Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bux93's commentslogin

Walk into bank? The last time I opened a bank account (2023), I tapped my driver's license to my phone, it got my details+photo via NFC, I took a "liveness check" video and was onboarded. This has been the workflow for many years now for consumer account openings, or installing a banking app on a new phone. I think bunq did it first around 2017. As soon as (EUDI) wallets are more standardized, both neobanks and high streets banks will adopt that too.

Note that the caps were introduced because the EU already had widespread use of bank cards, but local schemes were being replaced with Mastercard/Visa debit - the caps were brought in to prevent the duopoly from profiteering. (Apple/Google pay also use Mastercard/Visa virtual cards in the EU.) Before the cap, credit cards had way higher fees and there were some reward cards, which led to merchants simply not accepting Mastercard/Visa. Local schemes included Mastercard-owned Maestro (used in Germany, The Netherlands and for some reason Brazil) but also local schemes like Belgium's Bancontact/MrCash. It's unfortunate some of those schemes didn't just merge and started competing in foreign countries as well.


At least in Germany as far as I'm aware all banking cards are in fact "simple" visa cards who uses "V-pay", since 2012/2014?

Personally I "like" or prefer V-pay because it made payment in the EU more easily for me without the need of a credit card even 8 years ago. Since the pandemic, I only pay for a (real) credit card (with daily billing) because some goods or services can only be paid with a "real" card, like more expensive cars at a car renting company or sometimes hotel rooms and the like.

In general I try to pay with cash so nobody needs to pay extra fees. But more and more smaller businesses prefer electronic payments. Then I use the banking card with V-pay and to state it again, the real visa card is only used when no other options are available.


> o nobody needs to pay extra fees

Processing cash is by far >not free<! In fact, it costs a lot of money due to all the things involved (counting/collection/recycling etc). Anf it inwolves additional risks for the handling party.


In the past I handled cash as an employee and as a volunteer. Like even a quiet night at a bar can sum up to a few thousand EUR.

Yes handling cash is not free. But compared to some charges or fees it's often quiet cheap.

Sure you need to think a head like how much small change money you will need or how much cash for change in general. You also need kind of routine and flow for counting and handling but even if I had to count up to 10k EUR in small bills t does not needed more then half an hour incl putting it into the safe or on the way home putting it into the banking machine... At least in Germany it's not that big of a deal breaker.


half an our - every day.

I know of a large restaurant chain with some "bigger" branches: They often have to count two or three times with different people to be sure, that the amount is correct. Every evening.

Then you have transport companies which pick up the cach (or refill ATM) - you pay there for every time they stop, and you pay a tiny fraction per bill processed etc. (though, most restaurants do not use these services)

Then you finally have the very high risk of getting robbed.


You just triggered my PTSD. Worked in a gas station in college and changing over the till was a PITA -- I had to account for every cent, could be written up over 50 cents (too much or too little) and it was always this crazy dance to change over when we were busy since it messed with the counts.


Sorry! :-)

I know: It is just hell! There is a gas station near my location, which closes the door from 23.45 to 24.00 for just doing this and handing over to the group.


It's funny. I have lurked or followed the gas station anecdote of yours but from the other side.

After school I've worked at a gas station as well and we did not need to close because the shift swap was the same as over the day.

You exert your cashier(?) and the next one inserts the new. And you count in the office and take the time you need.

Half an hour incl. Some other minor takes was part of the shift. Simple as that.


That time costs money, the safe costs money, having cash attracts criminal elements like robbers or dishonest employees, your employee might get robbed on their way to the banking machine making it a workplace hazard, security guards costs money.

In 2009 Sweden had 58 armored car robberies, in 2018 there were 1. This used to be a big concern in Sweden, now it's basically a nonissue.

There were 1154 store robberies in 2009, in 2018 there were 515. Muggings are also down considerably. 2022 was the first year with zero bank robberies. This is mostly thanks to the much lower use of cash.

https://www.riksbank.se/sv/betalningar--kontanter/sa-betalar...

https://bra.se/download/18.54e1fb8a19c479963d63601e/17731372...


People often say that but does the cost for handling cash really scale (even approximately) proportionally with the number of transactions or revenue?

Or is it more binary that you have to decide, you either handle any cash and have the cost associated with it, or you refuse to take cash at all? If the latter is the case, then avoiding cash altogether seems somewhat unrealistic where I am from. And if it doesn't scale then it makes a lot of sense cost-wise to try to do as many of your transactions with cash as possible.


> but does the cost for handling cash really scale (even approximately) proportionally with the number of transactions or revenue?

Yes, it sounds weird but it does

- Providing change is a pain and it's a "fixed time" cost

- Moving money around (also some banks charge for money deposits for commercial accounts)

- Dealing with "shrinkage" in various ways (even if you have insurance)


Depends on, sure there is some "efficient frontier" where it flips.

Think about all the supermarket chains, handling millions of cash daily; in my region, those are relying heavily on outsourced cash recycling companies - why? Its more effort/cost if they would do this themself.


I'm quite opposite. I avoid any places that don't accept card payments, because it usually means they are avoiding taxes. And I don't have cash on me, or wallet. Only phone or sometimes only my garmin watch (with garmin pay).


The fact that Lotus Notes offered attachments with e-mail wasn't as novel as the article suggests, to anyone who had been using uuencode (since 1980) or fidonet (1985).

I have fond memories of filling in time sheets on Lotus Notes. Although it's always an annoying thing to have to do, at least the Notes form that the local IT guy made for it allowed for retroactive changes and comments. Never had any issues communicating with finance over discrepancies or billing. And it synced from basically everywhere, using a 9600bps mobile dial-up connection if needed.


Probably this is just an unfamiliar domain for most non-hardware folks, so it's a nice challenge that might introduce Jane Street to some people they might want to interview for non-hardware roles.

But, they do have a hardware division, and Jane Street has a podcast that talks about some of the things they do https://signalsandthreads.com/?tag=hardware


wow thanks for sharing, will check it out


It's substantively different. The level of compensation you could expect from copyright needs to be high enough that creators/inventors in general feel that it may be worthwhile to create/invent stuff. That level of compensation may be exactly enough to pay for a musician to make a track. We know this is not the case, it's more like a lottery ticket; some musicians make millions (much more than would be needed to entice them to choose this line of work) and many make almost nothing, but still persist. If you relax copyright provisions so that average compensation is halved, this would presumably have a non-linear impact. Maybe a 50% decrease in expected compensation only results in -10% new works. Maybe in -80%. For example, it is completely implausible that retroactively extending copyright (as has been done) results in any additional works being created at all - just higher profits for existing owners. This also applies to the costs; a higher cost of production (e.g. cost of living) doesn't necessarily need to lead to more stringent copyright restraints, nor lower costs to more lax restrictions.


Cool! But who remembers phone numbers anymore? Maybe a small screen that you can navigate by dialling 1 (down), 5 (up) and 0 (select) would be a cool add-on (after dialling 0 or 411 to reach the operator perhaps).


The next move is to go further back in user interfaces: To place a call, pick up the phone and dial 0 or turn the crank to ring the operator.

Have a bot do the rest, exactly like a telephone operator.


It was probably a tribe that later emigrated to Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_things_(Australia)


One advantage in print; pages are often not entirely opaque. So on page 3, you see a bit of the text of page 2 shine through. If page 2 has a jagged right margin, this also makes the left margin of page 3 look uneven.

Meanwhile, the right margin of page 3 looks has a "shadow" that goes all the way to the right because the left margin of page 2 pokes out underneath it - your eye might want to glide to the end of the block, but the sentence stops earlier.

It looks better when it's aligned, which is also why you can specify a left- and right margin that alternates on odd and even pages.

This is obviously only a concern for books and papers, and not so much for e.g. glossy magazines.


I complained to the relevant GDPR authority (German) and never heard back. It's blatantly illegal - overprocessing of PII - to require registration for connecting two devices owned by the same person, in the same room. There's no fathomable necessary or legitimate use.


You're not wrong in theory. If you're a small country, your currency's day-to-day purchasing power is influenced strongly by your imports and exports. If you have few things other countries want to buy, there's less demand for your currency, and it will go down in value as expressed in your trade partner's currency. A sustained trade deficit (more imports than exports) might mean your currency goes down and down in value. Certainly if some politicians decide to close the borders, you will export even less, but will probably still need some necessities from abroad, and you have a financial crisis.

The US is a huge whopping exception to this strong correlation between the balance of trade and currency strength. US exceptionalism is usually wrong, but in this case, the US dollar being the 'reserve currency' of the world is an incredible boon. The US has been able to sustain a huge trade deficit for decades without sky high inflation (you think it's bad now, it's nothing). In fact, foreign goods keep getting cheaper and the US dollar and services keep getting more valuable. A lot of this is because foreigners are willing to keep their savings invested in dollars (stocks & bonds, including the magnificent 7) rather than selling off their dollars to buy e.g. Chinese goods.

Also note that the tech companies make up a small portion of imports/exports.

But.. If trade restrictions (or security concerns) make it harder for the magnificent 7 to make money abroad, their profits will go down and there could also be an outflow of capital that puts inflationary pressure on the dollar, just because US stocks and bonds are less attractive - the trade deficit increasing would also contribute a bit, but it would be a much smaller effect.

An economy being propped up by foreign capital is not just a US phenomenon, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, Turkey 2000, Mexico 1994 - these crashes all were cause by sudden capital outflows. The proximate cause was a short term arbitrage trade, rather than those currencies being in extensive (structural) demand.

This concern is also why China doesn't let foreigners invest directly in Chinese companies. You can only buy weird derivative certificates that trade on a Hong Kong exchange and are subject to tight capital controls if need be.

Things like a domestic tax on imported goods/services (also called tariffs) are unlikely to lower the trade deficit unless there is already an industry domestically to absorb the demand.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: