[HN Gopher] Guys what is wrong with ACATS
___________________________________________________________________
Guys what is wrong with ACATS
Author : martinky24
Score : 120 points
Date : 2024-05-24 20:18 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bitsaboutmoney.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bitsaboutmoney.com)
| e63f67dd-065b wrote:
| I never knew about the 3-day limit before, it makes sense that
| this is the reason behind unverified ACATS transfers (a problem
| that I've spent no small amount of time arguing about on various
| online forums long ago).
|
| Interestingly, Fidelity lets you put your account into "lockdown"
| mode there they'll reject all ACATS (and ACH too I believe)
| transfers automatically without your intervention. I've always
| wondered what kind of legal magic they're pulling to make this
| compliant with FINRA rules.
|
| What eventually convinced me over that it's not a problem is, as
| Patrick says, that these institutions will with high likelihood
| make you whole for fraudulent transfers, the same way they will
| for fraudulent ACH. The financial system generally works.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > these institutions will with high likelihood make you whole
| for fraudulent transfers, the same way they will for fraudulent
| ACH. The financial system generally works.
|
| This applies to _so much_ of the financial system, that it
| baffles me people worry about the things they do. I have family
| members that are so scared of card skimming they only pay in
| cash, and friends who are still too scared of the internet to
| buy things online.
| cesarb wrote:
| > This applies to so much of the financial system, that it
| baffles me people worry about the things they do.
|
| That's easy to understand. For the "financial system", $1000
| is nothing. For many people, $1000 means the difference
| between having something to eat or not. Even if you get your
| money back in the end, not having any money for several days
| can be a disaster; and the 1% chance that you might not get
| that back can be too much risk to bear.
|
| > I have family members that are so scared of card skimming
| they only pay in cash
|
| That's understandable. With cash, all you can lose is the
| cash you have in hand at that moment; if your card is skimmed
| and used without your permission, you can lose up to the
| card's limit (and perhaps even more, if the limit isn't
| strictly enforced). You might say that fraudulent
| transactions will be reversed, but there's always that 1%
| chance that the other side will somehow manage to convince
| your bank that the transactions were in fact legitimate.
|
| > and friends who are still too scared of the internet to buy
| things online.
|
| When you buy at a store, the goods you bought are in your
| physical possession at the moment of the payment. When you
| buy things online, the goods you bought show up days or even
| weeks later, if they do, and until they arrive, you have no
| idea whether they're actually what you bought (and that's on
| top of the "card skimming" risk).
|
| Sure, if you have enough resources, you can tolerate losing
| $1000 of the limit of one of your credit cards for a few days
| until the charge is reversed (and even, in the worst case,
| absorb the loss in case that charge isn't reversed), but not
| everyone can do that. And the perceived risk can be higher
| than the unknowable real risk; someone who has heard about
| (or experienced) enough incidents in which money was lost
| (temporarily or not) will understandably be more reluctant to
| expose themselves to these risks.
| acheong08 wrote:
| I once had to starve for 2 days because my bank froze my card
| over the weekend and being in a new country, had no cash with
| me (the nearest exchange was too far away by foot)
|
| Nowadays I pretty much have the bare minimum in the bank and
| just spend cash.
| skybrian wrote:
| Having multiple, independent payment methods, of any sort,
| seems like the way to go.
| miki123211 wrote:
| For a lot of people, not having access to anything they
| currently have in their bank account, which is most of their
| savings, is actually a quite big deal, even if they can get
| that money back eventually.
| chiph wrote:
| I regard this as dealing with differing amounts of annoyance.
| Fraudulent credit card charge? Pffft - it will get taken care
| of with maybe two phone calls. Fraudulent debit card charge
| that leaves me with $8.31 in the bank? Getting up there on
| the annoyance scale. I have cash to live on for a few days,
| but it will likely require several phone calls and some
| outstanding bill-pays may bounce[0]. Someone buying a car
| with my stolen identity? Hugely annoying.
|
| [0] I have a couple of monthly bills that cause a physical
| check to be printed and mailed. And one of the recipients
| only checks their mail twice a week so the float time is
| significant. I deal with them because I must.
| preinheimer wrote:
| So many parts of the financial system only work because there's
| take-backsies.
|
| Taking back a wire transfer seems to basically involve someone at
| your bank phoning a friend, and it all works in the end.
| psychlops wrote:
| The more one learns about how traditional finance works, the
| more horrifying it becomes.
| supertrope wrote:
| On a technical basis yes. Finance rests upon a foundation of
| people emailing around spreadsheets and trust. Much better
| than new innovative cryptocurrencies that are just a trojan,
| wallet address typo, or exit scam away from losing your
| savings.
| psychlops wrote:
| As trusting as the traditional finance system is, it seems
| they still experience exit scams, wire typos, and countless
| other scams that lose savings.
|
| Crypto has a long way to go, but tradfi hasn't solved its
| own problems. Until then, I guess we'd all better hope our
| bank representatives have a lot of friends in the industry.
| astrange wrote:
| Crypto can't solve its main problem though; it's
| fundamentally based around not being able to reverse
| transactions, which means you can't reverse a mistaken or
| fraudulent transaction, which is the whole reason tradfi
| works. And I don't think the other stuff makes up for
| this, even if programmability and flash loans are
| interesting.
|
| (I mean interesting mostly in a bad way.)
| miki123211 wrote:
| There's nothing in crypto that _inherently_ prevents
| transaction reversals.
|
| This can be implemented as a smart contract on any
| sufficiently advanced blockchain (definitely Ethereum,
| not sure about Bitcoin).
|
| The way this works is that you put the money in an escrow
| contract first, designating a trusted third party as an
| arbiter. If you don't dispute the transaction for a few
| weeks, the money goes through irreversibly. If you do,
| the contract "locks up", and the third party can now
| either decide to send the money on to its destination or
| return it back to you. The contract is designed in such a
| way that those are _the only things that third party can
| do with your money_ , they have no way of taking it for
| themselves. Either way, they get a small cut for the
| trouble of adjudicating the transaction.
|
| If what you're worried about is wallet hacks, not
| disingenuous merchants, that's doable too. Instead of
| storing your money directly in your wallet, you'd have to
| store it in a smart contract, designed in such a way that
| your key is the only one that can move money out of it.
| However, limitations would be placed on the contract with
| regards to how much money can be moved daily. Such limits
| would likely be different for transfers to trusted escrow
| contracts and for irreversible transactions. If you
| needed to move more money, you could designate a trusted
| third party (let's say a traditional bank doing
| traditional bank things for identity verification) as
| being able to override these limits for you. Again, that
| would be their only responsibility, they would not have
| the right to move any of your money without your
| permission. This essentially relegates a bank to the role
| of an identity verifier who cannot take control of your
| money in any possible way except by colluding with a
| hacker who already has access to your wallet.
|
| THe reason none of this exists is ecosystems and network
| effects, not technical limitations.
| psychlops wrote:
| Or, just like tradfi, point out the mistake to the
| counterparty. Request your crypto back and the
| transaction is reversed.
| miki123211 wrote:
| In tradfi, the counterparty is typically a sophisticated
| financial institution that either is in your jurisdiction
| or at least cares somewhat about not annoying your
| government. If it isn't, it's probably a customer of said
| financial institution, and thus subject to their rules.
| In crypto, your counterparty might be literally anybody.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| That just shifts the problem around: if there's a bug or
| mistake in the smart contract _itself,_ then you face the
| problem that you can 't reverse that smart contract.
| astrange wrote:
| Also, you can't patch bugs in the smart contract because
| people can spot the patch transactions and outbid you to
| exploit it instead.
| waveBidder wrote:
| Congratulations, you've just invented a bank.
| miki123211 wrote:
| I have emphasized the main difference between this and a
| bank multiple times, but if it's not sufficiently clear:
| A bank holds your money. It can do whatever it wants or
| is forced to with that money, including seizing it if
| you're Canadian and attend a protest[1]. In the system I
| outlined, a bank can only decide whether a transaction
| _you_ dispute should be reversed. As long as you don 't
| dispute any transactions, the bank has no ability to take
| your money.
|
| [1] https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-
| accounts-...
| karpierz wrote:
| But then I can't spend my money for several weeks - the
| feature that crypto can't implement is having the
| reversal window be wider than the lockout window.
| davidgerard wrote:
| > There's nothing in crypto that inherently prevents
| transaction reversals.
|
| Irreversibility was a key design parameter of bitcoin.
|
| You can kludge a reversal system on top, much as you can
| build an SQL-a-like atop Mongo. Or you could not use a
| system whose literal point is the opposite.
| psychlops wrote:
| Of the many crypto problems I can think of, reversible
| transactions seems low on the list. Tradfi "works"
| because there is no other choice given so people make it
| functional and it is comfortable through familiarity.
|
| People conveniently forget the rampant scams, identity
| theft, and numerous types of fraud that are clearly
| irreversible in tradfi. Then they present it as a new
| problem that crypto must solve as well as being the same
| as the old system.
| astrange wrote:
| Nothing is irreversible in tradfi, regulations and the
| court system will find someone to give it back to you.
|
| That's what insurance is for, for instance.
| quesera wrote:
| FWIW, "wallet address typo" should never be a thing.
|
| There's a serious checksum in each of the BTC wallet
| formats that makes the chances of any random set of typos
| _extremely_ unlikely to be valid.
|
| A mis-pasted (but valid) wallet address could happen.
|
| Not to minimize the myriad other ways to easily lose, or
| lose control of, cryptocurrency!
| lxgr wrote:
| Bitcoin does, but Ethereum doesn't, at least not
| originally.
|
| There is some way to encode a checksum in the
| capitalization of the letters/digits A-F, but I'm not
| sure how ubiquitously supported that is. It seems like a
| pretty bad hack in any case.
| quesera wrote:
| Fascinating, I am unaware of the inner workings of
| Ethereum.
|
| It boggles that they could make such a massive design
| error, especially with the Bitcoin examples staring them
| in the face.
| lxgr wrote:
| I believe the idea was that "nobody will use raw low
| level addresses, so we don't need to make them usable".
|
| But ENS is now prohibitively expensive in terms of fees
| and also not universally supported, so here we are.
| gopher_space wrote:
| One of my early lessons was realizing the spreadsheet folks
| have their own backup systems and they're fairly ingenious
| and orthogonal to my own concerns.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| We certainly have the ability to implement transfer
| authorization, from the sender side, using good
| authentication technology. This doesn't have to be
| cryptocurrency: it can just be the same techniques that we
| use to authenticate people logging into their bank account,
| eg passwords, MFA, passkeys, Face ID. We don't do that for
| a bunch of business reasons given in the article (mostly
| that sending institutions are disincentivized from enabling
| this, and regulators have come up with a kludge that
| spreads the losses out in weird ways.) The result is that
| we use a system based on trust, reversal and insurance.
| This seems fine, but it almost certainly raises costs
| across the entire system in ways that we can't obviously
| measure. Those costs presumably show up in places that
| typical consumers can't really see, unless they're very
| sophisticated: for example, higher management costs and
| worse spreads and weird fees.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| I was going to make a dumb joke about how this was the plot
| to a horror story or movie or something. I paused for a few
| seconds (that's discouraged around here, so it better be a
| good joke)... and it started to sink in that it could well be
| the plot not only to a horror movie, but maybe has the
| potential to be a compelling one. "You'll be made whole,
| eventually" sounds great, until you think back to all those
| times in your life where "in a few weeks" would've ruined
| you. Even death's not out of the question if it pushes
| someone over the edge into suicide territory. The lunatics
| really do run the fucking asylum.
| lxgr wrote:
| What's horrifying about being able to quickly fix a honest
| mistake in mutual agreement? It's not always possible, but
| when it is, it's so much more efficient than the
| alternatives.
|
| Trust isn't a given and not always warranted, but when it is,
| it is a feature, not a bug.
| taneq wrote:
| So much of the world essentially runs on trust, it's amazing
| that it works at all, let alone as well as it does.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Heads-Up for folks trying to get to one of the linked pages:
|
| https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-acquisitions/matt-...
|
| You can get to the same content here:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-16/the-se...
|
| Which was previously posted to HN here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34824986
| recursive wrote:
| Is it just me, or is that cat song not that good? I listened to
| it twice, and found it completely unremarkable. A minute later, I
| can't remember much about it.
| patio11 wrote:
| De gustibus non est disputandum; there are some things that
| ruin many people's lives that have no appeal to me, there are
| some things many people enjoy responsibly that I have learned
| to stop myself from using because I will not make good
| decisions over a period of years, and then there was that
| freaking cat song, which gave me the strongest "WARNING: Your
| brain is not in control of your response to this song, in a way
| which is qualitatively different than the usual ways music is
| moving." when listening to it that I found it remarkable.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| > I think if you say the words "my cat" to me when I am on my
| deathbed I will immediately hum three notes.
|
| The song is currently ruining my life in a very different
| sense: I keep listening to the song over and over to try to
| guess which three notes you're talking about, but I can't for
| the life of me figure it out. Mind clearing that up for me?
|
| (Personally, I definitely see how the song could be perceived
| as infectiously catchy, but it doesn't seem to do it for me.
| I think the structure and rhythm are a little too irregular
| for it to get stuck in my head.)
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Back in the mid-1990s, I remember a news fluff piece about
| a woman who claimed to have epileptic seizures in response
| to hearing Mary Hart's voice (some newstainment
| journalist/anchor, maybe Entertainment Tonight?). Doctor
| supposedly confirmed it via experiment (though, now I
| wonder if the man should've kept his license, seems
| unsafe).
|
| Earworms are probably the same. Specific either to unique
| brains, or to particular brain neuro-templates.
| mtlynch wrote:
| I thought you were confusing this with an episode of
| _Seinfeld_ , when Kramer has seizures in response to Mary
| Hart's voice.[1]
|
| But you're right. This was a real case that _Seinfeld_
| must have been referencing.[2]
|
| The doctor, Venkat Ramani, is still active and is the
| Vice Chair of Neurology at New York Medical College. [3]
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Samaritan_(S
| einfeld...
|
| [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20240324001523/https://ww
| w.nytim...
|
| [3] https://www.nymc.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/by-
| name/ramani...
| nvy wrote:
| I thought it was pretty catchy, actually.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| It's pretty catchy, but ultimately just a very generic pop song
| other than the lyrics.
| mynameishere wrote:
| What is this song that he mentions but never seems to name or
| link to?
| recursive wrote:
| But there is a link.
| icedchai wrote:
| I had to get a medallion stamp to do an ACATS transfer from
| broker A to B. I chose to get it at bank C, where I had my
| checking account, which also happened to own broker D.
|
| Of course, the medallions were handled by a sales guy (sorry,
| financial advisor) working for broker D who then spent an hour
| trying to convince me I should move my account to them instead.
| Eventually he finally gave in and sent off the paperwork.
|
| It's annoying the hoops you have to go through to get control of
| your own money.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Reminds me of when I wanted to close my Bank of America
| account: I didn't know that you needed to make an appointment
| for that. But indeed, it's my money, I had all the ID-
| verification paperwork needed, and I was stubborn enough to
| agree to wait for a clerk to become available.
|
| For what it's worth, you may wish to consider a credit union,
| as it's less likely that a credit union would also own a
| brokerage.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| Fun fact about the Medallion Signature Guarantee: It's not a seal
| or embossment, like it often is for a notarization. Instead, it's
| a stamp (like what you see on [0]). It's a big stamp, but it's
| just a stamp.
|
| That's OK, though, because the person making the stamp is keeping
| a lot of records, so they'll know what they stamped.
|
| When I first got my Treasury Direct[1] account, I couldn't verify
| my identity using their online process, and so I had to mail in
| FS Form 5444[1]. My local credit union had "Medallion Service" as
| one of the reasons for booking an appointment (separate from
| "Notary"), and they were able to take care of it. As mentioned in
| the article, the person at the credit union asked me for a
| monetary value. As it was a new Treasury Direct account, I said
| "$10,000" (the maximum amount of Series I bonds you can get per
| calendar year).
|
| And as implied in the article, my credit union had no problems
| issuing this, even though they were not involved in Treasury
| Direct in any way.
|
| It's interesting, all the 'little' 'home-grown' ways of identity
| guarantee that pop up when needed.
|
| [0]: https://www.bankofamerica.com/signature-
| services/medallion-s...
|
| [1]: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/forms/acctauth.pdf
| bostik wrote:
| I'm not in the US, but can fully appreciate the practice.
|
| If I were to request to move funds in 6-to-7 figures range
| across institutions, I _absolutely_ would want the receiving
| outfit require that I visit my current outfit in person first
| to authorise such a transfer. Making sure that such visits are
| smooth and efficient is good service.
|
| On a related note, when I got my mortgage in the UK, the
| issuing bank/lender-arm required me and my wife each to get a
| Proof Of Being Alive. (I'm not a UK native.) Turns out
| embassies issue these quite routinely, for a modest fee, and a
| visit that lasts at most 15 minutes. At the time I found that
| requirement both confusing and irritating, but in the context
| of the article, it makes sense. The lender was about to issue a
| sufficiently large loan to a person with very limited[ss] UK
| transaction history.
|
| On the upside, more recently that same bank/lender prodded and
| arranged me to get an early, admittedly pretty good fixed deal
| on my remortgage - two months before the central banks started
| to hike their rates. Without that early intervention my current
| rate would be at least three percentage points higher.
|
| ss: from the viewpoint of a financial institution, who likely
| measures customer relationship ages in decades.
| CaliforniaKarl wrote:
| > I absolutely would want the receiving outfit require that I
| visit my current outfit in person first to authorise such a
| transfer.
|
| So, about that... The Medallion Signature Guarantee is often
| obtained from an entity not involved in the transfer. From
| [0] on my post:
|
| > We do not provide medallion signature guarantees for assets
| you're transferring out of a Bank of America or Merrill
| account (guarantees are typically provided by a third party
| not involved in the transfer or by the firm receiving the
| assets).
|
| In a way, that's a good thing: By the time you've initiated
| this transfer, the receiving entity should have done their
| KYC. And the losing entity probably would not want to take
| the cost of the liability. Having a third party--one who has
| had you as a customer for some time--is a good layer of
| security.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| It's also not unreasonable to expect that an entity you
| want to take assets out of will, to the first order of
| approximatiom, be incentivized to make any process involved
| in that as protracted and difficult to navigate as
| possible. (This is also, I expect, why the asset transfer
| process described in TFA is initiated from the receiving
| side, why mobile number portability is requested via your
| new mobile network, etc.) So if the recipient doesn't want
| to take on the verification burden because they just met
| you, falling back to a third party rather than the sender
| makes sense.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Fun fact about the Medallion Signature Guarantee: It's not a
| seal or embossment, like it often is for a notarization.
| Instead, it's a stamp (like what you see on [0]). It's a big
| stamp, but it's just a stamp.
|
| As far as I'm aware, a "seal" and a "stamp" are the same thing.
| In particular, a seal is just a device that impresses ink onto
| paper. How is that supposed to be different from a stamp?
|
| https://www.japanlivingguide.com/living-in-japan/culture/han...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirloom_Seal_of_the_Realm
|
| (Depending on the documentary technology of the culture, a seal
| may also be used to make a physical impression in a soft
| substance, but obviously that is still no different from a
| "stamp".)
| jameshart wrote:
| Seal and stamp can both mean several things, but both can be
| applied to the process of making an ink impression on a
| document.
|
| Seals also can be impressions left in wax or embossed into a
| document itself.
|
| Stamps can also be separate paper pasted onto a document (eg
| a postage stamp, a visa stamp)
|
| The terminology is fuzzy.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| This isn't really compatible with the claim above that
| "it's not a seal".
| jameshart wrote:
| Right. I was agreeing and adding context to your post,
| not trying to refute it.
| oasisbob wrote:
| Seals can also be used to bind multiple documents together,
| or to permanently keep a single document intact.
|
| I worked for a bit with a non-profit which was involved in
| international adoptions. Seeing documents under apostille
| with elaborate seals wasn't uncommon. eg, a multi-page
| document attached to a government certificate of
| authenticity, bound together by a ribbon passed through a
| drilled hole, with the hole filled with wax.
| mizzao wrote:
| Weirdly, on [0] it says the following:
|
| "We do not provide medallion signature guarantees for assets
| you're transferring out of a Bank of America or Merrill account
| (guarantees are typically provided by a third party not
| involved in the transfer or by the firm receiving the assets)."
|
| This seems to differ from the article and seems to be a way to
| make it harder to withdraw assets (why would a third party
| provide a medallion to insure someone else's assets?)
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| This is already noted and explained in the article. Search
| for "totally uninvolved".
| mizzao wrote:
| Says "can in principle be totally uninvolved", not
| "customarily is totally uninvolved.
|
| The article seemed to imply that the institution
| transferring the securities would also be in the best
| position to vouch for the identity of the owner who it had
| been the custodian for.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| But that sending institution may not be incentivized to
| do so, for the reasons identified earlier in the piece.
| icedchai wrote:
| From my own experience getting a medallion stamp, the losing
| institution doesn't want to make it easier for you to
| transfer out. The paperwork is often annoying enough as it
| is. Certain things "can't be done" online so you have to send
| in forms and wait. (Always use registered mail, just in
| case!) If you put enough blockers in place, the customer may
| just decide to leave the account where it is.
| daft_pink wrote:
| The other side of this is that I've absolutely had a SEC advisor
| tell me that I couldn't access my money unless I kept my account
| with him and the bank had to verify my access to the money if I
| wanted to transfer it, but if I stayed I could keep it. ACATS
| ultimately protects the consumer from keeping their money with
| unscrupulous advisors.
|
| I agree with the author that it is totally terrifying, but I feel
| the assets should be kept with a third party or third party
| verification service so that the broker isn't incentivices to
| "verity" details.
|
| I think medallions are a good solution to this problem and like
| the author of the piece says they are shockingly easy to get. I
| think that the advisors themselves receiving the money generally
| have huge relationships with the companies they work with that
| issue medallions and even the third party companies with
| relationships with the receiving advisor will generally provide
| one for free even if the person doesn't have one.
| niederman wrote:
| > Infohazard warning about which I am being absolutely serious
|
| Small nit: since this song isn't a fact or idea per se, it would
| probably be more accurate to call this a cognitohazard.
| TwoNineFive wrote:
| People who start sentences with "guys" or "bro".
| throwaway290 wrote:
| That suno song is not only not an earworm, I can't recall what it
| even sounds like after 15 minutes...
| jessekv wrote:
| Try the top-played suno track, I promise that you will remember
| all the lyrics for more than 15 minutes.
|
| https://suno.com/song/ee467d00-5813-4a74-9792-c9ae4a09d344
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Damn I wish I thought about that title.
| piinbinary wrote:
| It's somewhat amusing to look back on my Computer Science
| education, where they taught us that database transactions are
| used to ensure bank balances are moved atomically between
| accounts
| elteto wrote:
| I'm sure this is true at some level. Just not _all_ levels.
|
| At some point you just can't connect to the db on the other
| side because it belongs to a different institution.
| mattofak wrote:
| I've had to get a medallion before to move a small retirement
| account and there were two things I very much did not like about
| the process:
|
| (1) Most institutions require you to have been a member for 6
| months before they will grant a medallion. I was transferring
| money between Fidelity and Schwab. Neither of which have branch
| offices within an hour of where I live. And I only have a virtual
| bank. There was no one willing to give me a medallion because I
| have no local banking relationships. I had to pull a favour with
| work to get our controller to vouch for me at our business bank.
|
| (2) I've done domestic and international wires for _much_ more
| money without needing anything like a medallion. Why can 't I do
| something like log in to Fidelity and wire the funds across
| directly?
|
| (Also, have fun finding the forms required to transfer your
| retirement account. Fidelity at least made the process
| exceptionally difficult, and their customer service agents acted
| like they didn't know what a Simple IRA was or why one would want
| to transfer _out_. Sure there 's a page about transferring, but
| it likes to loop you into the "transfer funds _into_ " flow.)
| captainkrtek wrote:
| Definitely unrelated, but am I the only one bugged when an
| article has a clearly AI generated graphic (eg: misspelled or
| garbled text)?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-25 23:02 UTC)