Some alternative dispute resolution (ADR) bodies accept complaints in English. But if a complaint is written in English and you also supplement a French or Dutch translation (as a courtesy), they will often follow the procedure corresponding to the translation that you give, not English. So if you really want the response in English, obviously giving a translation can screw that up. I have not tested whether you can provide a translation but then explicitly state that you request an English procedure.

Interesting gotcha: if the website has an English version, you cannot trust that. They may even have the rules of procedure written in English -- but then submission rules still limit complaints to fr/nl/de. So it’s important to read the rules of procedure and see what languages are accepted.

If a complaint form is provided in English, things get weird. Although I have never seen a PDF form in English where English was ineligible, I think I have encountered cases where a web form was in English but the rules of procedure exclude English. I paid no attention and wrote English, and it was still accepted contrary to the rules of procedure.

[–] [S] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I am not whole-hog microplastics phobic, but indeed it makes sense to open the bags before using them, and transfer the tea to a non-plastic infuser, if readily available. That did not occur to me; thanks for the tip! From there, I can only think of a reuse like containing small items for ultrasonic cleaning -- in avoiding ingestion of microplastics.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    In Brussels we are legally obligated to put organic waste in orange bags for collection and composting. And we are obligated to put plastic in blue “PMB” bags for recycling.

    I bought some tea bags which happen to be plastic mesh instead of paper. Yikes. That is not always disclosed on the pkg. Of course I won’t be arrested if I toss the spent tea bag in the white bag of non-recyclable waste. But I wanted to at least try to act responsibly, so I opened the tea bag and dumped the spent leaves in the orange bag.

    I thought: wouldn’t it actually be useful to let the plastic mesh dry and re-use it for non-edible spices when cooking (e.g. bay leaves), or even loose tea again?

    Attempt 1: using a heat sealer intended for solid plastic bags failed to reseal the plastic mesh. Apparently it does not get hot enough, despite using the “moist” setting to cook the plastic longer.

    Attempt 2: wedge the open seam of the mesh between two metal rulers and use a lighter. It works, but fuck this. Not worth the effort. Also results in black burnt plastic that could chip off and get lost in the food.

     

    A cafe in Amsterdam was entirely digital. Had no paper menu. I had to borrow a personal smartphone from the staff to see the menu and to place an order. After paying, I asked for a receipt. They said they only give receipts by email. And because I borrowed a phone from a staff member, the receipt went to their email address. So if I were willing to supply an e-mail address, it would not matter because they had no control over that -- could not retroactively send a receipt copy. They had no printer to print a receipt.

    The payment services directive (PSD) says:

    Article 57
    Information for the payer on individual payment transactions
    1. After the amount of an individual payment transaction is debited from the payer’s account or, where the payer does not use a payment account, after receipt of the payment order, the payer’s payment service provider shall provide the payer, without undue delay and in the same way as laid down in Article 51(1), with all of the following information:
    (a) a reference enabling the payer to identify each payment transaction and, where appropriate, information relating to the payee;
    (b) the amount of the payment transaction in the currency in which the payer’s payment account is debited or in the currency used for the payment order;
    (c) the amount of any charges for the payment transaction and, where applicable, a breakdown of the amounts of such charges, or the interest payable by the payer;
    (d) where applicable, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction by the payer’s payment service provider, and the amount of the payment transaction after that currency conversion;
    (e) the debit value date or the date of receipt of the payment order.

    IIUC, by preconditioning the above info on having an email address, they are infringing on the law. Correct?

    It’s rough reading because it says this obligation is on “the payer’s payment service provider”. Who is that? What does that mean? The payment service provider would be the merchant’s, no?

    On the payer’s side of this, there is only their bank. The “without undue delay” bit seems to suggest this refers to a receipt on the spot, as banks generally only send a statement of account once per month.

     

    cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/2368676

    Belgium has a ban on cash transactions with “basic” bank accounts. At the same time, the EU Payment Services Directive (PSD) says:

    Article 35
    Access to payment systems

    1. …
      Payment systems shall not impose on payment service providers, on payment service users or on other payment systems any of the following requirements:

    (a) restrictive rule on effective participation in other payment systems;

    Superficially, a cash ban would seem to block participation with another payment system. Of course the definition of “payment system” is relevant:

    (7) ‘payment system’ means a funds transfer system with formal and standardised arrangements and common rules for the processing, clearing and/or settlement of payment transactions;

    Cash is a payment system of the central bank. Does cash meet that definition?

     

    Belgium has a ban on cash transactions with “basic” bank accounts. At the same time, the EU Payment Services Directive (PSD) says:

    Article 35
    Access to payment systems

    1. …
      Payment systems shall not impose on payment service providers, on payment service users or on other payment systems any of the following requirements:

    (a) restrictive rule on effective participation in other payment systems;

    Superficially, a cash ban would seem to block participation with another payment system. Of course the definition of “payment system” is relevant:

    (7) ‘payment system’ means a funds transfer system with formal and standardised arrangements and common rules for the processing, clearing and/or settlement of payment transactions;

    Cash is a payment system of the central bank. Does cash meet that definition?

    Update: Belgium’s transposition of the law explicitly excludes cash as a ‘payment system’ :

    Royal Decree of 11 MARCH 2018
    Annex I.B. The following shall not be considered as payment services within the meaning of this Law:

    1. The execution of payment transactions exclusively in cash and going directly from the payer to the beneficiary, without the intervention of any intermediary

    (^ machine translated)

     

    cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/2365040

    The linked page shows that Belgium cares just enough about preventing forcing the digital transformation down our throats to force banks to offer an analog means of access. But Belgium is okay with banks fleecing offline consumers to the tune of €62.50 €88.10¹/yr above and beyond the normal service costs, plus a bit more to pay for printed bank statements.

    One disgusting side-effect is that there is no pressure on banks to avoid enshitification of their digital services. Normally when a digital mechanism is enshitified, we can use the analog mechanism instead. And rightly so if that costs the bank more -- they should factor that into their enshitification plans. But since analog customers must pay substantially more to offset the costs, there is no incentive not to enshitify the service. So the shitty choices are:

    • get enshitified access at a normal price; or
    • accept less convenient low-tech but non-enshitified service and pay €88.10¹+/yr more

    It seems as if banks are in fact encouraged to enshitify their digital access because driving people to go analog is just an extra bonus revenue.

    The original thread is here.

    ¹ Update: Originally posted €62.50, but that was in 2022. There is an index increasing the cost by €6.40 every year.

     

    The linked page shows that Belgium cares just enough about preventing the forced digital transformation down our throats to pressure banks to offer an analog means of access. But Belgium is okay with banks fleecing offline consumers to the tune of €62.50 €88.10¹/yr above and beyond the normal service costs, plus a bit more to pay for printed bank statements.

    One disgusting side-effect is that there is no pressure on banks to avoid enshitification of their digital services. Normally when a digital mechanism is enshitified, we can use the analog mechanism instead. And rightly so if that costs the bank more -- they should factor that into their enshitification plans. But since analog customers must pay substantially more to offset the costs, there is no incentive not to enshitify the service.

    Perhaps the greatest injustice is that analog consumers get no refund for the cost of the digital infrastructure that they do not use. It’s comparable to being forced to pay for an MS Windows license on a PC that will only run linux anyway.

    So the shitty choices are:

    • get enshitified access at a normal price; or
    • accept less convenient low-tech but non-enshitified service and pay €88.10¹+/yr more

    It seems as if banks are in fact encouraged to enshitify their digital access because driving people to go analog is just an extra bonus revenue.

    The original thread is here.

    ¹ Update: Originally posted €62.50, but that was in 2022. There is an index increasing the cost by €6.40 every year.

    [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I would like to see the complaint, which I heard was like 80 pages.

    What stands out for me was going to a commune to simply ask for a permit to reserve street parking in front of the house for workers. Commune staff pointed to a sign with a QR code. Not even a kiosk. I’m like, WTF, how do I pay cash? ¯\(ツ)/¯ (said the commune worker). I could have written down the URL and then visited it from a public library, but cash payers are wholly excluded, hard and fast.

    There are some government forms that /require/ an email address. No email → no service.

    I could probably add about 80 or so pages to whatever that complaint says, with a focus on situations of cash refusal which discriminates against the unbanked.

    Worth noting that there is a Techno Critique Club that I believe meets every Thursday at 18h30 at Rue de l’Association 20.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Should people jailed years ago for smoking/selling marijuana be kept in jail after marijuana becomes legal in a country?

    To be a comparable analogy, it would have to be the flip of that. Where we decide to remove the right to smoke mj and then prosecute past users. A real world example would be in the US where the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade then started prosecutions of those who had abortions before the overturn.

    Anyway, the ethics aren’t so interesting to discuss. I am just looking for info about how to counter the EU refusing to protect a liberty because (the Commission hopes) we might lose the liberty in the future anyway.

    (edit) well, I should say I don’t mean to dismiss the ethical discussion. I don’t suppose it’s realistic to expect a law expert to bring insight here anyway.

    In the US they revised sentences of drug offenders because you had situations like a black man doing 20 years for posession of a joint. And while they were doing absurd amounts of time, the policy got smarter (more lenient). Then at the same time prisons were ram-packed with those who had minor drug offenses and there was also a need to free up their rooms because they could not build prisons fast enough. So if they were to decide /not/ to revise sentences to match modern leniency, that would have been reckless for a number of reasons. It makes sense to prioritise the prison space for offenders who are most needed off the street.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Suppose someone’s rights under EU law are infringed. The member state refuses to enforce the law at the highest level. The victim asks the European Commission to enforce EU law against the offending member state. The EC¹ does a superficial preliminary check and agrees that the case can move forward (past the initial screening criteria).

    After deeper checks, the EC decides that they will kill the case because they are proposing future law that will remove the right anyway. Is this legal?

    It seems really bizarre and chaotic that as the law changes, and a legal case often takes years, enforcement would not be based on a snapshot of the law at the time the incident occurs. And it seems extra fucked up that they would base a decision to withhold legal action on the mere speculation of future law that will be proposed, not even a law that has at least passed in Parliament. But I’m not a lawyer.

    Does the idea of enforcing law that does not match the law at the time of an incident have some kind of latin name or something so I can search more about this practice?

    ¹ Is “EC” an abbreviation for the European Commission, or the European Council? Not sure if it’s a safe acronym to use. Laws often have EC in the citiation.

    Update

    I think “ex ante” is the latin term which is the opposite of “ex post facto”. Though it does not seem to be specific to the legal practice of enforcing law before it is enacted.

    [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Thanks for the suggestion. I might go that route but I generally try to avoid non-vegan options. I can’t avoid cheddar without making a notable compromise, but I use almond milk instead of dairy. I’ve seen evaporated milk sold in cans. So I suppose I would use ¼ of a can, then try to find a use for the rest of it before it spoils.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/2229041

    I found only two sources in Brussels for “citrate de sodium”:

    • pharmacy: €50 for 250g
    • in a packet of lemon chicken flavoring in an Asian shop

    I’m not going to pay €50 to a pharmacist in order to make a smoother macaroni and cheese. I’m also not interested in bringing in flavored Asian sauces. One option would be to go to the American section of a large grocery store and buy a Kraft mac & cheese kit. Fuck that. I boycott Kraft Heinz. Probably would not find Velvita, but if I did it’s a bit off to be making mac & cheese from scratch and then having to resort to a kit of sorts anyway.

    Is there a better option?

    It seems fondu with cheese is a thing here. How are people emulsifying their cheese for that?

    Update: it’s apparently European additive “E331” which groups 3 different things. Are they about the same for emulsifying cheese? Note as well that it’s not in the emulsifier grouping of additives for some reason.

    Should I try a vet?

     

    cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/2106698

    They put the registered letter (recommendee) slip in your box without buzzing now. And if you catch them, they don‘t even bother carrying the letter with them. So even if you are home, you have to go to bPost the next day to pick it up.

    Is this legal? Don’t they have to at least make one delivery attempt?

    [–] [S] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    How can you be so naive as to think money in the bank is yours? That’s not /your/ money in the bank. It’s the bank’s money. There is an IOU from the bank to you.

    Same with cash money. It’s no longer backed by gold reserves. It’s backed by nothing. All you have is /trust/; just like gift cards. Have look at what’s printed on US dollar banknotes. It’s spelled out for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] -1 points 3 months ago

    You can exchange your pesos to euros. Can you do the same with your pokemon cards?

    Of course. Just as I bought the gift cards with euros, the person on the other side of the transaction received euros for the gift cards. I could play either role depending on what I am starting with.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] -2 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Of course gift cards are money. You can’t buy a burger in Germany with Mexican pesos either. But Mexican pesos don’t cease to be money on the basis that it’s not usable everywhere for everything.

    Note as well you may be able to buy a burger at the Ikea cafeteria using an Ikea gift card. Haven’t tried it, but nonetheless it would be a shitty test for deciding whether to call it money.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] -2 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    PlayStation gift card, Nintendo gift card, Spotify gift card, etc. The sky is the limit.

    That’s money. They exist to buy stuff. And when it expires, it’s money expiring. It’s of course a swindle.

    You cannot spend a cake, it still has a point though.

    indeed, because a cake is not money. Unlike gift cards, which function strictly as money.

    Edit: “phone credit” Is it a for a real company, or for a burner kind of phone?

    Not sure what you’re trying to ask but burner phones were banned in Belgium around ~10 years ago. All GSM cards must be registered to a gov-issued ID.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Did you eventually get your answer?

    I don’t have a concrete answer so I did not respond when I first saw your post. When there is a cross-border scenario within the EU, data subjects have the right to choose whether to file locally or in the remote country. And generally if two SAs are working together on the case, the data subject can designate which country is the lead supervisory authority. I don’t imagine that this aspect would change when the UK is involved as the UK’s GDPR closely mirrors the EU one.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    I’m confused by the relationship between your 1st and 2nd sentence. Your 1st sentence is about making a long stop and your 2nd is about taking an indirect route.

    An SNCB worker told me the EU law which allows people to stop at a station along their route and take a break and return to the itinerary has been eliminated. So we no longer have that right under EU law but you seem to be saying Belgium gives passengers the right to stop when travelling within Belgium, correct?

    About the app… I have no clue. Google maps with public transport option on?

    I should clarify that I would never download an app from Google playstore or use Google Maps (or any google service). I was asking for tools (or “apps”) that can be run using a browser (most websites are actually javascript apps these days). And I would be open to f-droid apps or other free software.

    Anyway, since the EU law was dropped my hunt for a resource that lets me pin a waypoint but not the destination is somewhat moot. Although perhaps still interesting in light of the Belgian law you mention.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›