Mutter Bundle #36: I Cannae Be Bothered. Still Cannae Be Bothered. I Am NPC Who Just Cannae Be Bothered.
24 Mar 2026 15:39
Toruń, Poland.
24 Mar 2026 19:47
My giffgaff community post about another network’s number STAC cancellation preventing a SIM swap:
Here's a situation. Not a common one, close to once in a blue moon, perhaps, but still worth noting.
A number on another network is being cancelled via giffgaff using a STAC issued by that network, scheduled for tomorrow. Great.
Then today, I also went to move my giffgaff eSIM to another handset using the usual in-app swap route.
And this was when I got hit with the following error message:
“You can’t SIM swap just yet. While we’re bringing your number to giffgaff, you won’t be able to swap to your new SIM.”
Hold on.
First of all, I am not bringing a number to giffgaff. I am cancelling one elsewhere. Ok, wording, semantics, never mind.
But.
Even leaving the wording aside, it would seem logical that STAC-cancelling another network's number via giffgaff should not affect the giffgaff network’s SIM at all. Or should it?
I mean, a PAC port-in might justify SIM swap restrictions. But a STAC cancellation? Am I the only one who feels that PAC port-ins and STAC cancellations of another network's number have been bundled into a one-size-fits-all flow simply because it is easier to maintain, to the point where giffgaff has reused the exact same restrictions and wording?
01 Apr 2026 23:44
Just cannae be bothered...
13 Apr 2026 20:18
My yet another giffgaff community rant on Unlimited Data plans that have Fair Use Policy data limits (i.e. not really unlimited, in my opinion).
https://community.giffgaff.com/d/34563491-unlimited-data-is-false/18
With all due respect, I’m not sure how someone who says, “gonna not try to market a 650GB plan to me as Unlimited, please?” suddenly comes across as selfish and insensitive, or as someone who wants other customers in the area to suffer and not be able to comfortably use data.
I’m also not sure how someone who says, “gonna not try to market a 650GB plan to me as Unlimited, please?” suddenly comes across as someone who allegedly says, “I want you to change the laws of physics for me and expand the natural limits beyond those I am going to bump into.”
650GB (or any other limit that networks specifically mention in the T&Cs) is their artificial limit, nothing to do with the laws of physics.
Do I understand that such artificial limits might be necessary to give everyone else an adequate network experience? Absolutely. Why would anyone think that I don’t?
Do I understand that those limits are mentioned somewhere in the T&Cs? Of course I do. I have specifically said that I do, and I don’t mind repeating it again. I do.
However, when browsing giffgaff’s, O2’s, EE’s, etc. offerings, long before I get to read the T&Cs, the first thing I see is plans labelled “Unlimited Data.” And if unlimited (i.e. limited only by natural laws such as time or physics) data isn’t something the network can offer, I totally get it, I understand. Just don’t pretend that you can. Don’t put a big, shiny “Unlimited” label on the front page only to say somewhere in the T&Cs that it’s actually 650GB, not unlimited.
I don’t mind 650GB. 650GB is generous. 650GB is plenty. 650GB might be extremely good value for the price.
All I’m really saying is that a 650GB/month plan is... shock, horror!.. a 650GB/month plan, not an unlimited data plan.
A fairer, in my opinion, approach would be to set (and communicate clearly upfront, not just in the T&Cs) limits such as a tethering allowance or a maximum data allowance at full speed.
“Always On” was actually a pretty fair way to describe and market a plan where, after using a certain amount each month, you are hit with speed restrictions but don’t risk being completely disconnected... well, in theory. I am saying "in theory" because, if I remember correctly, it had its own clauses in the T&Cs that effectively meant a customer had to accept playing a “will I be flagged as a network resource abuser this month?” lottery, without clear criteria for what might constitute abuse.
But in theory, it seemed like a concept that was much fairer than “Unlimited Data” with a Fair Usage Policy buried in the T&Cs.
14 Apr 2026 11:49
Still cannae be bothered...
19 Apr 2026 13:13
Sometimes I can’t help but be unable to shake off the feeling that there are more people than I would like who are better treated as NPCs.
Not because I see myself as the centre of the universe, the main character, and everyone else as background noise. No. I’m not that far up my own backside, I really am not.
It’s just that with some people, it becomes easier to recognise a set of behavioural patterns that trigger predictable reactions, and to not overcomplicate the relationship beyond that.
With people that you feel or start feeling close to (family, friends, someone you fall in love with, etc.), you might feel tempted to take a deeper, more meaningful dive into exploring life together. For the two of you, you are hoping to get some sort of shared truth seeking, discussions that cut through clichés and explore far beyond stereotypes, conventional thinking, and all the usual limitations.
You want substance.
But.
They’re not always ready for that. Perhaps not with you. Or perhaps not at all. Perhaps they’re not on the same page. Or perhaps not even in the same book. The bottom line is that, regardless of how close they seem, that gap doesn't magically close.
Hence a fallback to the NPC approach. Picking your lines like you’re scrolling through dialogue options in an RPG. A predictable, drama and conflict free, manageable dynamic.
Not because you regard someone as inferior, but because you simply choose not to force something that isn't shared with you. "All the world’s a stage", said William Shakespeare once. Who knows, if he had lived now, he might have said "a computer game". You just keep playing that game. Often the safest, most practical choice, I guess.
19 Apr 2026 19:07
This giffgaff community rant is about what I see as pretty ridiculous and unjustified restrictions on image posting:
Let everyone post images like in the good auld days?
I mean, apologies for feeling like I have to say this, but allowing members to post photos or change profile pics only after meeting some vague “criteria” (which, being undisclosed, is obviously open to interpretation and potentially abuse by giffgaff itself) just doesn’t sit right.
If this is about “protecting the community,” then how do so many other communities manage perfectly well by only restricting members after they’ve actually posted inappropriate content?
Sorry, but what giffgaff is doing (i.e. restricting members by default from posting images or changing profile pics until some mysterious algorithm flags them as "worthy of the privilege") feels less about protection and more about unintentionally creating an unnecessary upper/lower class divide between users.
https://community.giffgaff.com/d/34411903-feedback-and-improvements-to-the-photography-tag/386
20 Apr 2026 09:42
Edinburgh, Scotland.
20 Apr 2026 10:56
Call it controversial, call it debatable, call it extreme, call it whatever you like, but I cannot help but believe that while not every transparent system is necessarily fair, every fair system has to be and remain transparent in order to stay fair.
20 Apr 2026 14:30
Short bursts of energy, then a long flat line of cannaebebothered...
