The travel insurance sounds more plausible than the anti-fraud measure. I had not considered that. Although the question is how is that info sharing is arranged considering airline would not inherently care about my travel insurance or have a duty to inform my insurer.

That all sounds accurate enough to me.. but thought I should comment on this:

However - in larger enterprises there’s so much more, you get the whole SDL maturity thing going - money is invested into raising the quality of the whole development lifecycle and you get things like code reviews, architects, product planning, external security testing etc. Things that cost time, money and resources.

It should be mentioned that many see testing as a cost, but in fact testing is a cost savings. In most situations, you only spend some money on testing in order to dodge a bigger cost: customers getting burnt in a costly way that backfires on the supplier. Apart from safety-critical products, this is the only business justification to test. Yet when budgets get tightened, one of the first cuts many companies make is testing -- which is foolish assuming they are doing testing right (in a way that saves money by catching bugs early).

Since the common/general case with FOSS projects is there is no income that’s attached to a quality expectation (thus testing generates no cost savings) - the users are part of the QA process as free labor, in effect :)

That’s been suggested in the parent thread and another crosspost. It’s the most popular answer but I don’t buy it.

Why would the airline risk the liability of excessive oversharing of personal data for no benefit in return? Is the bank giving them a reduced transaction fee for sharing that data?

The 1st ½ of your comment sounds accurate. But...

And also in Foss there are highly opinionated software where the devs completely ignore users, ban them from GitHub when they post issues,

Right, but to be clear non-free s/w is worse - you can’t even reach the devs, generally, and there is no public bug tracker. FOSS is an improvement in this regard because at least there is a reasonable nuclear option (forking). The nuclear option for non-free software is writing it yourself from scratch.

Yeah this article caught me by surprise. Natural gas is naturally odorless so that probably works against awareness.

I tend to be lazy about turning on the loud fans which downgrades the ambiance. But I need to change something because grease cakes up on everything near the oven and on the cabinets. My range hood is also the ventless style, which must be totally useless against the benzine byproduct.

I will certainly put more thought into kitchen design in the future. The gas appliances should probably be in the corner of the room so there are fewer directions to control, and the hood should probably be big, industrial, and vented outside. It’s a shame because I might prefer the gas stove to be in an island layout or at least centrally located.

That’s interesting but it seems like an incomplete answer. I’ve read that it’s very common for people to install a range hood that’s too small. If it’s true that range hoods are often under-sized, then it naturally follows that they would often be ineffective. So I would like to know the answer in terms of a high-end well-designed & /big/ range hood. I would also expect a low hood to be more effective than one installed high above the stove.

I’ve been out of the loop on games for a while but ReactOS may be worth a look.

indeed some houses have gas-fired wall heaters which have shitty ventilation, if any. In which case the air would of course be moist.

It’s also worth noting that moist air feels warmer and is not prone to any evaporative cooling effects. Some people will vent their vented dryers into the house to boost the humidity in order to save on heating costs.

It depends on what you’re baking. You wouldn’t want your cake to have a crispy hard crust on the outside, but you would want that with bread and pizza.

Many coils pulse full heat to simulate different heat levels. Gas gives you very precise control over exact heat levels and it is instantly responsive to change.

You’ve got the precision factor backwards. Gas is a clear loser on that.

When you have knob levels 0—9, if you set the knob to 3 on electric you get exactly ½ the heat energy that you get from level 6. It’s perfectly linear. This is not true in the slightest with gas. A gas flame is non-linear as you go from 0 to 9. All you can do is eye-ball the flame and guess. Even when you have a flame size in mind, it’s not reproduceable because you’re still eye-balling it every time. You can’t trust the levels on a gas knob either because they’re so non-linear that you can get a big flame difference in certain points along the scale.

Gas also has less precision of control because of the reduced range at both ends. The lowest possible gas setting is still too hot for some tasks. So the best you can do is manually mimic the pulsing of electric by turning the burner off and reigniting periodically. The highest temp on gas is also less than the highest temp electric can achieve.

The only “precision” task that gas wins at is at the zero (off) level, and speed, AFAICT, which is related to precision. Both of those factors can be discarded for the most part when comparing induction because it adjusts temp demand fast enough.

Can anyone just pick up and move to the US? Or the EU?

Are you not distinguishing wealthy developed countries from developing countries? This may sound anecdotal but I believe I’ve detected a pattern of people from privileged countries having the copious red carpets you mention, such as EU administrations & border police not hassling Americans who overstay their visa. Even within Europe eastern block Europeans face more red tape than westerners. Some passports yield many red carpets & some none.

You don’t think you’d be considered a migrant if you wanted to move to Cuba, with all the restrictions that would entail?

It’s not what you think. The restrictions in that movement actually come from the US. Cuba welcomes Americans to the point that they will even hold back on stamping a US passport on request. Considering Cuba actually has an emigration crisis (with an “e”), it’d be ironic for immigration into Cuba to be difficult.

If your bank knows you’re meant to be in a specific place, they’ll know transactions happening there aren’t because someone’s stolen your card.

Every bank’s AI-driven fraud detection system is different and non-transparent. Whenever my account gets frozen for “fraud” and I removed¹ at the bank over it, I ask WHY my account was frozen. The CSR guesses what happened (because apparently it’s such a secret the bank’s own staff is kept in the dark). This can be deceiving because bankers seem to be trained to propose their guesswork with confidence to thwart questions. I ask “where in my terms of service agreement does it say I shouldn’t do [whatever the CSR thinks triggered the fraud sensors] & how can I prevent this false positive in the future?” They can never answer that.

Some banks don’t require travel notices and some do. The banks that don’t: how are they finding out my travel plans when I buy the ticket using a different bank? Most likely their fraud algo is (or tries to be) smart enough to not need to track you.

It would probably be a valid exception to GDPR on those grounds.

How is sharing purchase info with banks within the bounds of the airline’s operational needs? The bank’s problem is not the airline’s problem.

(edit)

1: woah, slur filter did a silent hit-and-run on my post. The word “removed” should be some form of “complain” using a synonym that begins with a “b”.

if you travel to another place and use your card there, then your bank are going to know you’re there.

That’s not the same bank that I bought my airfare with. The bank I use to buy the airfare with has no reason to know where I am. IIRC there’s a stat that on avg Americans have like ~15 or so different bank/credit cards. What you’re saying makes no sense. The airline takes the liberty of giving a travel notice to just one of your dozens of banks, and what about the rest?

If there’s a transaction showing you bought tickets to that city/country for the same dates that transactions happen within that city/country, that’s evidence to support one decision over the other on the algorithm’s part.

I often buy a one-way ticket with one card and a one-way return with another. So not even one bank has the full picture. I typically leave those cards at home as well because they have poor forex rates. Yet this doesn’t trip fraud sensors on the cards I carry to the destination. The fraud sensors are tripped when I forget my ATM limit or incorrectly adjust that limit for the foreign currency.

One bank that requires a travel notice doesn’t even accept that a trip would last more than 2 weeks. I call and say I will be gone 3 weeks, or 4 weeks, and they cannot handle it. They say “the travel notice will expire in 2 weeks so you have to call again when that time comes to renew your travel notice”. What I tell them directly carries more weight than whatever shows up on the transactions because they have no way of knowing what other travel arrangements I have. Yet what I tell them is not fully utilized.

The other problem with your theory is travel notices are a recent development of the past ~10—20 years, whereas itineraries have been shared with banks for as long as I can recall (~25+ years). Anyway, speculation isn’t cutting it. Solid info needed on why this is happening.

GDPR gives people a fair amount of protection and it is enforced.

Not in my experience. I have filed complaints of ~20+ GDPR violations under article 77 going years back. Not a single one of them enforced to date. These cases just sit idle for years. The problem is the GDPR gives no recourse when DPAs fail to honor article 77 obligations. It’s toothless.

https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

That shows a low count of cherry-picked enforcement actions. If you had a way to get a count of unenforced reports it would likely be an embarrassing comparison.

That’s all plausible. But in the end the airline (their insurance) will be the loser, no?

When a traveler has insurance they have some reassurance & comfort that the loss won’t be theirs as they will file a claim. In my cases of lost luggage, the rules of the traveler’s insurance claim required me to still file a claim with the airline. The airline seemed to have the primary liability. Wouldn’t it be bizarre if the airline (who caused the loss) would get off the hook? My insurance just ensured I was compensated one way or another so long as I followed the rules and reported the loss to the airline. From there, wouldn’t my insurance work in their own interest to ensure the airline pays out? Surely my insurance must only be liable for benefits coverage that exceed the airline’s responsibility (depending on how generous my policy is).

Since an insurance company has the resources and legal muscle to ensure the responsible company pays out, I would expect it to /not/ be in the airline’s interest to deal with another insurance company over a loss. Just about every time I had a loss without insurance, the airline was directly liable to me but they told me to pound sand. Every time IIRC. They wouldn’t get away with that against another insurer.

Most of my cards are free with lousy policies that only pay out if I lose a limb or something like that. It was only when I paid for extra insurance that I got coverage that was useful.

In any case, if you are correct, that implies if I get a payment card with zero insurance (a prepaid card?), then the flight details won’t be shared, correct? Might be interesting to test that, but tricky because prepaid cards often don’t issue a statement.

Do you want an answer or just a space to br angry and rant?

It’s all about getting an answer. Any rant that you think you sensed is at most an attempt to motivate a good answer.

I should also stress that I don’t want bad answers. The same broken speculation has been posted multiple times in this thread and in the parent. Thus compelling me to repeat the flaws in that bad answer.

I’m confident at this point that I finally got a viable answer: insurance. But I might be tempted to press for more details because it’s still unclear how the GDPR compliance pans out. GDPR violations are rampant these days, so it could lead to an article 77 complaint. I still have to do a bit of analysis on that from the insurance narrative.

I cannot imagine a hairless RMS. He should have insured his beard and hair, just like Tom Jones’ insured his chest hair for $6.8 million.