This seems like a farce. Most advertising in america is deceptive.
Edit: they seem to only enforce disclosure and they don't actually evaluate whether the ad is deceptive or not. Still this does seem to foreclose on the domain user in question's use of ads, if anyone cares
> If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what people will generally achieve using the product as described in the ad (for example, by just taking a pill daily for two months), an ad featuring that endorser must make clear to the audience what the generally expected results of following that same regimen are.
Pathetic and spineless. If this were actually enforced 99.99% of ad claims would be illegal.
I read this person as using “chargeback” to mean refund.
However, merchants do have an opportunity to respond to a chargeback request. Providing plausible evidence that the request is in bad faith will often result in the bank not performing an actual chargeback.
Yeah you can dispute them but it's by no means guaranteed and it can cause further problems. You certainly would not dispute them in the case mentioned by the GP poster. So bringing up disputes is just muddying the waters.
Refusing chargebacks and not issuing refunds are two very different things with distinct language. And if you don't issue refunds for a case like the GP described, where thousands of customers were incorrectly billed, you certainly would be flooded with chargebacks and likely put your merchant account in jeopardy. (Most of the big processors would close your account if they get evidence you are fraudulently billing customers and actively resisting making it right.)
It's clearly a made up story by someone with no experience actually managing credit card payments for a real business.
Not everything needs to be a C-string (null-terminated array/sequence of characters.) We are advanced enough with our understanding of Things that we can include metadata along with a chunk of bytes to indicate “this is a ‘string’ and it’s q bytes long and can have any value you want in there.”
That said, I’m with you. And if someone wants nulls inside their “strings” then they probably want blobs.
no, but the guy can also look at postgres.js that already implmented alot of the sql`SELECT * FROM ${table_name}` Where there vars are escaped. It ONLY works for postgres, but I'm sure you can make it work with SQLite as well.
Mucking about with SQL strings, to me, is akin to writing your own crypto: Don't. Unless you must (because, say, it doesn't exist yet.) Doing this is asking for security problems later. Trust that the SQLite team (or any other SQL engine) have more experience and have provided a correct interface. And if that interface isn't correct, don't just run off an make your own- contribute a fix so we can keep all the lessons learned together.
The title leads the reader to believe that Tesla’s robotaxis will be piloted by humans rather than self-driving software. The combination of the word “control” with scare quotes on “self-driving” gives this impression.
The article may not be damning, but the title? It doth mislead.
reply