I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Feels like a simple thing to audit: snap inspection and see the average ages of currently in use equipment.
If it's what they're claiming, give them a refund.

So the various state attorneys general got huge settlement for these.

As long as we are bitching about harming the poor... Shall we ask what % of those settlement ended up in, say, the actual hands of poor customers?

Just wondering.

'In my entire life, I've never paid for something by check and been told I couldn't take my purchase until the check cleared'

Your life experience does not match mine. Vehicle purchases especially, unless I used a cashier's check, I would wait for delivery and title. I've mailed checks for merchandise and been told I will not see shipment until the check clears.

And a classic check purchase fraud is to overpay, request a refund, on a bad check. You left holding the bag for a bad check, out the refund money you made good.

In fact, look for online car dealer experiences, and you find this exact fraud is common. Most dealers know better.

Just not my experience. You are fortunate.

I buy CDs I want (and do not already have) anywhere, yard sales, Goodwill, etc., because I prefer to *own* the music I want. I use streaming services for convenience, since Google mangled my online libraries, but if I wanted to I could stream off of a self-hosted gadget.

I've kept a portable CD player just in case, and my portable Minidisc recorder is still important to me, along with a stock of blanks.

Owning is underrated.

Ironically the only streaming service I know of that doesn't interrupt with ads is.... Netflix.

Yes, I believe there are several others that if you pay enough (generally a LOT more) you can avoid them.

I'm not defending the system, because I too think it's broken... But please let me know a society where the rich don't get more of what they want?

And before you reply with something like "but in my country they can't buy their way out of a parking ticket" note that I'm not defining "rich" either. Generally assertions of virtue in this context merely means the price is higher and/or indirect, ie hiring better lawyers, funding the right politician in the next election, or donating to the right thing.

If you buy a car with a credit card( and I know someone who did and they used their Amex and it works) you're probably going to walk out to the parking lot. Put your key in the car and go. If you buy a car with a check, I just suspect you're coming back tomorrow and maybe even 3 days later, as ACH does not clear instantly. It's all it's worth to you. If it's convenient to just walk out the door, you use a card. If you can wait just a couple of days and let the check clear. Obviously you saved yourself 800 bucks. You pay for convenience. That's one of the features of payment processing.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.

Yep - absolutely agree with you. Just because a devices is locally controllable and has opened up localhost:8080, that doesn't prevent it from also opening a connection to https://badthing.example:9999/ and uploading everything it can find to it. Concepts are orthogonal.

I must admit I haven't got round to doing it yet, but a common thing to do these days is set up a specific IoT network in your house and have it all connect to that, then limit access to the internet for that network. A lot of routers support doing this out of the box now.

HomeAssistant's main strength is in tying otherwise incompatible devices together. Local first is not unique though - HomeKit is local, Matter is local, I don't know much about the Alexa/Google setups but I believe they can be controlled locally too.

Don't get me wrong, Home Assistant is an excellent bit of kit with lots of standardisation and automation. But this article is pushing the wrong part of its strengths - local-first isn't unique. Pick the right ecosystem and it's all local-first anyway.

I have many different smart vendors in my home - Google (originally Nest), Philips, Meross, Aqara, Eve, Ikea, LightwaveRF, Shelly, Eufy, Switchbot...none of them require the internet. All of them can work locally. All of them work in the same ecosystem. Then I have oddities which I use HomeBridge for to bridge the gap - Roomba (older, non-Matter, Worx Landroid (robot lawnmower), Dyson Hot'n'Cool thingy, Logitech Harmony...even plugins for Synology which show the NAS's temperature and allow shutdown. Through the use of HomeBridge, I can draw them into the same ecosystem too. None of this requires the internet.

The meme is completely overblown and quite often you can tell by people that don't actually use this kind of tech. Obviously if I want to control this kit from outside the home then I need an internet connection, and if I want to update any of the kit then I need to download the updates from the internet for that too, but operation from within the house? Just a HomeKit/Matter hub, that's all.

"The 2.5% processing fees more than cover their losses."

Are you implying this is the only real cost for payment processors?

MasterCard and Visa both employ an internetwork that links banks (issuers) and merchants (acquirers) so that data is exchanged and payments are processed.

Issuers maintain the data necessary to identify their account holders, keep records, pay out the transactions presented by acquirers, and arrange to be paid for the transactions they facilitate. The float between payment to acquirers and receiving payment from their account holders binds capital, which sometimes is actually borrowed from sources, at interest. Even if it is held as working capital, it is not earing interest elsewhere. Along with all this, issuers have a fiduciary responsibility to protect their account holders from fraud and misuse, as much as is practically possible. All this I mention not to excuse fees, just to point out the reasons. And all of this requires complex information systems, which must be sufficiently accurate to avoid penalties for failure, even from regulatory agencies that are predicated on nothing more than a desire to impose their judgement on the process.

Acquirers also have a responsibility to eliminate fraud as much as practical. They also have a responsibility to ensure their customers, merchants, receive payment for goods and services provided on the promise of payment, and within reasonable time frames. And since the agencies purporting to protect consumers from bad behavior demand reporting, acquirers maintain these records. Not to mention tax receipts, etc.

Payment processing is not cheap. It most certainly is not free. Is 2.5% fair? I dunno. But it is a competitive business, despite the outsider not discerning that, but competitive in two directions. First, under the hood, processors do compete on fees or services. Stripe used to charge a LOT more than others, for the convenience of an easy signup. Amex used to charge more for the convenience of lesser fraud and customer loyalty (It was factual, look it up, or ask CVS and Walgreens). MasterCard and Visa discounted fees to attract the business that other brands enjoyed. Now convenience is a feature that has value. Loyalty programs increase fees because, well, if you're getting 2% cashback on your card, that came from somewhere. The equation should be obvious, but go look that up also.

Whining about processing fees can be about the absolute value, but if you don't understand the process, you will not believe that fees are fair, ever. You're wrong.

Jesus Christ man, does anything in your day not somehow involve thinking about Trump?

Checks are a last vestige of a higher trust society.

I work for a European firm and they (their auditors) despise checks and can't comprehend how America can be so backward as to still use them.

Ironically we just had a customer involved in seven-digit fraud payments ...which couldn't have happened without electronic payments. Had they been "allowed" to pay us in checks like they used to, it simply couldn't have happened.