> About 250 other students signed a petition to the Dean on how this is unfair and awful and they will not put up with it.

That behaviour by the students disgusts me.

It explains how we get the state of the profession we have these days.

I've used this for a couple of projects now and like it.

But am not a fan of the current trend of spaced out layouts. Visually they look good but in practice for information dense pages it is difficult to fit everything in. Maybe it is bad design on my part but I'd prefer a web layout that looks more like a desktop application (think Photoshop or Visual Studio)

Maybe https://blueprintjs.com/ for you, although last time I checked it did not have explicit mobile or tablet support. (They don’t aim to break mobile or tablet but they don’t endeavour to support it.)

Agree with what you have said about the MWS API, but this repo is actually the updated REST based API - which appears to be mostly the same functions as the older API but with less documentation.

Hope it gets multiple monitor support soon, keep expecting it after using visual studio.

What would that entail?

Probably changes to Electron, I don't think it has multi-monitor support.

No, I mean what does it mean for an app to have multi-monitor support? Isn't that usually a domain for the window manager. The app can be dragged from one monitor to another.

IDEs especially have a lot of panels. Those can be moved around in the window or even outside of the window.

So you can have the code window, the debug window, etc.

So what people actually want is multi-window support.

The credit card payment gateway we use has an AVS that proved to miss a sizable amount of fraud, and also identify some legitimate transactions as fraudulent.

We ended up disabling the AVS system and implementing our own internal system which has been nearly perfect - but we still lose a number of legitimate customers who are unable to pass the automated verification.

Avs was never meant to be an end all be all for fraud. Also, if you don't send address data you're getting worse rates.

"Starting 9:00 AM EST on 2/4/2014 all of your domains will be protected via our WebLock Program"

They are only saying you will be protected via their WebLock Program, not enrolled in their service. But they are deliberately ambiguous to make it sound like they are the same thing.

"To establish Certified Users and pre-register authorized phone numbers and email addresses please call 1-888-642-0265 "

"If you wish to opt out of this program you may do so by calling us at 1-888-642-0265"

"Give the security team a call and they can explain 1-888-642-0265"

They are pushing hard for you to call them, that is where they will attempt to get you signed up for this "service"

> But they are deliberately ambiguous to make it sound like they are the same thing.

Ambiguity is the problem here. They may be enrolling you, they may not, they could argue either way.

If a company can say "that letter was your warning" then I will take it as a warning, whether they meant it to be one or not.