Someone made a fake account -> we need "Whatever is needed" to make creating fake accounts harder is exactly the wrong way of thinking about it. It's the same kneejerk reaction that got us PATRIOT act and TSA after 9/11.
Or if you're more swayed by social justice, all these onerous checks also makes it harder for "unbanked"/"underbanked" people access to the financial system, which has real harms for them.
The person who is now facing charges for a crime she did not commit is experiencing ‘real harm’.
Absolutely shameful to defend a b$ company that doesn’t not have adequate protections to prevent this from happening. Imagine this happening to you or your own - whisked away and locked up for a month for the crime of losing your wallet and getting your identity stolen.
>Imagine this happening to you or your own - whisked away and locked up for a month for the crime of losing your wallet and getting your identity stolen.
You know what's worse than sitting in jail for a few days? Dying or losing a loved one from 9/11. So you better get used to more federal agents scanning your communications and more TSA groping you at the airport. No cost is too great to prevent losing a loved one to terrorist attacks!
> You know what's worse than sitting in jail for a few days?
You haven't read the article. The stakes are much higher than "a few days in jail" which isn't nearly as small of a problem as you make it out to be either.
> Dying or losing a loved one from 9/11.
Why do you have to repeat this nonsensical 9/11 strawman of an analogy which has nothing to do with the case in question? Nobody asked for government "scanning of your communications". What you failed to notice is the refusal of CashApp to provide information about the fraudulent account because the victim couldn't prove owning it while she was being investigated for owning it.
CashApp stonewalled the victim and prevented proper investigation before charges were formally filed and the prosecutor got involved, after that it was to late and the mess that followed resulted in great expenses, turmoil and further risks for the victim.
Doubling down on a weak argument doesn’t endear anyone to your position, especially when it’s trivializing actual tragedies. For what, even, for flawed systems to remain flawed? TSA is a joke made to harass innocents while PATRIOT was a consolidation of power. It is true 9/11 was used to ram legislation that hurt Americans. It doesn’t mean every response to an unfortunate situation is wrong.
Additionally, your argument is to do what, exactly? Apply zero pressure to the company which aids and abets fraud to the detriment of innocence because you find “social justice” and restrictions distasteful? Accessing money should be laborious and should require various verification forms (even if I disagree that photographing IDs and selfies are actual forms of verification), because as we see here laxness has resulted in an innocent person’s life being upended.
A b$ company putting in more protections for its customers and non-customers by doing more checks is equal to TSA groping you? Please make it make sense.
The simple fact is that you can't just open an app and then let it destroy the lives of people with absolutely no connection to it. The company itself must be responsible. Saying "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" is only acceptable if the cost of that "non-zero" amount is borne by the company itself; otherwise the result is plainly misaligned incentives.
In the swatting case we'd blame the SWAT team for not vetting the call properly and for not cooperating with the authorities after they'd killed the kid on the driveway.
You're the second person who doesn't seem to realize that fraud prevention requires proper actions before and after fraud is detected/suspected. Failing to react properly on fraud protects the fraudsters - like CashApp has done - and makes the platform a magnet for fraud.
CashApp failed to investigate and provide vital information to victim while she was being investigated - they did that too late only after they were compelled to do so by the court and lawyers, creating a very hard situation for the victim and allowing the fraudsters to cover their tracks.
Zero fraud is non-optimal because the effort required to achieve it would make transacting impossible.
I suppose I should have spelled it out, given that so many people didn't get it.
It would be like declaring that the optimal number of vehicle deaths is zero, but then not realizing that the only way to achieve that is to make sure nobody can drive. When faced with the realities, everyone backs off and acknowledges that some risk is necessary
I suppose you need it spelled out again, since apparently this is a difficult concept for you to grasp.
The optimal—defined by MW as “most desirable or satisfactory”—amount of fraud is zero. The optimal target—synonymous with amount in this context—of vehicle deaths is also zero. The realistic value for either statistic is non-zero. You even said “when faced with the realities”.
You’re the only one not getting what is basic logic and definitions. Or more accurately, you are getting it, but you’re refusing to accept that your imprecise language was incorrect. You misused optimal when you meant realistic.
The optimal _target_ for fraud is not zero. That's the aphorism. The optimal _amount_ of fraud is indeed zero, for most value systems. You had to spell it out because you were imprecise.
You come across as one borrowing patio11’s coat. He's a great blogger. You aren't.
> The optimal _target_ for fraud is not zero. That's the aphorism. The optimal _amount_ of fraud is indeed zero, for most value systems.
You got it backwards in your rush to squeeze your ad hominem attack in there.
The optimal target for fraud can be zero. It's okay to aim for zero.
The optimal amount of fraud cannot be zero, because the cost to get to zero goes asymptotic to infinity as it approaches zero. Therefore the optimal amount of fraud cannot be zero.
> You come across as one borrowing patio11’s coat. He's a great blogger. You aren't.
Please don't sling ad hominem attacks like this.
I don't know why you're trying to compare me to someone else. These concepts did not originate with patio11. Is your only exposure to these concepts through one HN user's blog posts?
You came across as arrogant in your comment to tourmalinetaco, as if you are a great educator let down by the intellectual inadequacy of your acolytes. In truth, your conflation of "amount" and "target" muddies the concept you are trying to convey. If you wish to be brief, be precise.
You are so determined for me to be wrong that you've tied yourself in a knot.
This is not an ad hominem, it is a direct criticism of your attitude.
You should ask yourself - would most christians prefer baptism in a bathtubs at home or drive in weddings for convenience? No? Exactly.
Hindu Vedic pandits and priests who come in and run priestly events and functions at Hindu homes are usually well known within their communities are not treated as strangers and neither is there an element of inconvenience. If anything their absence adds an element of inconvenience. For one most rituals in sanskrit are available on youtube for those who want to diy. But most discerning Hindus prefer the real thing. Same as Christians.
Come on be so for real right now? I have been to many Hindu events, and the pandit is really just there to make things official and say the words. 90% of attendees don't know what he's actually saying. 80% have never met him or his associates.
Now you can't automate him either. His presence is there because religious rituals and practice and tradition mandate his presence, but if you could just play the chants over a speaker and have people understand and follow the ritual instructions some other way, nothing would really change.
For what it's worth, people can and do use AI visuals and sermons in Christianity as well
You 'could' also play the bible over a speaker and do away with a church father delivering a sermon then?
If you have been to many hindu events you would know Vak (speech) and Prana (breath) are both required to deliver vedic chants. Why do people go to musical concerts when they can turn on spotify? Use common sense.
Priestless hindu functions at your home will get laughed at so save yourself some embarrassment.
Please read my comment again. I mentioned that physical presence is necessary but the idea expressed in the comment before mine that people who hire such priests know them well, or that it's the discernment of Hindus rather than a strict requirement which makes such priests invaluable is false.
Were their presence not required, absolutely people would turn to recorded voice as 90% of people don't know what is being said anyways
Most religious families in India have generational priests. Its a privilege to have one too as those priests can be discerning about who they provide services to. Recordings would lower whatever inconvenience families without access to a generational priest but again, its a privilege of location, having strong roots in one's own community though several generations. If you are an urban nuclear family YMMV - their needs are different and they dont care about Vak, Praana and all other aspects of Hindu prayers. The aspect of '90% of people dont't know what is being said anyways' applies to majority of people around the world accross religions.
Incorrect. 80% of Muslims do not understand spoken Arabic. For Christians, virtually 0% read Latin to access the "original" Bible. They are depend on translations that do not preserve the meaning verbatim. Same with sanksrit.
They understand the very small amount which is used in their far shorter rituals. The original Bible isn't in Latin nor are Catholic masses in Latin anymore
The old testament was written primarily in ancient Hebrew. English version is a translation is not authoritative. The vatican does not use the English version for daily prayers (instead uses latin).
Sankrit is the mother language of a lot of indian languages that Hindu’s speak, and can be reproduced without loss of fidelity in many languages. Sanskrit is also easily understandable and readable
if you know the language you speak enough to be able to write it. I dont think you can reproduce arabic version of the quran in bengali or urdu or indonesian. And again, majority of muslims do not understand Arabic to be able to use it for more than daily prayers.
Keeping them clean is the easy part. Doing it well would require building the infrastructure, maintenance, manning the station, preventing drug abuse etc, and getting into liabilities due to said abuse.
Tons of businesses stop doing business if they are forced into efforts that dont make money. The city/state should own sanitation. Not private companies.
The web app has a 5-minute cache on dynamic content - which balances info freshness with performance. The architecture supports the ultra-light, fast-loading requirements by design.
I think what he is saying is adding simple svg icons, not images.
For instance this one
https://www.svgrepo.com/svg/308550/earthquake-damage-earthqu... is 700 bytes, and it can most likely be simplified and compressed.
(you can also lazy load them so they don't delay the content)
reply