Personally I believe the faction that ignores an impeachment on solid grounds is a joke.

What if the cash isn't coming from the parents or someone close?

Are you being sarcastic? I thought that this was just a life hack that everyone knew and did. You must be young.

Dumbass business practices have nothing to do with cashless societies.

A business that doesn't have a cheap iZettle/Square/whatever reader under the counter, a backup SIM on a different network, or similar is just asking to lose business. It's like having a cash register that doesn't open... well... find another way to take people's money rather than standing there looking gormless.

And things like those readers are dirt-cheap and charge about 2%. I'd rather be taking 98% of my customer's money than nothing.

Just because some spotty teenage "manager" can't work that out is nothing to do with a cashless apocalypse. It's to do with literally failing to observe the primary rule of IT... always have a backup.

Now if ALL the cell networks and ALL the broadband goes down in an area and ALL the power and ALL the batteries in everything run flat... then you might have a problem. But a store taking literally hundreds of thousands per year, employing several staff, and not bothering to put a $20 reader behind the counter for emergencies? That's nothing to do with the price of a sandwich.

Same used to happen in McDonald's if they had to fall back to handling cash, to be honest. The teenagers just weren't able to do the sums on paper, even. So if the till (checkout) stopped working.... they used to give up or take MINUTES for every customer to add up the total, take the money, work out change, etc.

If you have no payment method, shut the shop. If that seems extreme, well, it's what happened effectively anyway. It's no different. The way to avoid it is to never be without a payment method that works, which means several backups.

Hell, places like supermarkets etc. in my company have local broadband / leased lines AND satellite connectivity on the roof. Because they can't afford to be without it because they would lose thousands every second even in one store.

I've been cashless for 20 years, I've never had a problem. In fact, the only problems I've witnessed were with cash (where stores literally didn't want to take cash, or didn't know how to) and with things like one particular credit card provider falling over, but, hey, I have half a dozen different cards in my wallet alone. Why?

BECUASE YOU SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A BACKUP.

Wage garnishment is a literal legal process in any developed country.

Haven't been paying your child support? Then your EMPLOYERS are legally required to take it out of your pay before you ever see a penny.

Tax debt, etc. all kinds of reasons why they use it. Sorry but the "I'm going to hide in a cash-only industry" thing is not only outdated but soon to die and actually raises MORE suspicions than just having a bank account. Money laundering regulations are slowly killing off the ability to operate like that and living a cash-only life is becoming increasingly difficult in any developed country now.

For that matter, you can already get WiFi 7 equipment... you can get m.2 modules for 20 or 30 bucks, even with master mode. I spent under $30 for a complete MT7925 kit, 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ax/be 2T2R 2.4/5G/6GHz. It's only a 160 MHz chip but it was cheap and has pretty snazzy bluetooth as well. Anyway, oh well, at least it does all those other things. Anyway, can't vendors "solve" this (except for the customers being pissed off part) with firmware which prevents selecting 6 GHz? That seems like a pretty simple patch.

At the time I had no credit due to being a victim of identity theft.

Now my credit is fixed but I just like not having a contract, and it's $35/mo. I only get I think about a dozen GB of internet, but that is fine for my purposes since I don't stream video.

I realize I wrote that wrong, but what I meant to say, it's not slower than the old M chip. That is, it's not slower than all of the M chips. I realize that's a very different thing than what I wrote, my bad.

But it's also true that it's within the range of the M chips, and it's intended to be low cost and low power, and if you have low expectations then it should be plenty of machine. For your average web surfer, it'll be fine. I wouldn't buy one, even at their most Open, Apple was irritating at best to deal with. But to me the tradeoff is reminiscent of my AMD laptop, which has only a couple of cores and a few GPU cores (literally) and does all the things I expected it to do while using very little power. It was $300 in a retail box a couple of years ago. This is the Apple-priced version of that, which is another reason I wouldn't buy one.

Millions of people go to Vegas every year... so I think there are a lot of folks in that "not very good at math" grouping.

I still think they shouldn't have notified people by writing "we regret to inform you that you are a BIG LOSER".

One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell me which thing is not like the others
Before I finish this song?

No, but they do understand the law, which considers an attempt to monopolize a crime even if unsuccessful.

They also understand that in the context of U.S. antitrust law, Apple's ~58% market share, at roughly twice the size of their next largest competitor (Samsung), is absolutely large enough to make Apple a successful monopolist, and they also understand that Apple is a twice-convicted monopolist — once involving Epic, and once involving the iBooks store — which makes their ongoing behavior worthy of extra scrutiny.

No, no. They're saying that the people who aren't using AI are getting less work because there are fewer jobs, and the people who are using AI are barely keeping up with inflation compared with the pre-AI world.

Because Trump wanted to efficiently fleece the country in one fell swoop versus having to usher multiple bills through... all that time on the phone seriously cuts into his golf schedule.

So said Musk. And then he cut only $150 billion of the $2 trillion he predicted. not only are his cuts threatening the lives of people who depend on those services but the chaos it caused ended up costing that much anyway.