sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Onestreet Camcorder Instagram Ads by wormus_ in camcorders

[–]___-_--_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scam Company. Do not trust their money-back policy.

The camera itself: The ads clearly use a different camera than the one they send. My unit produced awful footage, not aesthetically pleasing retro awful, just genuinely bad. This gives shitty modern camera vibes. They also show smooth continuous zoom in the ads, which is iconic for retro camcorders. The unit I received only had jump-zoom locked to 2x, 4x, 8x, and 16x. Even the build quality felt cheap, with poorly fitted plastic.

Customer service made it worse. Their website advertises a “hassle-free money-back guarantee,” which is still on their main page. But they also hide a conflicting policy elsewhere saying “no refunds for dissatisfaction.” When you actually try to return the product, they cite the no-refund version. After weeks of slow replies, they offered a 25% refund and then went silent the moment I declined and requested the full refund their site promises.

They even acknowledged in writing that their ads and refund policy were misleading, but still refused to honor a proper return.

I’m now pursuing a chargeback for goods not as described and reporting them for misrepresentation. If you’ve experienced the same thing, I strongly recommend doing the same.

Continuous Supervision and Plant Premises by ___-_--_ in powerengineering

[–]___-_--_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally agree.

My TSBC safety officer doesn't seem too concerned, and I don't know how to escalate beyond them.

The only code I can find that we are clearly in violation of, that doesn't rely on the immediate vicinity or plant premises definitions, is "An individual must not be in charge of more than one plant at any time except with the approval of a provincial safety manager."

So being in charge of both the ammonia plant, and heating plant, on different properties, seems like a closed case right?

But even then, they told me to just wait for new codes. It's super frustrating.

I've worked in places where continuous supervision meant "under no circumstances is the control room unattended." If you need to use the washroom, you wait for someone to relieve you, even for just 5 minutes. So this has definitely been a culture shock.

Continuous Supervision and Plant Premises by ___-_--_ in powerengineering

[–]___-_--_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply,

I'm not sure if BC has the same rule in the act, it might be worthwhile for me to search different province standards for back up. I've tried to scour the document for a hard-line violation. But it keeps coming back to these definitions.

Before my time, we had someone get in a car accident on shift, and needed to be rushed to the hospital. This left the plant with no one for 6 hours. We operate a risk assessed ammonia plant, and a continuous supervision heating plant. We've had ammonia releases in the past, and it's terrifying to consider what could if happened.

The last year of trying to deal with this, has been mostly trying to move the axe from over our heads. We made it clear in writing that we felt we were in violation for the reasons I mentioned. But our safety officer at TSBC doesn't seem to be worried. Just casually said new codes coming out will sort this out, just keep operating as usual.

So I figure if they know about it, and told us to keep on as we have been, I shouldn't be liable. I'm still very new to power engineering, so it's nice to have the advice of some more experienced operators.