On 9/15/2021 2:47 PM, Your Name wrote:
> AJL wrote:

>> Your roads must be a bit dangerous with blind people driving...
>> ;)

> Not when self-driving cars finally arrive (in about 2360!)

2360? How about now. There was a guy arrested recently because he was
riding alone in the back seat as his Tesla as it was taking him somewhere.

On 2021-09-15 22:54:03 +0000, AJL said:
> On 9/15/2021 2:47 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> AJL wrote:
>>>
>>> Your roads must be a bit dangerous with blind people driving...
>>> ;)
>>
>> Not when self-driving cars finally arrive (in about 2360!)
>
> 2360? How about now. There was a guy arrested recently because he was
> riding alone in the back seat as his Tesla as it was taking him somewhere.

Tesla's crappy cars are definitely NOT self-driving, despite the fact
that too many moronic owners and the imbeclic Musk do not understand
that fact.

On 16/09/2021 00.19, nospam wrote:
> In article <7s7a1ixi1i.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> A different sized bill stands out in a package, so that the error is
>> detected instantly by looking at the pack.
>
> unless it's smaller than the rest of the bills.

Still you can notice it, there is a tiny gap. The machine feeding the
bills will notice instantly without even looking and you will not be
delivered a smaller note.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/15/2021 3:54 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 2:47 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> AJL wrote:
>
>>> Your roads must be a bit dangerous with blind people driving...
>>> ;)
>
>> Not when self-driving cars finally arrive (in about 2360!)
>
> 2360? How about now. There was a guy arrested recently because he was
> riding alone in the back seat as his Tesla as it was taking him somewhere.

Two cities over from me, an appointed city commission member was drunk
and asleep in his Tesla. Since he did not pull over when the police
tried to stop him, the police car got in front of the Tesla and drove
slower and slower until the Tesla stopped,
<https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/11/30/los-altos-planning-commissioner-arrested-for-tesla-dui>.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 1:39 PM, Rob wrote:
>
>> When I see videos of driving in the USA
> > it is hardly better than in Russia.
>
> I enjoy watching Tik Tok videos too...

The interesting thing is that this is not only noticable in
"dashcam videos of idiotic drivers", but also in plain livestreams
where a wellknown right-to-repair advocate drives to his next meeting
and livestreams on the way. I.e. the video is not at all related
to driving, it just happens to show a US road.

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In the last few weeks here in New Zealand there has been internet
> hacker problems that
>
> 1. took down an entire hospital system with a ransomware to the point
> they had to close the doors for many days while they attempted to
> fix it,
>
> 1. took down a company which runs many ISP and internet-based services,
> which resulted in electronic wallets like Apple Pay not working for
> a hour or so,
>
> 2. took down the system at big banks for at least three *days*.

These are "Microsoft hacker" problems, there have been two major
problems with Microsoft servers recently and the company has big
problems to even solve them, let alone having the users to install the
updates. Major foulups in updates have caused big corporations to
be wary of installing updates soon after they are released.

Now they are trapped. The result of using desktop software for
critical server applications for too long.

On 9/16/2021 12:09 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 9/15/2021 1:39 PM, Rob wrote:

>>> When I see videos of driving in the USA it is hardly better than
>>> in Russia.

>> I enjoy watching Tik Tok videos too...

> The interesting thing is that this is not only noticable in "dashcam
> videos of idiotic drivers", but also in plain livestreams where a
> wellknown right-to-repair advocate drives to his next meeting and
> livestreams on the way. I.e. the video is not at all related to
> driving, it just happens to show a US road.

Ah. You're dissing our roads (and not our drivers) then. Got it. Well we
have over 4 million miles of roads. All types and conditions. Check back
when you've found videos of most of them...

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 12:09 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/15/2021 1:39 PM, Rob wrote:
>
>>>> When I see videos of driving in the USA it is hardly better than
>>>> in Russia.
>
>>> I enjoy watching Tik Tok videos too...
>
>> The interesting thing is that this is not only noticable in "dashcam
>> videos of idiotic drivers", but also in plain livestreams where a
>> wellknown right-to-repair advocate drives to his next meeting and
>> livestreams on the way. I.e. the video is not at all related to
>> driving, it just happens to show a US road.
>
> Ah. You're dissing our roads (and not our drivers) then. Got it. Well we
> have over 4 million miles of roads. All types and conditions. Check back
> when you've found videos of most of them...

When I see what happens on Interstates and major roads, normally the
easiest roads to drive on, I can only fear the worst for the other
types of road.

Although the subject is of course a beginner driver, it does not
improve my confidence that he wrecked a brand-new Tesla on his first
trip from NY to FL. And that happened in one of the classic "idiot
at the wheel" accidents that are also so prevalent on Russian dashcam
videos.

On 9/16/2021 9:55 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 12:09 AM, Rob wrote:

>>> a wellknown right-to-repair advocate drives to his next meeting
>>> and livestreams on the way. I.e. the video is not at all related
>>> to driving, it just happens to show a US road.

>> Ah. You're dissing our roads (and not our drivers) then. Got it.
>> Well we have over 4 million miles of roads. All types and
>> conditions. Check back when you've found videos of most of them...

> When I see what happens on Interstates and major roads,

You found videos of ALL our interstates and major roads? That was quick.

> normally the easiest roads to drive on, I can only fear the worst for
> the other types of road.

Other unseen roads? I fear that your fear is from your imagination.

> Although the subject is of course a beginner driver, it does not
> improve my confidence that he wrecked a brand-new Tesla on his first
> trip from NY to FL.

I agree. It'd be better to wreck a junk car.

> And that happened in one of the classic "idiot at the wheel"
> accidents that are also so prevalent on Russian dashcam videos.

Online dashcam videos generally show something interesting like bad
driving incidents or road problems. Nobody would waste their time
watching or posting hours of safe driving on pristine roads. Anyway,
this subject is getting a bit boring so you can have the last word...

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 9:55 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2021 12:09 AM, Rob wrote:
>
>>>> a wellknown right-to-repair advocate drives to his next meeting
>>>> and livestreams on the way. I.e. the video is not at all related
>>>> to driving, it just happens to show a US road.
>
>>> Ah. You're dissing our roads (and not our drivers) then. Got it.
>>> Well we have over 4 million miles of roads. All types and
>>> conditions. Check back when you've found videos of most of them...
>
>> When I see what happens on Interstates and major roads,
>
> You found videos of ALL our interstates and major roads? That was quick.

I watched a couple of hours of that road trip and like other European
watchers (as indicated by the chat and later commenting) I was cringed
watching what happened there...

>> normally the easiest roads to drive on, I can only fear the worst for
>> the other types of road.
>
> Other unseen roads? I fear that your fear is from your imagination.
>
>> Although the subject is of course a beginner driver, it does not
>> improve my confidence that he wrecked a brand-new Tesla on his first
>> trip from NY to FL.
>
> I agree. It'd be better to wreck a junk car.

Note that in the accident, he was driving straight on on a large
crossing, and was hit by a driver from the opposite direction turning
left.
A more experienced driver could maybe have avoided the accident,
even when not at all guilty of it. It is hard to judge that from remote.

>> And that happened in one of the classic "idiot at the wheel"
>> accidents that are also so prevalent on Russian dashcam videos.
>
> Online dashcam videos generally show something interesting like bad
> driving incidents or road problems. Nobody would waste their time
> watching or posting hours of safe driving on pristine roads. Anyway,
> this subject is getting a bit boring so you can have the last word...

Yes, but as I said this was not about showing interesting driving
accidents, it was using a road trip as the backdrop for hours-long
rambling and the accident did not even happen during a stream.
But during the stream, lots of other cringing things happened.

You think it is boring, but I don't. I think we are on to something.
But I respect your wish to put it to rest.

On 9/16/2021 11:02 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> this subject is getting a bit boring so you can have the last
>> word...

> You think it is boring, but I don't. I think we are on to
> something. But I respect your wish to put it to rest.

'Boring' was a poor choice of words for me. You are not boring. I should
have said IMO we have pretty much wore the (OT) subject out. Be happy to
converse with you when the next one (OT or no) surfaces... ;)

Final, final, final EOD, I promise...

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote
>>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> On 15/09/2021 09.24, nospam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still don't understand why all your bills are
>>>>>>>>> exactly the same size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> better fit in wallets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It must be nightmare for people with poor vision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if their vision is bad enough to where they can't read the money,
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> they likely aren't shopping alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nospam is wrong of course™.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here, you can see them selling a state raffle run by the blind people
>>>>>>> organization (ONCE), and they are alone. They take bills and coins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it may be different in the US but here in EU people with poor
>>>>>> vision are considered to be full-fledged people worthy of living
>>>>>> a normal life.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are free to do that using a card or phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> In theory its not that easy with vending machines,
>>>>> but it makes more sense to mandate that vending
>>>>> machine take cards and phones than to buggerise
>>>>> around with different sized bank notes.
>>>
>>>> But this solution exists for much longer than cards and phones!
>>>
>>> Sure but the world moves on, just like it did with snail mail letters.
>>>
>>>> Our previous banknotes even had profiled digits
>>>> and markers to the value could be recognized
>>>> by visually impaired without size difference.
>>>
>>> Yeah, the different sized notes is a stupid approach,
>>> must be very difficult for vending machines and
>>> self checkout terminals.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
>> They work just fine.
>
> Only after the designer has to go to rather more trouble.

They have to do the same with coins so notes are no more difficult.

On 9/13/2021 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The large chain stores that have decided to not accept mobile wallet
> don't like the fact that you get more privacy with mobile wallet
> obfuscating the card details from them so they can't extract data to
> sell to marketing firms.

I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
their payment processor.

It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.

In article <t3fu6s$71v$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> their payment processor.

that is absolutely false.

either you're trolling with yet another fabricated story (likely) or
you're incredibly gullible.

it's well established that there are *no* additional fees for the
merchant or customer for using contactless, whether it's apple/google
pay or tapping the card.

> It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
> transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
> cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
> higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.

it doesn't have anything to do with that, because your bullshit story
is *false*.

not only that, but as part of the merchant agreement, a merchant is
*forbidden* from refusing high rewards cards while accepting lesser
cards. if they accept any mc/visa card, they *must* accept *all* of
them.

In message <t3fu6s$71v$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

> <snip>

>> The large chain stores that have decided to not accept mobile wallet
>> don't like the fact that you get more privacy with mobile wallet
>> obfuscating the card details from them so they can't extract data to
>> sell to marketing firms.

> I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> their payment processor.

Either you are doing your usual making up a story bullshit or the
merchant in your story it. Either way, this is flat out false.

And yes, I know this for a fact from three separate businesses that have
mobile payments and pay considerably less than they do with dip
transactions.

--
Ain't no side-eye like a Roy Kent side eye.

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

| I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
| take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
| them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
| their payment processor.
| | It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
| transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
| cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
| higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.

It makes sense. These things are just middleman gimmicks.
Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards
give them a kickback for sending the customer through them.
The customer never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who
gets nailed. That's also why many restaurants try to avoid
taking Amex. There fees are (or at least were) higher.

Young people living through their phones don't realize all
this. They think tech has just magically simplified money.
I once had a young woman evangelize me about Square.
She firmly believed that it was just a magical way to avoid
credit cards, costing nobody anything. They're the same
people who think that Uber is ridesharing an AirBnB is
house sharing.

Am 17.04.22 um 14:25 schrieb Mayayana:
> It makes sense. These things are just middleman gimmicks.
> Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards
> give them a kickback for sending the customer through them.
> The customer never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who
> gets nailed. That's also why many restaurants try to avoid
> taking Amex. There fees are (or at least were) higher.
>
> Young people living through their phones don't realize all
> this. They think tech has just magically simplified money.
> I once had a young woman evangelize me about Square.
> She firmly believed that it was just a magical way to avoid
> credit cards, costing nobody anything. They're the same
> people who think that Uber is ridesharing an AirBnB is
> house sharing.

*ROTFLSTC*

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 4/17/2022 5:25 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> | take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> | them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> | their payment processor.
> |
> | It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
> | transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
> | cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
> | higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.
>
> It makes sense. These things are just middleman gimmicks.
> Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards
> give them a kickback for sending the customer through them.
> The customer never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who
> gets nailed. That's also why many restaurants try to avoid
> taking Amex. There fees are (or at least were) higher.

If a customer pays with the same card, that gets the same rewards
whether the card is used via EMV, contactless, or through Apple Pay,
Google Pay, or Samsung Pay, there is no difference in fees to the merchant.

The payment processor absorbs the 0.15% Apple charges to use Apple Pay
(Google apparently doesn't charge any fee to the payment processor).

Banks, unsurprisingly, are not happy about that 0.15% fee that they
absorb <https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/05/visa-apple-pay-fees/>.

> Young people living through their phones don't realize all
> this. They think tech has just magically simplified money.
> I once had a young woman evangelize me about Square.
> She firmly believed that it was just a magical way to avoid
> credit cards, costing nobody anything. They're the same
> people who think that Uber is ridesharing an AirBnB is
> house sharing.

Not taking mobile wallet payments slightly altered consumer behavior,
enough to see a measurable difference in monthly transaction fees.

If someone uses a 2%-3% flat-rate cash back credit card with EMV versus
NFC versus mobile wallet then the merchant pays the same fee. But if
they use a 3% mobile wallet/1% EMV card, apparently the merchant gets a
break when they pay with the card versus the phone because the rewards
are lower (at least that's what the merchant believed, but I don't know
if that is actually true). The real difference comes when someone that
can't use NFC with a card with high rewards instead pays in cash or uses
a lower level card. For Visa, you have Traditional, Signature, and
Infinite. For Mastercard you have Standard, World and World Elite. The
higher level cards pay higher fees.

On 4/17/2022 5:25 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards give
> them a kickback for sending the customer through them. The customer
> never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who gets nailed.

The merchant doesn't get nailed. His customers do. He just passes the
extra cost on in higher prices.

> That's also why many restaurants try to avoid taking Amex. Their fees
> are (or at least were) higher.

Fortunately not in my area. My Amex gives me a cashback of over a grand
a year and with no yearly fee. And BTW many thanks to the cash payers
out there who do help in keeping store prices lower for the rest of us...

In article <t3h83e$b7$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

> > "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> > | I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> > | take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> > | them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> > | their payment processor.
> > |
> > | It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
> > | transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
> > | cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
> > | higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.
> >
> > It makes sense. These things are just middleman gimmicks.
> > Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards
> > give them a kickback for sending the customer through them.
> > The customer never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who
> > gets nailed. That's also why many restaurants try to avoid
> > taking Amex. There fees are (or at least were) higher.
>
> If a customer pays with the same card, that gets the same rewards
> whether the card is used via EMV, contactless, or through Apple Pay,
> Google Pay, or Samsung Pay, there is no difference in fees to the merchant.

you're contradicting your original claim that the fees are higher.

> The payment processor absorbs the 0.15% Apple charges to use Apple Pay
> (Google apparently doesn't charge any fee to the payment processor).
>
> Banks, unsurprisingly, are not happy about that 0.15% fee that they
> absorb

it's less than losses due to fraud, so they're ok with it.

obviously they'd prefer it to be 0 but it's still a win.

> Not taking mobile wallet payments slightly altered consumer behavior,
> enough to see a measurable difference in monthly transaction fees.

it has zero effect on transaction fees because the merchant pays the
same fees whether or not contactless is used.

> If someone uses a 2%-3% flat-rate cash back credit card with EMV versus
> NFC versus mobile wallet then the merchant pays the same fee.

in other words, no difference in fees.

do try to keep your story straight.

> But if
> they use a 3% mobile wallet/1% EMV card, apparently the merchant gets a
> break when they pay with the card versus the phone because the rewards
> are lower (at least that's what the merchant believed, but I don't know
> if that is actually true).

it's not true.

> The real difference comes when someone that
> can't use NFC with a card with high rewards instead pays in cash or uses
> a lower level card.

why would someone do that?

if they can't use nfc, they will then dip the card or even swipe (there
are still non-chip terminals out there).

> For Visa, you have Traditional, Signature, and
> Infinite. For Mastercard you have Standard, World and World Elite. The
> higher level cards pay higher fees.

true, but irrelevant.

In article <t3h0va$eq1$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> | take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> | them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> | their payment processor.
> |
> | It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
> | transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
> | cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
> | higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.
>
> It makes sense.

it does not make sense since it's not true.

> These things are just middleman gimmicks.
> Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards
> give them a kickback for sending the customer through them.

apple pay doesn't go through apple, plus it essentially eliminates
fraud, which means what you call a kickback is *less* than losses the
banks otherwise would have had.

that's a win for the customer, the merchant and in particular, the card
issuer.

> The customer never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who
> gets nailed.

false. the merchant does not pay anything extra, nor does the customer.

> That's also why many restaurants try to avoid
> taking Amex. There fees are (or at least were) higher.

past tense. were higher.

amex fees are competitive, plus those who use amex generally spend more
than those with a typical mastercard/visa/discover.

the amex centurion card is invite only, for *very* high spenders.

In article <t3h9tq$rsf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
> > Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards give
> > them a kickback for sending the customer through them. The customer
> > never pays overtly. So it's the merchant who gets nailed.
>
> The merchant doesn't get nailed. His customers do. He just passes the
> extra cost on in higher prices.

the customers don't get nailed since they pay the same price no matter
how they pay, with or without apple/google pay.

the merchant might prefer cash since they don't have to pay transaction
fees.

On 4/17/2022 8:20 AM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> The merchant doesn't get nailed [taking a CC]. His customers do. He
>> just passes the extra cost on in higher prices.

> the customers don't get nailed since they pay the same price no
> matter how they pay, with or without apple/google pay.

> the merchant might prefer cash since they don't have to pay
> transaction fees.

Yup. And since the prices are the same for all, cash or charge, phone or
CC (in my area anyway), I again want to thank all cash paying customers
out there for keeping merchant prices down...

In article <t3hc1c$ru0$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> >> The merchant doesn't get nailed [taking a CC]. His customers do. He
> >> just passes the extra cost on in higher prices.
>
> > the customers don't get nailed since they pay the same price no
> > matter how they pay, with or without apple/google pay.
>
> > the merchant might prefer cash since they don't have to pay
> > transaction fees.
>
> Yup. And since the prices are the same for all, cash or charge, phone or
> CC (in my area anyway), I again want to thank all cash paying customers
> out there for keeping merchant prices down...

indeed.

although sometimes a merchant will discount cash purchases.

On 4/17/2022 8:56 AM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> since the prices are the same for all, cash or charge, phone or CC
>> (in my area anyway), I again want to thank all cash paying
>> customers out there for keeping merchant prices down...

> indeed.

> although sometimes a merchant will discount cash purchases.

Fortunately not in the LOCAL stores I frequent. But I've seen that when
vacationing in the San Diego area (and some that don't take Amex at
all). So I always carry Visa/extra cash just in case...