It shouldn't be a huge stretch to imagine a customer service department having lousy or non-existent documentation. They said there was no record of the call, they checked again, then magically there was a record. Do you think it's more likely he imagined it or even lied about?
You are free to not buy it my friend, but one day Paypal will give you the hammer and you will see just how believeable this is. In fact, there are countless threads online with the same story. You've never had a rep from a big company say something and you call the next day and they have no record of that? It happens at least 3 times a year with my cellphone company, you must be very lucky!
All good. If you'd used your original HN handle rather than making a new one for this issue, and mentioning who you were and what your business is, that may have gone further in validating your story (for me at least).
Took me 2 minutes to find your post on Twitter, and from there your old handle and submissions on HN and details of your business. Your story now has more credibility. I'm all for anonymous opinions and discussion, but when it comes to seeking support in complaints against another company, it's best to disclose who you are (in my opinion).
I did say it, but I didn't say that. "Magically there was a record" meaning they had it all along and that customer service departments of that size are routinely slow to update or make simple mistakes, not that it fell from the sky as a small sliver of corroboration for OP's story. You'd sooner believe a stranger is lying from a throwaway account on a random forum than a phone jockey making a mistake...but at least you're happy.
It's not always about features. Plenty of international vendors only accept PayPal transfers. It's then our discretion to not do business with those vendors but there's the rub.
I've been planning and saving towards working remotely, with a stretch-goal of doing so from a boat. Would you mind sharing some details about your boat-type/unexpected costs?
On iPhone Safari,iOS 7.0.3, your newsletter pop up obscures the entire site for me, and I'm not able to move the screen in any way to get to the 'no thank you' or 'x' out of the dialog.
I'm not sure there is. I'm not sure one can be truly sure he scanned the Internet before impersonating every host. Can't know anything before trying out the inside of every skin.
After all, what would you know, as a traveller, about simple lives of local people?
I've spent one hour of my life in Germany, when I was 11 years old, in a transit lounge in Frankfurt. I have 'visited Germany', but not in any real sense.
There's more to the internet than just port 80, so to declare that a scan encompassing only a single port on each host is a scan of "the entire internet" is somewhat mistaken.
The more correct title would be, "a scan of the entire World Wide Web."
"We experimentally showed that ZMap is capable of scanning the public IPv4 address space on a single port in under 45 minutes, at 97% of the theoretical maximum speed for gigabit Ethernet and with an estimated 98% coverage of publicly available hosts."
I realise that my comment was not so clear, sorry about that. Yes, to me scanning the whole internet means at least the full port range in TCP (and why not UDP too).
My 'rant' is really about the article sensational title promising to let you know about the result of scanning the entire internet really fast... wich turns out to be about scanning web services. The data is however interessting.
The attitude that came through in your comment is exactly what I try to uphold. I say 'try', because after 21 years of complacency the discipline needed to bring this attitude into the next day has humbled me for how often I fail to do so.
I'm in the middle of making monumental changes in my life, and if I had helped ingrain a lesson or mindset into another person as much as your outlook helped me, I would've liked to know.
