I know it's super popular to complain about over-regulation in California; however, I think it's worth pointing out that most regulations are things like this. Generally, lawmakers in the state of California do things to try to make things better for most of it's citizens. Do they always get it right? Of course not! But when they do, its wonderful.
Protections for workers in tech are better too. Things like moonlighting and protecting your intellectual property is easier in California than most places in the states.
In most of the country, your employer can claim 100% of your intellectual output, no matter if your work was 'on your time'. If you come up with something clever on the weekend on your own computer, your employer still owns it.
(Aside, I think this is one issue that could be a motivation for unionizing tech folks.... or at least collectively bargaining.)
Fun fact: The law you are talking about (California Labor Code § 2870-2872, enacted 1979 [0]) was cloned from an earlier Minnesota law (Minnesota Statutes Annotated § 181.78, enacted 1977 [1]). Several other states have cloned this law as well (at least Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, Utah, Washington [2]). So it's not exclusive to California, though it would be nice if more states picked it up.
But without the limiting anti compete clauses like California does, it's basically toothless.
At least in NC I was informed by lawyers I hired that my employer wouldn't let me moonlight in a 500 mile radius, as while they wouldn't own the output. any software was considered "in competition".
Hmm that doesn't really make sense to me. If the software you were writing while moonlighting is competitive with your employer then it seems like the IP ownership law wouldn't cover it -- your employer could in fact claim ownership. So the non-compete doesn't matter and the outcome is the same in either CA or NC.
But I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure the lawyer you hired knows better than me.
(FWIW I think this is fair. You shouldn't be allowed to compete with your employer while still employed by them, as this creates a massive conflict of interest. Though if your employer is claiming that any and all software you write "competes" with them then that is obviously BS...)
The point being that in NC, at the time they were allowed to write non-compete clauses that functioned as any software written in a 500 mile radius was considered competing.
I worked on enterprise data storage operating systems, and I wanted to work on a personal phone application in my off hours.
Re employment: The standard move for these companies was to basically auto-file a lawsuit if you were over a certain title threshold, and below they didn't do much. All the execs I knew would take a one year "vacation" and magically start work exactly 365 days later at the new company. It didn't affect rank and file except for this moonlighting + competition combo.
Re significance of 500 miles, state courts generally ruled that was a reasonable distance for non compete at the time, and so your company's lawyers would put together the most conservative contract that was borderline.
I'm very glad to have left that employment market, it was clear why startups never seemed to start in RTP unless they came out of Universities, specifically because of these huge liabilities for any investor. It's a shame, because the area now just waits for the next globo corp to open a remote office, rather than anything starting locally.
This only seems enforceable insofar as your legal funds are less than your employers, or the supreme court continues to be a federalist controlled mafia.
> your employer can claim 100% of your intellectual output
I've dealt with this:
1. When accepting a new job, I make a list of all the side projects I had and got a signature from the company that they were my projects.
2. When starting a new side project while employed, the first thing I'd did was write up a description and get a signed buyoff from the company that it was my project.
Never had a problem. The trick is to do this stuff up front and in advance, not after-the-fact.
I've had employment agreements handed to me by HR with "here, you'll just need to sign this, and we're ready to go!", and I've taken out my pen, drawn lines through the parts I did not agree to, sometimes adding my own words, signed it, and handed it back. The HR person might be a bit shocked (or not--I've seen both), but I always reassure them that I realize their lawyers will want to look at it, and if they have any concerns, I intend to cooperate with them in working out an agreement that satisfies them.
I have, for example, rejected claims on my work outside of the office done with my own time/equipment and not in my employer's industry. You don't need the government to say it for you. You can say it yourself as part of the contract.
So far, the lawyers have always approved my edits with no further discussion and without contacting me. They just tell HR they're fine with it, and that's that. It's fun when this surprises HR, but again, sometimes it is no surprise to them at all.
It hasn't happened to me yet, but I'm sure there will be cases where HR will get very upset, so you'll have to be gracious about it and reassure them that you fully intend to satisfy their lawyers. But you'd think that the lawyers would be the ones who got upset, but they don't. Lawyers do this with each other all the time: A writes up a contract, hands it to B, and tells him to sign it. "This is our agreement." B edits it, signs it, and says, "this is our actual agreement", followed by more back and forth. So if you propose a minor change to a contract that you had no part in writing, that's just ordinary business for a lawyer, and it's what they would be doing as a matter of course when hiring a senior executive.
In my experience, that approach doesn't always succeed when the company has tens of thousands of employees, all of whom have signed a contract with the same wording. You have to be willing to walk away and, even then, you may fail to reach agreement on the terms.
One of the other capstone projects my year was a large local company (600+ employees) that asked the students to design a system for keeping track of the differences between contracts for different employees. Not only was this a non-issue for them, they actively embraced it.
Unfortunately, work from home greatly confuses the, "On your own time, with your own equipment" distinction. Hope your employer isn't paying for your internet, and that you aren't using its hardware for anything other than exact work situations.
I don't think CA is THAT much different in this regard. They can still claim ownership of inventions and IP for things done at home on your own time and equipment if it relates to the employer’s business or anticipated research or development (emphasis mine), which, for many large companies encompasses every project you could think of.
EDIT: Odd voting on this one. It's literally in my employment agreement. You might want to check yours!
Without making any argument about what is legal in California, I will note that it is not particularly valid to argue for “it is California law” on the basis of “its what my employer claims in the employment agreement”. Employers are notorious for claiming things beyond what the law allows, knowing that the resulting effect on employee behavior is nearly as good as if the claim was actually enforceable.
AFAIU, at least as it regards federal copyright law "scope of employment" is usually interpreted very liberally in favor of the employer. I can't speak to California case law, but I suspect that the tolerance Silicon Valley has historically shown to employees walking away w/ their "personal time" projects is more a reflection of the normative business culture than a legal restraint. I wouldn't expect IBM to walk away from WhatsApp the same way Yahoo did if one of their Almaden employees had created it.
Twice I've asked an employer for an amendment to the assignment contract to say that only works developed on my own time "with the primary purpose of benefiting the company" were assignable. Though, the second time I was told to f' off; to take it or leave it.
Now, California's legal hostility toward non-compete agreements is clear. It's not just because of the statutory law, but also because of precedent. Other jurisdictions could and have interpreted similar language differently (including other states interpreting California statutes, IIRC). That hostility is usually what people refer to, or would mean to refer to it they understood the nuances.
As you mentioned it I was to reiterate: you can negotiate on anything. Every time I had a non-compete clause in the contract (fortunately not that ubiquitous in Germany) I negotiated with the company to take it out & every time they eventually agreed (once I had to reached a compromise that I should inform them of such projects but the IP remains mine).
A lot of the time you'll hear "oh this is a standard contract, everyone signs it & we don't make exceptions". If they want you bad enough they will make an exception.
If they want you bad enough they will make an exception.
Most people don't have the luxury of walking away from an employer that won't make an exception with the confidence that they can find an employer who will.
>In most of the country, your employer can claim 100% of your intellectual output, no matter if your work was 'on your time'. If you come up with something clever on the weekend on your own computer, your employer still owns it.
Irony here is that the law you’re referring to was a proposition passed by a ballot initiative. One of the many issues with California‘a government is that the state legislature is hamstrung by laws and regulations that passed by popular vote through the state’s proposition system. On some things this is fine, but it limits how taxes can be raised and what needs to be funded. Sales tax is fine by middle class homeowners, but property tax is a third rail. So we end up with a massively regressive tax system. Or the time when the state legalized gay marriage and then the voters decided that it should be banned. This is to say nothing about things like three strikes and victim’s rights laws that sound good as a single item but considered holistically are a serious problem that the legislature cannot do anything to change.
Direct democracy (initiatives) and neutered executive powers were the Progressives best efforts to counterbalance machine politics. It was worth trying.
We're clearly overdue for some more tweaking.
After binging on David Graeber's notions about participatory democracy, I've been wondering about replacing the meme of "elected representatives" with "delegated advocates", and what that might look like.
Maybe a bit like lawyers (barristers) representing clients.
Maybe a bit like merging the currently (nominally) separate roles of legislators and lobbyists.
Maybe a more clear division of responsibilities in bicameral governments, where the younger House advocates for changes and the older Senate tries to hold it all together. Like better rules for progressives battling conservatives.
I haven't found any good resources for Anarchist flavored participatory democracy. Thus far, I've been collecting scattered bits and pieces. Am still looking for the people really thinking about the whole.
It’s not what “the people say they want”. It’s what a few wealthy corporations/individuals can fund signature gathering to put on the ballot, advertise the shit out of, and then trick people into voting for without understanding the implications.
It’s a horrible way to make public policy because it is typically based on an oversimplified model of the world, can be worded vaguely/sloppily, often takes no design input from experts, is almost entirely unresponsive to real-world problems that arise afterwards, generally does not effectively empower lasting institutions to administer the policy and make sure it works as intended, and forces additional complexity, confusion, and legal ambiguity when the state legislature or local governments try to work around it with kludgy patches.
That tyranny of the majority as a concept hasn't disappeared, and that the arguments against a direct democracy are some of the reasons this nation was founded as a representative democracy.
I do think there are good reasons to have more direct democracy than the founders had (the logistics of it are much better now), but I'd be pretty cautious of the argument that we should do everything that we can get a plurality of the population to support.
It’s less about specifics than approach. IMO, direct democracy is very poor fit for creating or editing laws especially in terms of taxes, but a fine idea for repealing laws.
Several times I have seen something complex where making an informed decision take at minimum several hours of research. Which most voters are obviously not going to do. Most people are at best following their parties lead, which asks the initiative pointless, or more likely making a knee jerk reaction without understanding the details.
Repealing laws on the other hand is something voters can have direct experience with.
Similar issues are in play, but exceptions are generally more difficult to judge.
Arguing that the limit for arsenic in drinking water should be lowered is very different than arguing the limit should be removed. The first needs a detailed analysis to judge, where the second comes down to more fundamental ideas.
Further, if the power is limited to removing legislation then similar rules can be added if it becomes obvious their needed.
It does not work, see how US Constitution amendments got eroded in time to the extent that some practically don't exist anymore in California, for example.
"should not be infringed" gets to "can be regulated" which goes to "practically banned".
Well, historically it's been the rich and landed though that's not a part I'd advocate for keeping.
I actually think a lot of the problems with total direct democracy come not purely from hot tempered reactions of the majority (though that certainly is a problem at times), but from the mere fact that a lot of governing decisions need to get made by someone who really studies the details of a problem closely and makes an informed decision.
Let's say as a society we're making a complicated financial decision (like, is it in our long-term financial interest to build a bridge linking Point A and Point B). That's a very complex decision, where it's extremely hard to pin down with specifics both the costs and the eventual benefits of the bridge.
So, as a society we put together a group that studies the issue in depth and puts together a 100-page report that's the distillation of their research. It nails down the costs and the benefits in about as concise a form as it can be, while still capturing the full complexity of the project.
Now here's the question: what's the process for deciding how to build the bridge? Do we:
- ask everyone in society to read and digest the 100 page report, make their own informed decision, and then vote on the outcome?
- Or do we as ask everyone to select the person they trust to read and digest the report, make an informed decision that would align with their interests, and then we vote for the person we want to make the decision?
I think there's some benefits to each approach that aren't captured by the other. In the former approach there's a lot of redundant work that we're asking from every member of society. It's much easier on each member of the democracy to make an informed decision about selecting a single person to make a decision on their behalf than it is to make an informed decision on the project directly.
Multiply this across every decision at the city, county, state, and federal government and suddenly the decision burden on the individual becomes a really good argument on its own for representative democracy!
I have a solution for this: immediately revocable vote vouchers. You pick your rep from the pool of all people willing to be a representative, and they vote on your behalf until they make a decision you don't like, at which moment you are free to revoke their control of your vote and give that to someone else. We could compensate representatives based on their rolling average of people represented.
You decide who represents you, directly (rather than pooling geographically, which is patently stupid) and representatives are operating with consistent incentive to act in the interest of their direct constituents.
You pick the tool for the job. A planner to run something relating to planning. An engineer running something related to engineering. A scientist to run something relating to science. Domain experts, who have spent the years needed to actually understand the nuances of the problem. Too often we just get the loudest mouth in the room and their gang of friends looking to make their buck.
In addition to the other points that have been made about how ad spending, confusing wording and public misinformation campaigns are waged against the state’s electorate every two years, there is also an issue of framing and context.
The propositions are presented in isolation without context. Somethings need to be considered holistically. Budgets are a classic example of this. There are trade offs. Any spending in one area means that those resources don’t go to other things. Should we fund cancer research? Yes. Firefighters? Yes. Why not both? Because we also need to fund schools, hospitals, roads, and the entire public sector. As a reasonably well educated and informed citizen it is not feasible to responsibly weigh in on a specific funding item. You would need to understand all the other aspects. As my grandfather (a third generation Californian) explained to me: if you aren’t 100% sure of what a proposition says vote No.
You argue that the masses are easily manipulated by charismatic self-serving figures, and there are no checks and balances to the pure popular vote like there are with other arms of representative government.
Whenever California is being discussed, the prop65 comment seems to show up. Given how ubiquitous the warning is, as I've seen it even on products destined for other countries, I wonder how many people who otherwise may have not heard of the state much if at all, have been taught to associate California with "that place where everything causes cancer".
You see, that idiocy did not originate with the lawmakers of California, it originated with the people, who are, bar none, the most gullible people on the planet.
While this might be tongue-in-cheek, one big issue is that it's hard for millions of busy people to fully inform themselves on the minutiae of complicated ballot initiatives in their spare time. There are huge opportunities for information asymmetry via spending boatloads of dollars, which is why many propositions ultimately come down to "special interest X wants to see if they can pay their way to overturning/passing some law."
Agreed. I'd add that perhaps "the system" is not optimized for the people.
For example, perhaps the people of towns/cities should be able to vote on things "closer to home" for themselves (like property taxes and zoning), leaving things involving multiple localities (like water rights) for the state.
Hmmm. Perhaps this is true, but in my experience the ballot propositions in San Francisco (where I live) are almost as inscrutable as the state-level ones. I'd much prefer to elect local officials that align with my own views so that they can spend time and effort on my behalf figuring out what the right thing is to do.
Really it’s just an issue that the voters are able to change the state constitution with a simple majority in an off year election and there are no checks on this power. The legislature, executive or judicial powers of the state cannot overturn such a policy, and you can write in an exception like prop 13 to make it so that you need a 67% majority to overturn a result passed by a 50.1% majority.
It’s really just an example of why checks and balances matter.
> Really it’s just an issue that the voters are able to change the state constitution with a simple majority in an off year election and there are no checks on this power.
There actually is a check, and it is the higher requirement required for a Constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment.
Indeed. The proposition system is the cause of a lot of people's complaints about California's over-regulation. Direct democracy sounds good in practice, but these days pretty much every proposition is written by a special interest group who just want to protect their special interest.
> direct democracy sounds good in practice, but these days pretty much every proposition is written by a special interest group
I think a key part of direct democracy is to make it as local as possible. It's my understanding that Switzerland has cantons averaging 350k people that have their own constitutions, taxes, schools, health care, even treaties with other countries. These are often further divided into municipalities. People might be able to vote on things several times a year. People can vote to cancel laws they don't like. Lots more info here [0]
California has almost 40 million people. That might be too big to qualify as "direct"
California allows citizens to put laws directly into the state constitution. You propose the law, get signatures to put it on the ballot, and then if 50%+1 vote for it, it becomes part of the constitution.
So if you want to be pedantic, they are laws made by unelected lawmakers.
It may be that the gullibility has been propagating in the time domain, so people everywhere are just dumber than ever, but it just seems to me that before I moved to California I has never met anyone who thought 5G was a way to activate a government mind-control weapon, or that you could benefit from a "juice cleanse".
Why not just compare caricatures and get this over with?
Extremes in both blue and red states are equally stupid. Average iq doesn't differ between states. Education level does, but as any techy knows, that's an overrated proxy for intelligence.
No matter how "wonderful" it is when things go right, it is disastrous when things go wrong -- e.g. AB 5. That is why most governmental systems prioritize harm reduction over the provision-of-the-wonderful.
Yeah, I was going to make this point - the consumer and employee protection laws in California are things to be emulated.
I think it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes that are pointed to as gov overreach, and rightfully so in my somewhat libertarian opinion - but it IS possible to have the one without the other, and one could argue the mountain of bad or hasty laws is doing nobody, including proponents of the rightful place of government in protecting citizens like this, any favors.
edit:
I should clarify I don't consider the consumer protection law in question is one of those bad laws of course, I just worry the scattershot lawmaking that California sometimes indulges in makes it harder to point to the successes of that model. I would appreciate the silent downvoters to explain, but I guess HN has gotten too far away from its roots and too close to the Reddit model of 'downvote things I disagree with'
I didn't up or downvote, but to me, your comment sounds like generic yelling about how almost everything (other than consumer and employee protection) is overreach and a shitty law while citing no examples at all, then complaining about downvotes.
Well, yeah that's on me, because that's not my intent nor my point.
The California lege's default position is, when in doubt, pass a law - some are good, well crafted, and effective. Many are not. This is the scattershot I mentioned. There, however is a lot of legislative 'noise' to the signal of the effective laws. That's all my point was.
> it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes
Citation needed, I think. It's not obviously true that California is particularly notable in this regard in terms of volume or fraction that are ill-considered. They of course have some notable unintended consequence problems, but that's not the same thing.
I think any glance at the legislative records of any session will prove this.
Sure, the 'ill-considered' part is highly subjective, but I am not the only one that has that opinion, and that's my point - the people who would oppose a government regulating stuff points to California rightly or wrongly as a bad model because of high volume of relatively ineffective lawmaking.
Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. No need to be skeptical. The below link will have to be filtered for the passed legislation, but as you can see, it's not a minor amount.
And when they don't it's catastrophic. Still confused about stimulus checks not taking into account COL. Did no one think that was necessary? A body of 535+ elected officials decided that it would be equal because the calculation is too hard. $1400 stimulus check for a family living paycheck-to-paycheck in CA goes nowhere.
Are you absolutely sure you want to hold up unsubscribing from a newspaper as a bold success of government regulation? There is a lobby, politically motivated as these things may be, who argue that California's housing policy is causing immeasurable but substantial damage to the tune of much more than a NYT subscription. California has the largest net outflow of any state in America [0], although that sort of comparison is made challenging because of population differences. The point isn't specific political argument, the point is that there are really big issues to be dealt with and this isn't one. Who cares if the government gets this right or wrong? Every other state could be getting it wrong and nobody really cares. Government can't get those issues right reliably because it is too busy arguing about stuff that actually matters.
It is challenging to look at that as one of the major issues of debate and then say "well, but it gets some details right". Government isn't about details, it is dealing with a big picture. A government's success or failure isn't about the small details it doesn't screw up.
It isn't like unsubscribing unilaterally is even that hard; just stop sending the NYT money. I'm sure they'll get the message sooner or later.
I was so mad at their cancellation dark patterns I cancelled my otherwise-useful subscription. I live in California, but still didn't see an easy way to do it, so I swapped my billing method to PayPal and then cancelled it in the PayPal UI, which worked great.
You then have to deal with weeks of constant spam from the NYT about the failed billing process, further cementing the my view that cancellation was the right thing.
I cancelled via chat 2 weeks ago. Was just asked 1 question by the bot which then forwarded the transcript to a live agent who then went ahead and cancelled without further questions. Maybe they updated their policy recently?
Yes same, was pretty easy over chat. However I'd probably resubscribe if they made it easier to cancel. Sometimes I get news overload and want to cut down on publications for a bit. If I could subscribe for a few months, cancel, then resubscribe again with no hassles I'd do it (and do that for other things).
Fwiw I think slack absolutely nails this and is a net positive for them in the long run. They automatically refund inactive users which means you don't need to "think" too much about adding people. I wish more companies would experiment with this kind of "honest" billing vs expending all their effort on layer upon layer of dark patterns.
I'm not standing up for dark patterns here (as a person who runs a subscription business I hate them because it makes it harder for people like me to run an honest business) but there is a big difference between offering a virtual service (i.e. Slack) and shipping somebody a physical product like a Newspaper.
Cancelling the billing in paypal isn't the same thing as cancelling the subscription, the same was as cancelling a check or charging back via credit card doesn't cancel the subscription. NYT could still pursue collecting this debt.
At the bottom of walmart.com, there's a link for everyone to see that says "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" [0]. It takes you a page where it allows you to opt-out of having your personal information sold by Walmart, but only if you live in California, which I do not.
California law requires that you be allowed to cancel a subscription in the same manner in which you created it. So if they have an always available online form to sign up, they are supposed to have an always available form to cancel.
Technically the NYT is still in violation of the law, since I can sign up with out chatting with someone. But at least it's better than the experience for everyone else!
I think your understanding of the law is more strict than it actually is. The text of 17602(c) reads:
> In addition to the requirements of subdivision (b), a consumer who accepts an automatic renewal or continuous service offer online shall be allowed to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service exclusively online, which may include a termination email formatted and provided by the business that a consumer can send to the business without additional information.
Since you can cancel your NYTimes subscription via chat, that seems to satisfy the "exclusively online" requirement.
Section b is relevant though. It lays out some vague terms about how they have to provide service.
Like most laws, this one is poorly written and open to interpretation. The way I wrote it is the way it was conveyed to me by a lawyer who works on this kind of stuff, but of course we will never know for sure until it hits a court case.
> Local consumers will be able to cancel the YouTube Premium service immediately and will be eligible for refunds based on their remaining subscription period, the Korea Communications Commission said after receiving Google's voluntary corrective measures.
South Korea's Communications Service Act Article 50 forbids communications service providers, such as YouTube, from refusing to refund remaining subscription, so Google "voluntarily" corrected this. Strangely, as far as I know this is not available outside South Korea. Why Google? You voluntarily corrected this.
Customers need to get far more ornery. So many of us are just so complacent... Demand better for your dollars or refuse to give it to companies that either 1) Do not deliver or 2) have a reputation for using dark patterns.
"Oh you give discounts to android users because their phones are cheaper than iPhones? Ok you just lost all my business permanently."
I was going to temporarily cancel my NYT subscription because I wasn't using it enough at the time. Once I found out I had to talk to a person in order to cancel, I told them that I would never resubscribe because of it. It's infuriating that they try to use inconvenience to hold your dollars hostage. Why not just focus on making a great product?
makes me wonder what would happen if you called your credit card company and did a stop payment? Basically say it's a subscription and they're not letting you cancel.
I assume the NYT could contact a collection agency and say "this guy didn't cancel his subscription, but just stoppped paying. So after 6 months of this, he owes us $xyz." And then his credit rating takes a hit.
My favorite instance of this phenomenon is when I get a product with a label on it that says "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer."
I'm curious about who holds the rights to that image. I'm a little surprised I've never seen a version of it adapted as a t-shirt, it's so ubiquitous here.
I used to worked in customer service automation and it was extremely disappointing. All studies show that providing good and fast customer service improves customer retention (even when they want to cancel their subscription). Our clients often post these studies on linkedin, yet when it comes to servicing the customer they choose deception.
For every company we worked with we had to create 2 experiences. One for California where you click one button and boom! You cancelled your subscription.
For the rest, there are forms after forms, and then we give you a special email and a specific format to follow. Sometimes you have to talk to an agent to do what we do with a single API call in California.
Not to name names, but something about shaving, men, and landscape. They made the cancelling process so complicated that we decided not to do it. It involved more than 5 emails, some with the only words in the body being "Are you really sure?"
They ended up cancelling our contract. I was never happier.
I have no idea who you're talking about, but curiously I ran across this random example of a company that seems to have a particularly onerous process for cancelling a subscription:
I was recently cancellng my service at https://www.greenlightcard.com/ and it took me 30 min of my life. I was so annoyed about it. But this is an example how such laws could be useless unless they are enforced. I am in California and created my subscription online, yet Greenlight gets away with forcing me to call them to cancel. What do I do? Sue them? I do not have time or money for that.
Similar argument made in this Times op-Ed in regards to tracking on the Times website:
“ Jean-Christophe Demarta, an advertising executive at The Times, recently told Digiday that even with G.D.P.R.-related changes, The Times’s “digital advertising business continues to grow nicely.” If people everywhere should have the same fundamental rights to privacy as Europeans, and if providing privacy is not unduly harming revenue, why shouldn’t The Times provide enhanced privacy to all its readers?
Readers everywhere could then be more confident that their interests in politics, health and other sensitive topics would not be subject to government surveillance or sold to the highest bidder. In the same way The Times leads in high-quality news coverage, it could also lead in respecting reader privacy.
I'm not proud of this but the one lifehack I always use when I'm required to call in to cancel even though a service has a live (human) chat on their site - I tell them I'm deaf. I'm not and I feel weird using this tactic, as though I'm appropriating deafness, but damn does it work. It's never once failed me.
I think it's something you actually should be proud of, this way you increase the frequency in which companies encounter a "deaf" person which forces them to adapt quicker to people with such disabilities.
Would love to know how this works. Is it chat or a from?
I've wanted to give WSJ a try, but have been scared to the cancellation nightmare I have to deal with.
But this is embarrassing. I recently resubscribed, but on my edu account and now I can't find the cancel button anymore. I can only guess that it's because I've paid for some longer duration in advance, but that's no excuse not to have no cancel button.
When I want to make sure nobody pretends a letter got "lost" I send certified mail[1]. The only time I ever did that so far was when I quit a job though.
[1] Or maybe registered mail. I'm honestly unsure how this translates. Seems to vary by country. In Germany it's called "Einschreiben".
People fish mail out of USPS collection boxes (I’ve witnessed it myself). It’s gotten so bad in my neighborhood that at close of business they lock the collection boxes outside of the USPS buildings in my area.
Ah. That's not really physically possible with those we have here - short of wrecking the thing or picking the lock.
I don't see why anyone would though. A bunch of stolen outgoing mail is going to contain nothing but boredom. Certainly nothing you could turn into easy cash.
Though I could picture vandals throwing firecrackers or something into them. In fact I remember something about a PO box burning down being on the local news some time ago. It certainly happens.
