
For new equipment you may want to make sure it is Windows 11 compatible otherwise your Windows 10 laptop only has about 2 years worth of updates left learn.microsoft.com/…/windows-10-home-and-pro
Alternatively could be good time to look into installing Linux.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.