England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
Hawkeye does track and collate every delivery, just their tech isnt cutting edge any more.
There actually isn't much money in providing this tech for cricket and you have to go through loads of hurdles to get accredited, so nobody is really interesting in competing. There was a NZ for a while trying to provide competition.
As a company, it was actually a play thing for Getty. When Sony bought it, that is when big push for the likea of football, as goal line tech making decent money and it isn't doing the prediction element.
Jacob Rees-Mogg - "Thankfully we left the EU before it decided to mandate what sort of phone chargers we can have... "
JRM is a moron. An international standard is a good idea
The only issue with USB-C is that it's already a mishmash of protocols which means you can't be sure that the cable you pick up from the pile can do what you want it to do.
There are USB-C cables rated for x watts so can't cope with y and others which are power only so can't be used for connecting item a to item b.
Some consistency in design there would have been helpful but it's too late now and too late change things.
That's actually not correct, because the phone also subscribes to the standard so a sub-standard cable will either be rejected or told to charge at a lower rate. The big plus of USB-C is that it is two way.
Of course you can buy dodgy USB-A cables too that damage things, this is however not a reason not to enforce a connector standard.
The brilliant thing is that Thunderbolt and USB now have the same connector, so anything you would want to connect, can be connected.
The fact that so many cables can be rejected by so many devices is part of the problem. As I said, our Switch will reject most of our "universal" cables - and when you're packing up to go away for a trip, you need to ensure which of the identical-looking cables is actually an acceptable one and which isn't. So much for "universality".
But either way, there is no justification to "enforce" a standard. The standard has already been agreed, voluntarily, by every company barring Apple pretty much and even Apple are implementing USB-C on more devices nowadays. But USB-C is not the be-all and end-all. Why enforce crappy standards now, in law, when they're already being used when better standards with fewer flaws and better utility might be around the corner?
If someone can design a USB-D, why should that be barred from going on the market.
This is absolutely a bonus of Brexit. We can keep using USB-C, as its the standard, which we already have available. But if anyone wants to innovate, they're entitled to do so in the UK first while the sclerotic EU will have to lag behind and update their standards when the time comes.
USB-D would be a complete waste of time and would not serve any useful purpose.
A refinement of the USB-C standard is what is required, not another connector.
Why?
The history of IT is full of people improving upon standards and coming up with better alternatives.
It might be that USB-C is the be-all and end-all which can never be improved upon. Great, if so, then the market will operate that way and that will be the end of the matter, so there's no reason for legislators to get involved.
But in the event that someone can come up with an innovative, superior standard, that does serve a useful purpose, why should that be barred from sale by law?
It won't be banned.
There are three aspects to this: the physical connection, the voltages and protocols, and the comms standard. If your connector is different, that is fine: just put a USB-C connector on as well. If it is the same, then ensure you can drive both your new amazing standard and the USB-C standard.
As others have said, mobiles will probably go wireless.
I think Apple are the only manufacturer having a strop about this. Just because they want to make a fortune from cable sales want to be different.
**** 'em.
I think the issue is that a lightning plug is slightly smaller and uses a standardised interface that apple produces in bulk (hardly surprising).
Changing it on phones is a pile of work even if you are talking models that are 18 months away. And while I can see the iphone 15 going wireless charging only it's an issue with cheaper models which just rehash an older design with a faster processor.
Many years ago in my retail pharmacy days we used to sell films. And films came in about half a dozen different sizes; frequently customers, particularly older customers, didn't know what size they wanted and we had to take the camera apart to see what they did want! That was before ubiquitous 35mm of course. We're almost going down the same route!
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
I'm not sure that's true. They have to build the projection, I think, which takes time. And then there are issues like whether the ball hit bat or pad first. That has to be a human decision.
Are we back to "SKS is crap" now we've had another 2 point lead?
Ive never wavered from it. He is crap
I don't think anyone that turns around 26 point deficit is crap.
Could be better, absolutely
They've got to make him better. He needs a completely different approach. He needs to be much more proactive. Get a load of Blair tapes and see how it's done.
Tell people things they don't necessarily agree with. Tell them that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is an abomination. (Even if he doesn't think so).
People will conjure up a whole set of attitudes based on that. They'll start to build up a picture. Blair did it all the time. "I want to stop fox hunting BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO".
...so now he's got a heart and and people can make assumptions.
Then a few memorable soundbites and the REAL Keir Starmer will start to materialise
*sudden vision of SKS advertising Bounty bars*
Good idea but maybe a bit more mysterious. A bit more NEW Labour......
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
And tedious.
Cricket and tennis have it right.
I really like the review system in cricket. Good decision-making on whether to use or not to use a review is a legitimate part of the game and the difference between teams. How well are the bowler and those behind the wicket focusing? How swayed is the captain by big characters and wishful thinking?
Umpires make errors, and there is a system giving the opportunity to review without slowing the game. If you've wasted all your reviews, or fail to review clear errors, the blame is with you more than on-pitch officials.
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Personally, I think umpire's call should be not out with the benefit of the doubt remaining with the batsman.
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Hawkeye system itself had proved a high level of accuracy to ICC, it was the likes of India that said we don't believe this evidence and won't use it unless you provide a buffer, hence the unpire call fudge.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
And tedious.
Cricket and tennis have it right.
I really like the review system in cricket. Good decision-making on whether to use or not to use a review is a legitimate part of the game and the difference between teams. How well are the bowler and those behind the wicket focusing? How swayed is the captain by big characters and wishful thinking?
Umpires make errors, and there is a system giving the opportunity to review without slowing the game. If you've wasted all your reviews, or fail to review clear errors, the blame is with you more than on-pitch officials.
IMO, Football should be the same, you think you have been hard done by, VAR review please (only so many). If its then their toenail is offside, stick with ref decision on field.
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
With an (Almost fully) automated system (Umpire reviews "outs" to check the ball hasn't knicked the bat first) you'd give "umpire's call" to the batsman every time. Custom of cricket - benefit of doubt to batsman.
I personally don't remember having a booster, and noted that advice is any adult who didn't get one should ask GP. I know they changed the form of vaccine in the UK in 80s and again in early 2000s i believe, but never seen any mention of when the schedule of 4 doses of polio including booster at 14 came in.
I suppose a problem is people will never vote tactical quite so effectively at a GE, and fewer incumbent supporters will stay at home, but its still significant if voters mostly independently do what needs doing at a by election.
This is the case for having a non scary, slightly equivocal Labour party that promotes ethics and a vague sense of competence over hard edged rhetoric or policy - it encourages the middling mass of people who want the Tories out to vote accordingly at the GE based on their constituency calculus. That's the Starmer plan, I think. He's 100% committed to it now, thinks it's the best way to defeat Johnson and his persona and culture war shtick, so we shouldn't expect a change.
I had to go get a DTP earlier on the week since mine was out of date. I actually didn’t realise the P was polio. I thought it was Pertussis for some reason.
I had to go get a DTP earlier on the week since mine was out of date. I actually didn’t realise the P was polio. I thought it was Pertussis for some reason.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It will take a while until the computers are fast enough to process the data fast enough for that. But seems like a natural development when the technology is fast enough.
Anyhow, what I learned today on Twitter. Interesting mini-thread. Useful background for @Leon in his travels, perhaps.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1539957244560916480 Yes, rulers of Iran - Safavids, Afsharids, Qajars, constantly fought with Dagestanis. But modern Dagestanis do *not* associate those dynasties with Iran. They associate them with Azerbaijan
"Qajars"/"horse shit" are common Lezgin slurs against Azeri rather than Persian people...
I had to go get a DTP earlier on the week since mine was out of date. I actually didn’t realise the P was polio. I thought it was Pertussis for some reason.
It is!
You’re right! I wasn’t mad. However we use DTPP now which adds polio rather than separate jabs. The 3-1 Teenage jab is the one you get if you suffer abrasion injury and that is, in fact, DT and Polio. Just a bit confusing.
I had to go get a DTP earlier on the week since mine was out of date. I actually didn’t realise the P was polio. I thought it was Pertussis for some reason.
It is!
You’re right! I wasn’t mad. However we use DTPP now which adds polio rather than separate jabs. The 3-1 Teenage jab is the one you get if you suffer abrasion injury and that is, in fact, DT and Polio. Just a bit confusing.
First jabs on the schedule for my daughter today. Mum's said it's made her very grumpy ;(
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
Which is why the advice to your parents is - any call from the bank or elsewhere asking for money - get off the phone and speak to you or your brother / sister before they do anything.
I had to go get a DTP earlier on the week since mine was out of date. I actually didn’t realise the P was polio. I thought it was Pertussis for some reason.
It is!
You’re right! I wasn’t mad. However we use DTPP now which adds polio rather than separate jabs. The 3-1 Teenage jab is the one you get if you suffer abrasion injury and that is, in fact, DT and Polio. Just a bit confusing.
Are you saying if you go to hospital and they say you need to a Tetanus jab because you put a nail in your hand, you actually get one that covers polio as well?
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
Spoofing phone numbers is incredibly easy (in fact way too easy but you can't put the cat back into the bag).
The only solution for this is for banks to provide people with a reference code and then for people to call the bank back and quote said code to get to the correct department.
Some banks grasp why I insist on doing the above - others don't have the first clue why I ask for it and are shocked when, at the end of the call they ask is there anything else I need, I ask what the easiest process to close all my accounts is.
Yes. Never, EVER, discuss your account or transactions with the bank, if they have called you. Always call them back, on the number you have for them.
Of course, getting a fraud call like that in the 73rd minute of the cup final you're watching, when your team has just gone 1-2 down means you may not be entirely focused...
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
And tedious.
Cricket and tennis have it right.
I really like the review system in cricket. Good decision-making on whether to use or not to use a review is a legitimate part of the game and the difference between teams. How well are the bowler and those behind the wicket focusing? How swayed is the captain by big characters and wishful thinking?
Umpires make errors, and there is a system giving the opportunity to review without slowing the game. If you've wasted all your reviews, or fail to review clear errors, the blame is with you more than on-pitch officials.
IMO, Football should be the same, you think you have been hard done by, VAR review please (only so many). If its then their toenail is offside, stick with ref decision on field.
I think it's MUCH harder for football, as the game moves on quickly and it could be a long while before the ball is dead - whereas the nature of cricket is that the ball is dead regularly and quickly (as with tennis to an only slightly lesser extent).
Flawed though football VAR is, I don't think there's an easy route to it being triggered by players on the pitch without disrupting the game unduly.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If they have control you are screwed.
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
And there is the logical step that if they know what is going on they are in a position to stop it...
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
And tedious.
Cricket and tennis have it right.
I really like the review system in cricket. Good decision-making on whether to use or not to use a review is a legitimate part of the game and the difference between teams. How well are the bowler and those behind the wicket focusing? How swayed is the captain by big characters and wishful thinking?
Umpires make errors, and there is a system giving the opportunity to review without slowing the game. If you've wasted all your reviews, or fail to review clear errors, the blame is with you more than on-pitch officials.
IMO, Football should be the same, you think you have been hard done by, VAR review please (only so many). If its then their toenail is offside, stick with ref decision on field.
I think it's MUCH harder for football, as the game moves on quickly and it could be a long while before the ball is dead - whereas the nature of cricket is that the ball is dead regularly and quickly. Flawed though football VAR is, I don't think there's an easy route to it being triggered by players on the pitch without disrupting the game unduly.
Its only if its a goal that you allow players to ask for a review, not random occurrences.
For what's it worth, FIFA already have mostly automatic offside system in trials that works by covering play in real time.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If the bank genuinely know that fraudsters have your bank account details, and the bank has spoken to you about it, then losses are their responsibility at that point.
Bit awkward when you're travelling, as they might just freeze your cards. What they won't do, though, is engage in some daft scheme to move your money to a "safe" account. Which is when the losses might land on you.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If they have control you are screwed.
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
My bank say they will never call; if we get a call from them it's not from them! They will text
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Personally, I think umpire's call should be not out with the benefit of the doubt remaining with the batsman.
The Umpire is still giving the batter the benefit of the doubt, but the issue with the review is if there is sufficient evidence to overturn the Umpire's decision. So the benefit of that doubt is given to the Umpire.
A fully automated system that always made a fast and correct decision without interrupting the flow of the game just wouldn't be cricket!
What i find interesting is baseball has this tech, but they don't use it other than for tv coverage....it just isn't baseball to ever overrule the umpire for making terrible calls, even though they know they are regularly making the incorrect calls.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If the bank genuinely know that fraudsters have your bank account details, and the bank has spoken to you about it, then losses are their responsibility at that point.
Bit awkward when you're travelling, as they might just freeze your cards. What they won't do, though, is engage in some daft scheme to move your money to a "safe" account. Which is when the losses might land on you.
I have called the REAL Santander, of course, to report this. At first I got through relatively quickly, but then the guy said Well now you need to speak to our security team ASAP! - and he put me in another endless, endless queue. From Tbilisi. In the end I gave up. It's helplessly poor
The roast chicken being served up has a particularly tasty iliac muscle bonne bouche:
"(Incidentally, rail fares get increased each year in line with the July RPI figure, which is likely to be well above even CPI. Is the government ready for the firestorm that’s going to produce? Has it thought about the inconsistency with both rail industry salary rises and pension increases? I doubt it.)"
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If the bank genuinely know that fraudsters have your bank account details, and the bank has spoken to you about it, then losses are their responsibility at that point.
Bit awkward when you're travelling, as they might just freeze your cards. What they won't do, though, is engage in some daft scheme to move your money to a "safe" account. Which is when the losses might land on you.
I have called the REAL Santander, of course, to report this. At first I got through relatively quickly, but then the guy said Well now you need to speak to our security team ASAP! - and he put me in another endless, endless queue. From Tbilisi. In the end I gave up. It's helplessly poor
Problably don't want to interrupt them watching Netflix while working from home.....
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Anyone telling you to act FAST is a big red flag.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If they have control you are screwed.
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
My bank say they will never call; if we get a call from them it's not from them! They will text
I've had (genuine) calls from utility suppliers etc, and I get very annoyed with them when they ask me for information to identify myself, without seeing any need to do so for themselves.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I very nearly fell for one that asked you to log into your mobile providers website because payment for you bill failed. The message came spoofed with correct number and on the day my payment goes out and of course the phishing site looked perfect. I clicked through, then stopped myself....
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Anyone telling you to act FAST is a big red flag.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
Wasn't it someone on this site who said that they asked the scammers or at least the scammers representatives "you sound like a nice person; how would your grandmother feel about you robbing old people?"
Jacob Rees-Mogg - "Thankfully we left the EU before it decided to mandate what sort of phone chargers we can have... "
JRM is a moron. An international standard is a good idea
The only issue with USB-C is that it's already a mishmash of protocols which means you can't be sure that the cable you pick up from the pile can do what you want it to do.
There are USB-C cables rated for x watts so can't cope with y and others which are power only so can't be used for connecting item a to item b.
Some consistency in design there would have been helpful but it's too late now and too late change things.
That's actually not correct, because the phone also subscribes to the standard so a sub-standard cable will either be rejected or told to charge at a lower rate. The big plus of USB-C is that it is two way.
Of course you can buy dodgy USB-A cables too that damage things, this is however not a reason not to enforce a connector standard.
The brilliant thing is that Thunderbolt and USB now have the same connector, so anything you would want to connect, can be connected.
The fact that so many cables can be rejected by so many devices is part of the problem. As I said, our Switch will reject most of our "universal" cables - and when you're packing up to go away for a trip, you need to ensure which of the identical-looking cables is actually an acceptable one and which isn't. So much for "universality".
But either way, there is no justification to "enforce" a standard. The standard has already been agreed, voluntarily, by every company barring Apple pretty much and even Apple are implementing USB-C on more devices nowadays. But USB-C is not the be-all and end-all. Why enforce crappy standards now, in law, when they're already being used when better standards with fewer flaws and better utility might be around the corner?
If someone can design a USB-D, why should that be barred from going on the market.
This is absolutely a bonus of Brexit. We can keep using USB-C, as its the standard, which we already have available. But if anyone wants to innovate, they're entitled to do so in the UK first while the sclerotic EU will have to lag behind and update their standards when the time comes.
USB-D would be a complete waste of time and would not serve any useful purpose.
A refinement of the USB-C standard is what is required, not another connector.
Why?
The history of IT is full of people improving upon standards and coming up with better alternatives.
It might be that USB-C is the be-all and end-all which can never be improved upon. Great, if so, then the market will operate that way and that will be the end of the matter, so there's no reason for legislators to get involved.
But in the event that someone can come up with an innovative, superior standard, that does serve a useful purpose, why should that be barred from sale by law?
It won't be banned.
There are three aspects to this: the physical connection, the voltages and protocols, and the comms standard. If your connector is different, that is fine: just put a USB-C connector on as well. If it is the same, then ensure you can drive both your new amazing standard and the USB-C standard.
As others have said, mobiles will probably go wireless.
I think Apple are the only manufacturer having a strop about this. Just because they want to make a fortune from cable sales want to be different.
**** 'em.
I think the issue is that a lightning plug is slightly smaller and uses a standardised interface that apple produces in bulk (hardly surprising).
Changing it on phones is a pile of work even if you are talking models that are 18 months away. And while I can see the iphone 15 going wireless charging only it's an issue with cheaper models which just rehash an older design with a faster processor.
I bet that quality USB-C connectors are available for less than Apple pay for the Lightning hardware.
In ye olden days some volume manufacturers would change their power cable connector types from year to year, as a different plug became available more cheaply on the market. 1 pence saved on a connector / charger combo over a million units is not to be sniffed at. Sadly, it was sh*t for the consumer. even changing input voltage from the transformer isn't that difficult if you design your circuitry well (apparently; that was never my area).
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
Guys, guys: you have a real top notch fraud investigator among you. Call / VM me and I'll tell you not to be so silly. Also can provide brilliant letters and emails to banks.
It is really hard to be rational and cool-headed when it is your emotions involved. But a 3rd party who's seen all this and worse a gazillion times before doesn't have the same emotions.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
My view is that my bank will never phone me with any request whatsoever about transfers or passcodes or whatever.
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Anyone telling you to act FAST is a big red flag.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
Wasn't it someone on this site who said that they asked the scammers or at least the scammers representatives "you sound like a nice person; how would your grandmother feel about you robbing old people?"
Depending on the source of the call - if it's India my default response is that what would your parents think of the dishonour you are bringing to your family.
I had to go get a DTP earlier on the week since mine was out of date. I actually didn’t realise the P was polio. I thought it was Pertussis for some reason.
It is!
You’re right! I wasn’t mad. However we use DTPP now which adds polio rather than separate jabs. The 3-1 Teenage jab is the one you get if you suffer abrasion injury and that is, in fact, DT and Polio. Just a bit confusing.
Are you saying if you go to hospital and they say you need to a Tetanus jab because you put a nail in your hand, you actually get one that covers polio as well?
Wait to the anti-vax loons find out about that one!!
Jacob Rees-Mogg - "Thankfully we left the EU before it decided to mandate what sort of phone chargers we can have... "
JRM is a moron. An international standard is a good idea
The only issue with USB-C is that it's already a mishmash of protocols which means you can't be sure that the cable you pick up from the pile can do what you want it to do.
There are USB-C cables rated for x watts so can't cope with y and others which are power only so can't be used for connecting item a to item b.
Some consistency in design there would have been helpful but it's too late now and too late change things.
That's actually not correct, because the phone also subscribes to the standard so a sub-standard cable will either be rejected or told to charge at a lower rate. The big plus of USB-C is that it is two way.
Of course you can buy dodgy USB-A cables too that damage things, this is however not a reason not to enforce a connector standard.
The brilliant thing is that Thunderbolt and USB now have the same connector, so anything you would want to connect, can be connected.
The fact that so many cables can be rejected by so many devices is part of the problem. As I said, our Switch will reject most of our "universal" cables - and when you're packing up to go away for a trip, you need to ensure which of the identical-looking cables is actually an acceptable one and which isn't. So much for "universality".
But either way, there is no justification to "enforce" a standard. The standard has already been agreed, voluntarily, by every company barring Apple pretty much and even Apple are implementing USB-C on more devices nowadays. But USB-C is not the be-all and end-all. Why enforce crappy standards now, in law, when they're already being used when better standards with fewer flaws and better utility might be around the corner?
If someone can design a USB-D, why should that be barred from going on the market.
This is absolutely a bonus of Brexit. We can keep using USB-C, as its the standard, which we already have available. But if anyone wants to innovate, they're entitled to do so in the UK first while the sclerotic EU will have to lag behind and update their standards when the time comes.
USB-D would be a complete waste of time and would not serve any useful purpose.
A refinement of the USB-C standard is what is required, not another connector.
Why?
The history of IT is full of people improving upon standards and coming up with better alternatives.
It might be that USB-C is the be-all and end-all which can never be improved upon. Great, if so, then the market will operate that way and that will be the end of the matter, so there's no reason for legislators to get involved.
But in the event that someone can come up with an innovative, superior standard, that does serve a useful purpose, why should that be barred from sale by law?
It won't be banned.
There are three aspects to this: the physical connection, the voltages and protocols, and the comms standard. If your connector is different, that is fine: just put a USB-C connector on as well. If it is the same, then ensure you can drive both your new amazing standard and the USB-C standard.
As others have said, mobiles will probably go wireless.
I think Apple are the only manufacturer having a strop about this. Just because they want to make a fortune from cable sales want to be different.
**** 'em.
So would you be happy to have USB-B enforced by law and USB-C verboten?
Not all devices fit 2 connectors. If a company wishes to innovate, they should be allowed to do so.
The idea that USB-C is the pinnacle of what connectors can be and could never, ever be improved upon is a very weird one.
No-one saying it is the pinnacle. Standards evolve and change. But the vast majority of the different cables out there were just because manufacturers wanted to be different - there were few advantages to any of them.
As I said, I believe all manufacturers aside from Apple are fine with this change (I think!). These guys are all innovative.
All manufacturers apart from Apple have made the change freely in a free market, not because the law compelled them to do so.
At the moment eg Samsung don't have better alternative to USB-C so they use USB-C. If they come up with a much greater alternative, why should they be forbidden from trying to sell it?
Innovation is a good thing. The market already leads to harmonisation on charging, where innovation isn't occurring, because that's what consumers want and apart from Apple every other company wants their device to be compatible with their consumers cables.
So its a non-issue. There's no benefit from making the change (you can already boycott Apple) but only harm if you block innovation in the future.
To be fair, this law is just the latest in a long line of stipulations that have led to the USB-C standard. Manufacturers have known this is coming for a long time.
It really is not a 'non-issue'. There are many reasons to do it; from the mountain of electrical waste caused by chargers being thrown out each year, to the savings on not having to provide chargers with all hardware.
And they will not be 'forbidden' from selling something better. They would just have to support USB-C as well.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Anyone telling you to act FAST is a big red flag.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
Wasn't it someone on this site who said that they asked the scammers or at least the scammers representatives "you sound like a nice person; how would your grandmother feel about you robbing old people?"
Depending on the source of the call - if it's India my default response is that what would your parents think of the dishonour you are bringing to your family.
The thing about fraudsters is that they are sociopaths. They really don't care about this. But they are very very good at understanding human emotions and behaviour and sniffing out weaknesses.
NZ don't have a lot of luck with freak occurrences of this nature... see 2019 World Cup Final.
The umpire was very lucky not to be felled by the ricochet
Just seen it on the ECB Twitter feed. You're right, he was.
I remember the great Dilip Vengsarkar being caught at Lords in a test in 1979 IIRC where he edged a ball and it bounced up off a players foot into the hands of one of the slips.
NZ don't have a lot of luck with freak occurrences of this nature... see 2019 World Cup Final.
The umpire was very lucky not to be felled by the ricochet
Just seen it on the ECB Twitter feed. You're right, he was.
I remember the great Dilip Vengsarkar being caught at Lords in a test in 1979 IIRC where he edged a ball and it bounced up off a players foot into the hands of one of the slips.
Theres been a few swept onto the foot and up into silly mid off/ons hands i believe
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Very similar one nearly hornswaggled my wife, who got very upset about it at the time - the fraudster on the other end was persuasive and the had the right balance of seeming honest and striking fear, impressing urgency. Thankfully she wasn't able to do the whole call and spoke to me about it before she called them back.
There's always something that doesn't ring true though - they 'seem fairer and feel fouler' (per Aragorn).
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Anyone telling you to act FAST is a big red flag.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
Wasn't it someone on this site who said that they asked the scammers or at least the scammers representatives "you sound like a nice person; how would your grandmother feel about you robbing old people?"
Depending on the source of the call - if it's India my default response is that what would your parents think of the dishonour you are bringing to your family.
The thing about fraudsters is that they are sociopaths. They really don't care about this. But they are very very good at understanding human emotions and behaviour and sniffing out weaknesses.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If they have control you are screwed.
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
My bank say they will never call; if we get a call from them it's not from them! They will text
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
The first guy was genuinely a genius actor. He had a ready reply - with a dash of sympathetic wit - whenever I raised suspicions. The second guy (which might have been the first guy changing his accent, likesay) was less convincing, but by then I was at least a quarter hooked
Meanwhile my phone is telling me that I have "missed a call from Santander"
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
IMV it is rather dangerous to assume you are too intelligent to ever get conned.
We can all get conned, especially if someone targets you specifically.
NZ don't have a lot of luck with freak occurrences of this nature... see 2019 World Cup Final.
The umpire was very lucky not to be felled by the ricochet
Just seen it on the ECB Twitter feed. You're right, he was.
I remember the great Dilip Vengsarkar being caught at Lords in a test in 1979 IIRC where he edged a ball and it bounced up off a players foot into the hands of one of the slips.
Theres been a few swept onto the foot and up into silly mid off/ons hands i believe
A fully automated system that always made a fast and correct decision without interrupting the flow of the game just wouldn't be cricket!
What i find interesting is baseball has this tech, but they don't use it other than for tv coverage....it just isn't baseball to ever overrule the umpire for making terrible calls, even though they know they are regularly making the incorrect calls.
Ditto football. A big match turning on an iffy decision - "Referee's a wanker! Referee's a wanker!" - is for me integral to the sport. If you think about the water cooler talking points over the years, which is what makes football the lingua franca binding force that it is, so many of them revolve around this sense of unfairness and being robbed.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
IMV it is rather dangerous to assume you are too intelligent to ever get conned.
We can all get conned, especially if someone targets you specifically.
That was exactly what my friend warned me about - he had been quite taken aback by the experience, and the realization.
PS: in fact, very much as Leon is telling us today.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
Anyone telling you to act FAST is a big red flag.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
Wasn't it someone on this site who said that they asked the scammers or at least the scammers representatives "you sound like a nice person; how would your grandmother feel about you robbing old people?"
Depending on the source of the call - if it's India my default response is that what would your parents think of the dishonour you are bringing to your family.
The thing about fraudsters is that they are sociopaths. They really don't care about this. But they are very very good at understanding human emotions and behaviour and sniffing out weaknesses.
Not all the fraudsters are sociopaths - a lot of the lower level people especially in India are just people doing a job...
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
IMV it is rather dangerous to assume you are too intelligent to ever get conned.
We can all get conned, especially if someone targets you specifically.
Good article about Ukraine has a conclusion with which I am very much in agreement.
https://ecfr.eu/article/putins-archaic-war-russias-newly-outlawed-professional-class-and-how-it-could-one-day-return/ ...It would therefore be good for the West to give up its dichotomy when thinking of Russia, and acknowledge that, even when Putin departs, Russia might not set the clock back to 1991 and start again. The country will not take the central European path of democratisation, which emulated the West – if Russia democratises, it will be in its own way and in pursuit of its own needs. Europeans should be content with this. They should give Russia the right to be Russia, but no right to invade neighbouring countries. ‘Keep your worldview, but ditch the aggression,’ should be the realistic expectation. However, this might be easier said than done. Putin may still succeed in saddling that future Russia with his own archaic agenda. In fact, this could even be among his reasons for invading. In November, one Moscow insider suggested to the present author that: “Putin sees Ukraine as his mission because he senses that the next generation will care less.” And it is true that, if the war ends with Russia controlling large chunks of Ukraine’s territory, then giving these back would be problematic, if not suicidal, for any new Russian leadership. Russia’s relationship with Ukraine would thus remain a source of sharp conflict for years to come. For Putin’s successors, disowning this legacy, even if they operate in the form of a collective leadership, will be a lot easier if there is no territory to give up, and the war ends in a humiliating draw. This also means that the contours of Europe’s future relations with Russia – including the question of whether these can become a moderately cooperative relationship – will be drawn on today’s battlefields...
🥱 I already have. The problem isn’t the explaining, but some just arn’t listening. This poll points to about 6% labour win, which is more than enough to bury the ghosts of Corbyn and Johnson.
Just to add after my little sleepsie, we can go back to politics being a boring thing done by boring but at least semi competent people, without 4 major elections in 5 years ending up with Emperor Nero in Downing St and everyone praying for the Praetorian Guard to slay him already.
Actually not a great Kantor for the Tories as they haven’t helped them break this run of sub 35’s. I don’t think Sundays Opinium will either. 🤔
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
IMV it is rather dangerous to assume you are too intelligent to ever get conned.
We can all get conned, especially if someone targets you specifically.
That was exactly what my friend warned me about - he had been quite taken aback by the experience, and the realization.
PS: in fact, very much as Leon is telling us today.
Indeed
Hitherto I have always prided myself on spotting scams really quickly
False pride, it turns out, that nearly led me astray
🥱 I already have. The problem isn’t the explaining, but some just arn’t listening. This poll points to about 6% labour win, which is more than enough to bury the ghosts of Corbyn and Johnson.
Just to add after my little sleepsie, we can go back to politics being a boring thing done by boring but at least semi competent people, without 4 major elections in 5 years ending up with Emperor Nero in Downing St and everyone praying for the Praetorian Guard to slay him already.
Actually not a great Kantor for the Tories as they haven’t helped them break this run of sub 35’s. I don’t think Sundays Opinium will either. 🤔
If I was made emperor (ha!), one of the first laws I would bring in is that all financial institutions have to say how much losses they think have made due to fraud, and of what type. How many millions to chip-and-pin fraud? How much to credit card fraud? How many to other types of fraud?
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Hawkeye system itself had proved a high level of accuracy to ICC, it was the likes of India that said we don't believe this evidence and won't use it unless you provide a buffer, hence the unpire call fudge.
Its had Umpire's Call since the beginning, while India were still saying they didn't believe it, it wasn't added on afterwards. Yes it has a high degree of accuracy, but it does so precisely in part because of the margin of error built in.
I recall when this was being debated, when India were still hesitant, and people were asking why clipping isn't counted either way Michael Atherton (I think?) showing on Sky just how big the margin of error actually is, during the break in a Test.
From memory, if Hawkeye says its hitting, its almost certainly hitting. If it says its missing, then its almost certainly missing. But when it says its clipping off stump, the variance is such that it could be completely missing, or not just clipping off stump but hitting middle and off.
Having the margin of error covered by Umpire's Call allows it to be accurate the rest of the time, and is sporting in respecting the Umpires and giving the sides an equal number of reviews they can use as part of the sport.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If they have control you are screwed.
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
My bank say they will never call; if we get a call from them it's not from them! They will text
I've had (genuine) calls from utility suppliers etc, and I get very annoyed with them when they ask me for information to identify myself, without seeing any need to do so for themselves.
Regulations. They aren't allowed to assume that your phone hasn't been answered (or stolen) by someone else.
The fraud squad is useless. They make a big fuss over things that are very unlikely to be frauds, and don't do much about real scams.
I was a victim of a car insurance fraud where they were 10+ were fraudly taken out in my name. When i spoke to insurances companies and fraud people, they went oh yeah its very common fraud....i asked can you tell me what details they must know about me, no sorry, you have admitted not being the person on the policy.... eventually i managed to get one helpful person to break these rules and through a game of 20 questions worked out they hardly had any correct info about me, but to ensure frictionless sign ups via compare the meerkat insurance companies don't properly check everything for several weeks (which is enough time for them to sell the fraudulent policy via social media).
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
For reasons I can't comprehend the US seems to be imposing a set of rules that made sense in the late 18th / 19th century into the 21st century without thought as to what has changed between then and now.
2 obvious examples
On guns - the typical gun was a musket that carried a risk of exploding when fired. Also many people lived near bears and other dangerous animals so carrying a gun made sense. On abortion - until the 1930's it was impossible to know if someone was pregnant or whether the growth was a tumour or worse (heck it's only in the 1960's it become practical). In the 1800's no one would have given 2 hoots about a woman's pregnancy until the quickening when the child could be felt and was kicking..
🥱 I already have. The problem isn’t the explaining, but some just arn’t listening. This poll points to about 6% labour win, which is more than enough to bury the ghosts of Corbyn and Johnson.
Just to add after my little sleepsie, we can go back to politics being a boring thing done by boring but at least semi competent people, without 4 major elections in 5 years ending up with Emperor Nero in Downing St and everyone praying for the Praetorian Guard to slay him already.
Actually not a great Kantor for the Tories as they haven’t helped them break this run of sub 35’s. I don’t think Sundays Opinium will either. 🤔
I think Nero woke up one morning and found all the Pretorian guard had walked out overnight, so he made the decision to flee.
Maybe we are waiting for a Caligula style finish in your opinion?
The bloodless political equivalent would be a PMQ where all those people with folders, phones and writing pads don’t sit behind him, no one cheers him, and his cabinet starts resigning that afternoon, invert night, next morning.
Truth is, the Praetorian guards stuck with Emperors partyly for their own preservation, much like this cabinet rally’s round their own mad emperor
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My mum got one of the texts a week or so back, and phoned me to check if it was legit. Just told her to delete it, which she did.
The elaborate stuff comes when you've already half fallen for it. I'm very glad you dodged the scam.
I just stopped a tenant falling for that one.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
The obvious way to check it is a scam is to call the bank yourself. Which I did. But then you end up in a call queue which seems endless - even the fraud action line dumps you in a prolonged queue. And this is also hideously expensive if you are calling from Tbilisi (which I was)
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
If they have control you are screwed.
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
My bank say they will never call; if we get a call from them it's not from them! They will text
I've had (genuine) calls from utility suppliers etc, and I get very annoyed with them when they ask me for information to identify myself, without seeing any need to do so for themselves.
Regulations. They aren't allowed to assume that your phone hasn't been answered (or stolen) by someone else.
Indeed - but they never twig that applies to both ends of the call.
🥱 I already have. The problem isn’t the explaining, but some just arn’t listening. This poll points to about 6% labour win, which is more than enough to bury the ghosts of Corbyn and Johnson.
Just to add after my little sleepsie, we can go back to politics being a boring thing done by boring but at least semi competent people, without 4 major elections in 5 years ending up with Emperor Nero in Downing St and everyone praying for the Praetorian Guard to slay him already.
Actually not a great Kantor for the Tories as they haven’t helped them break this run of sub 35’s. I don’t think Sundays Opinium will either. 🤔
Back in ye olden days, a form of hacking was done via bin-diving (dumpster diving in the US). You can get a lot of information on people from this, and hacking skills may not even be needed; just good social engineering skills. (*)
A few decades ago, I said this to a friend who thought it rubbish. So I went through her bin and found a rather staggering amount of information on her and her parents.
A shredder can be a good investment.
(*) I think this is one of the ways Kevin Mitnick operated. Although from memory he got a girl to go into the bins...
England haven't reviewed an LBW and it would have been out.
Wonder how the game would change if every LBW decision was not called but instantly hawkeyed & snickoed.
We'd get 50 overs in a day of Test Cricket.
No, the system wouldn't stop the game for LBW shouts, a computer would merely quickly assess them in the background and let the umpire know if there's one that's out (3 reds, no bat/ball spike, muffled pad/ball spike).
It still takes time to do that, you'd need to stop the game inbetween. They currently stop the game until hawkeye is ready when a review occurs.
In the future it might be technologically possible, but not yet.
I think most of "hawkeye" is theatre at the moment. The actual tracking part could very likely be set up to run much much more quickly in the background (Like goal line technology in football). It isn't because that's not the way it works at the moment.
GLT is about where the ball is (like Tennis showing where the ball lands) but Hawkeye is about tracking where the ball is going to end up. A bit more complex.
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Hawkeye system itself had proved a high level of accuracy to ICC, it was the likes of India that said we don't believe this evidence and won't use it unless you provide a buffer, hence the unpire call fudge.
Its had Umpire's Call since the beginning, while India were still saying they didn't believe it, it wasn't added on afterwards. Yes it has a high degree of accuracy, but it does so precisely in part because of the margin of error built in.
I recall when this was being debated, when India were still hesitant, and people were asking why clipping isn't counted either way Michael Atherton (I think?) showing on Sky just how big the margin of error actually is, during the break in a Test.
From memory, if Hawkeye says its hitting, its almost certainly hitting. If it says its missing, then its almost certainly missing. But when it says its clipping off stump, the variance is such that it could be completely missing, or not just clipping off stump but hitting middle and off.
Having the margin of error covered by Umpire's Call allows it to be accurate the rest of the time, and is sporting in respecting the Umpires and giving the sides an equal number of reviews they can use as part of the sport.
Yes and no....initially it wasn't as accurate as it is now hence the umpires call. Hawkeye and ICC have tested and i think its 2mm now. India wouldn't accept it from the get go, then said after loads of arm twisting we only will go with it if you carry on with these "protections" despite its accuracy been independently shown to now be tiny.
Jeepers. I was just the nearly the victim of an extremely clever, elaborate banking fraud
Call from "Santander Fraud Dept". They spoofed the right Santander number and even had the correct social media accounts of Santander employees when asked
My parents fell for the first part of this, just hy chance i was visiting the next day and managed them stopping them falling for the second leg of it.
Scotsman URL seems to be a story about a different fraud?
Yes I'm still wondering exactly what the scam is.
it would take about 3 pages to explain. It's highly elaborate, even elegant. A clever sting
There are oddities tho. The first guy who calls has this super honest, friendly, modestly posh Scottish voice. Trustworthy. I wonder if it is an out-of-work actor. The script is deft
Then he hands you to his manager when you get suspicious (they are obvs prepared for this). The second guy sounds different and older - senior! - and yet at one point he lapsed into a Scottish accent (I think) - which makes me wonder if it is the same actor doing all the roles
They invite you to call them back but they warn you there will be a loooooong queue, and time is of the essence, and of course when you do check there IS a loooong queue, so they call you again and apologise for the queue and all the time they are warning you that these fraudsters have your deets and you have to act FAST
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they’re triggering a few hundred or more robocalls to the bank helpline when they suggest you call them back, to make sure that the wait time is as long as possible.
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
They start off by telling you that you have very nearly lost a five figure sum of money. They know all your details (as your bank would) - date of birth, address, other stuff
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Genuine props to you for giving an honest account of what you went through.
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
I feel quite stupid - and a little bit bruised - simply for letting it go as far as I did. I was actually listening to the "manager" explain how to transfer my money....
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
If it's any concolation, a very intelligent friend of mine had a similar experience a few years back (albeit for a shares type fraud). He was very impressed by the skill and plausibility of the fraudsters, and he works in film and TV!
IMV it is rather dangerous to assume you are too intelligent to ever get conned.
We can all get conned, especially if someone targets you specifically.
That was exactly what my friend warned me about - he had been quite taken aback by the experience, and the realization.
PS: in fact, very much as Leon is telling us today.
Indeed
Hitherto I have always prided myself on spotting scams really quickly
False pride, it turns out, that nearly led me astray
Don't beat yourself up.
I have done a talk on how a major fraudster got away with it for so long. There are two things I say: (1) the evidence of him being a fraudster was there in his CV. I do not, however, say what that evidence is; and (2) never accept statements without checking / be curious / ask questions / do due diligence - it's our failure to do this to believe without more what we are told which fraudsters use against us.
I've done this talk well over a hundred times. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times anyone asks me what was in the guy's CV. Despite me telling them to be curious they accept what I have said without question. So sometimes I amuse myself by telling them that I have demonstrated exactly what fraudsters do - I appear plausible, eloquent, knowledgeable, I have made a statement which they have accepted and will go away believing. But they have not done the one thing which they should do which is ask the obvious question.
And then someone puts their hand up. It is a pretty good demonstration of how the line between fraudsters and those who aren't is thinner than we like to think.
Also that curiosity is a much underrated but v important characteristic.
Be curious. Ask why, who, what, where, whom. Don't just nod and go along with what you've been told.
Beat me to it. Affirms the right to carry concealed weapons as part of everyday life. Removes the right to have a safe and legal abortion. Quite unfathomable.
It's quite fathomable - one is explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and the other isn't.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.
Appealing to the umpire is an integral part of cricket. The game wouldn't be the same if that aspect of the game was abolished in favour of technology.
NZ don't have a lot of luck with freak occurrences of this nature... see 2019 World Cup Final.
The umpire was very lucky not to be felled by the ricochet
Just seen it on the ECB Twitter feed. You're right, he was.
I remember the great Dilip Vengsarkar being caught at Lords in a test in 1979 IIRC where he edged a ball and it bounced up off a players foot into the hands of one of the slips.
Theres been a few swept onto the foot and up into silly mid off/ons hands i believe
Not to mention Brian Close's skull.
'You can't hit the ball hard enough to hurt me, lad'
Comments
There actually isn't much money in providing this tech for cricket and you have to go through loads of hurdles to get accredited, so nobody is really interesting in competing. There was a NZ for a while trying to provide competition.
As a company, it was actually a play thing for Getty. When Sony bought it, that is when big push for the likea of football, as goal line tech making decent money and it isn't doing the prediction element.
We're almost going down the same route!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVDnGpIscbM
Worth a note that the current polio detected is from a form of vaccine not used in the UK ie imported.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/148141/Green-Book-Chapter-26-Polio-updated-18-January-2013.pdf
Plus Hawkeye has a quite significant margin of error, actually a surprisingly large one (about the size of the cricket ball) hence "Umpire's Call" which is actually the margin of error window. People often say "why if its clipping is it Umpire's Call, that should be out" but actually if it shows as clipping its probably clipping, but could have missed, hence Umpire's Call.
If you eliminated Umpire's Call and just had instantaneous hawkeye, like you have now with no balls, then you'd still have the margin of error issue since its about forecasting where it will end up.
Umpires make errors, and there is a system giving the opportunity to review without slowing the game. If you've wasted all your reviews, or fail to review clear errors, the blame is with you more than on-pitch officials.
In the supplied her with a printout as to how it worked.
Interestingly, her 30 year old son was far clearer about it, and about 'forget and move on'.
So then you end up making a judgement in the moment, "what if there really ARE fraudsters who are controlling my account and I need to act immediately?" versus "would my bank really ever ask me to transfer money?"
It seems obvious that you should pay more attention to the second question (and I did, in the end), but they very cleverly make you focus on the first with a series of compelling details. Presumably honed over months, as they have learned what works and what doesn't
Banks really need to sort out these fucking call queues, because without access to a real human being on the other end of the line you cannot know for sure
These people are very practised at what they do: once they’ve got you on the hook the goal is to keep you in that stressed “I am under threat!” mode where you act on emotion & instinct & don’t stop to think things through rationally. They know that the moment you stop & start asking yourself rational question about the whole setup it will seem incredibly fishy, so the scam depends on keeping you off kilter & they’re very good at it.
Useful background for @Leon in his travels, perhaps.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1539957244560916480
Yes, rulers of Iran - Safavids, Afsharids, Qajars, constantly fought with Dagestanis. But modern Dagestanis do *not* associate those dynasties with Iran. They associate them with Azerbaijan
"Qajars"/"horse shit" are common Lezgin slurs against Azeri rather than Persian people...
Strikes by check in staff and ground staff at Heathrow will take place over the summer.
Good. BA used fire and rehire practises during the Pandemic and screwed the workers. They need redress and the workers have the leverage to do it.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/heathrow-faces-summer-of-disruption-as-ba-staff-vote-to-strike/ar-AAYMbXB?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=0d6de043dcf44406abb0d8bfb34ac27b
So instantly you are severely rattled and they are on the front foot, as you want to secure your funds ASAP. Then they turn the screw
Thank God I stopped and analysed what was happening - as you say.
Flawed though football VAR is, I don't think there's an easy route to it being triggered by players on the pitch without disrupting the game unduly.
I have not seen anything like it before
Amazing
NZ 123 for 5
However both the bank and you will have a record that you started the call at say 12:17 so any money taken from 12:17 until the moment they actually answered the phone would be their liability...
And there is the logical step that if they know what is going on they are in a position to stop it...
For what's it worth, FIFA already have mostly automatic offside system in trials that works by covering play in real time.
Bit awkward when you're travelling, as they might just freeze your cards. What they won't do, though, is engage in some daft scheme to move your money to a "safe" account. Which is when the losses might land on you.
Unless you think the button harvest is a thing
"(Incidentally, rail fares get increased each year in line with the July RPI figure, which is likely to be well above even CPI. Is the government ready for the firestorm that’s going to produce? Has it thought about the inconsistency with both rail industry salary rises and pension increases? I doubt it.)"
We're all vulnerable to irrational stuff if caught at the right moment, so the odd reminder that it can happen to even the smartest of knappers is useful to all.
In the Lakes I know all the delivery drivers by name and they know exactly what to do if 'm not around so I ignore emails like this.
But a friend recently got scammed by someone on a dating website. Have been helping them sort it out with the bank. What I'd do to people who do this is not repeatable on any public website.
In ye olden days some volume manufacturers would change their power cable connector types from year to year, as a different plug became available more cheaply on the market. 1 pence saved on a connector / charger combo over a million units is not to be sniffed at. Sadly, it was sh*t for the consumer. even changing input voltage from the transformer isn't that difficult if you design your circuitry well (apparently; that was never my area).
It is really hard to be rational and cool-headed when it is your emotions involved. But a 3rd party who's seen all this and worse a gazillion times before doesn't have the same emotions.
ALWAYS phone a friend. Always.
A painful lesson learned - which could have been a lot more painful
Anyone who contacts me about such things is a fraudster until proved otherwise is my modus.
US Supreme Court reverses New York law limiting gun rights
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61915237
It really is not a 'non-issue'. There are many reasons to do it; from the mountain of electrical waste caused by chargers being thrown out each year, to the savings on not having to provide chargers with all hardware.
And they will not be 'forbidden' from selling something better. They would just have to support USB-C as well.
I remember the great Dilip Vengsarkar being caught at Lords in a test in 1979 IIRC where he edged a ball and it bounced up off a players foot into the hands of one of the slips.
There's always something that doesn't ring true though - they 'seem fairer and feel fouler' (per Aragorn).
Unfortunately.
Meanwhile my phone is telling me that I have "missed a call from Santander"
lol. WTAF. Is it them? Is anything real?
We can all get conned, especially if someone targets you specifically.
I'm a bit of a reactionary sometimes.
PS: in fact, very much as Leon is telling us today.
https://ecfr.eu/article/putins-archaic-war-russias-newly-outlawed-professional-class-and-how-it-could-one-day-return/
...It would therefore be good for the West to give up its dichotomy when thinking of Russia, and acknowledge that, even when Putin departs, Russia might not set the clock back to 1991 and start again. The country will not take the central European path of democratisation, which emulated the West – if Russia democratises, it will be in its own way and in pursuit of its own needs. Europeans should be content with this. They should give Russia the right to be Russia, but no right to invade neighbouring countries. ‘Keep your worldview, but ditch the aggression,’ should be the realistic expectation. However, this might be easier said than done. Putin may still succeed in saddling that future Russia with his own archaic agenda. In fact, this could even be among his reasons for invading. In November, one Moscow insider suggested to the present author that: “Putin sees Ukraine as his mission because he senses that the next generation will care less.” And it is true that, if the war ends with Russia controlling large chunks of Ukraine’s territory, then giving these back would be problematic, if not suicidal, for any new Russian leadership. Russia’s relationship with Ukraine would thus remain a source of sharp conflict for years to come. For Putin’s successors, disowning this legacy, even if they operate in the form of a collective leadership, will be a lot easier if there is no territory to give up, and the war ends in a humiliating draw. This also means that the contours of Europe’s future relations with Russia – including the question of whether these can become a moderately cooperative relationship – will be drawn on today’s battlefields...
Actually not a great Kantor for the Tories as they haven’t helped them break this run of sub 35’s. I don’t think Sundays Opinium will either. 🤔
Hitherto I have always prided myself on spotting scams really quickly
False pride, it turns out, that nearly led me astray
https://twitter.com/RussInCheshire/status/1539934516478984192
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane,_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald
A rather colourful character, and an immense fraudster.
"Mrs Thatcher are you going to resign?"
"I shall fight on, I shall fight to win." (1990)
Boris Johnson rules out ‘crazy’ idea of quitting if Tories lose byelections
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/boris-johnson-rules-out-crazy-idea-of-quitting-if-tories-lose-byelections
I recall when this was being debated, when India were still hesitant, and people were asking why clipping isn't counted either way Michael Atherton (I think?) showing on Sky just how big the margin of error actually is, during the break in a Test.
From memory, if Hawkeye says its hitting, its almost certainly hitting. If it says its missing, then its almost certainly missing. But when it says its clipping off stump, the variance is such that it could be completely missing, or not just clipping off stump but hitting middle and off.
Having the margin of error covered by Umpire's Call allows it to be accurate the rest of the time, and is sporting in respecting the Umpires and giving the sides an equal number of reviews they can use as part of the sport.
2 obvious examples
On guns - the typical gun was a musket that carried a risk of exploding when fired. Also many people lived near bears and other dangerous animals so carrying a gun made sense.
On abortion - until the 1930's it was impossible to know if someone was pregnant or whether the growth was a tumour or worse (heck it's only in the 1960's it become practical). In the 1800's no one would have given 2 hoots about a woman's pregnancy until the quickening when the child could be felt and was kicking..
Maybe we are waiting for a Caligula style finish in your opinion?
The bloodless political equivalent would be a PMQ where all those people with folders, phones and writing pads don’t sit behind him, no one cheers him, and his cabinet starts resigning that afternoon, invert night, next morning.
Truth is, the Praetorian guards stuck with Emperors partyly for their own preservation, much like this cabinet rally’s round their own mad emperor
A few decades ago, I said this to a friend who thought it rubbish. So I went through her bin and found a rather staggering amount of information on her and her parents.
A shredder can be a good investment.
(*) I think this is one of the ways Kevin Mitnick operated. Although from memory he got a girl to go into the bins...
I have done a talk on how a major fraudster got away with it for so long. There are two things I say: (1) the evidence of him being a fraudster was there in his CV. I do not, however, say what that evidence is; and (2) never accept statements without checking / be curious / ask questions / do due diligence - it's our failure to do this to believe without more what we are told which fraudsters use against us.
I've done this talk well over a hundred times. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times anyone asks me what was in the guy's CV. Despite me telling them to be curious they accept what I have said without question. So sometimes I amuse myself by telling them that I have demonstrated exactly what fraudsters do - I appear plausible, eloquent, knowledgeable, I have made a statement which they have accepted and will go away believing. But they have not done the one thing which they should do which is ask the obvious question.
And then someone puts their hand up. It is a pretty good demonstration of how the line between fraudsters and those who aren't is thinner than we like to think.
Also that curiosity is a much underrated but v important characteristic.
Be curious. Ask why, who, what, where, whom. Don't just nod and go along with what you've been told.
You might wish it otherwise, as I do. But we have to deal with the world as it actually is.