Whatever the Holy Wikipedia says about the distinction, isn't it funny, not to say something else, that we use the same words for two/three concepts that are, supposedly, completely different and vary independently? I'm a male identifying as female expressing as male, aka sex:gender:gender-expression.
Because, you know, people were so dumb until social-constructivism landed on Earth like the Messiah no-one expected. And we need to be re-educated. Or else.
What baffles me most is the insistence that one can build any kind of objective distinction based on subjective experiences, that is, what one feels. We're all capable of sadness, joy, excitement, and what not. But we can not build any kind of categorization (read diversity) of people based on these concepts/states of mind. I don't identify as sad, although I'm sad from time to time. No one does. Companies can not be forced to hire more sad people, for the sake of diversity. Yet, now, it's compulsory to have more people hired because they report some sort of internal and inaccessible state of mind which they express using words used for categorizing people based on the shape of their genitalia.
I often think there's a subset of people that have scripts to search Hacker News for 'gender' or 'sex' just so they can get involved with a "I identify as a rare breed of pineapple" and "muh gender" type of comment.
The only thing that's funny is that on a thread about lab rats reacting differently to male or female lab workers, people feel the need to start a holy war about topics as pointless as this one.
I think what jawns is getting at is precisely because you can't price-discriminate on the payment method, you might as well increase prices for everything in order to cover transaction fees (operating under the assumption that most customers will pay with credit card), which effectively means that cash-paying customers get stuck with those fees.
This really feels like a "tragedy of the commons" scenario in the making. I'm curious to see what the legal considerations for this type of service may be.
Most (all?) banks in the US are FDIC insured up to $250k per person. Even if tax payer money hadn't been lent to banks to keep them afloat, provided you had less than $250k across any banks that might've gone under, you'd have been okay. In that sense, saying that they don't really protect your money isn't really true.
Realistically, I'm much much much more likely to lose money stored in a Bitcoin wallet I maintain than money stored in a bank, and I'd imagine that's probably also the case for most people.
> Realistically, I'm much much much more likely to lose money stored in a Bitcoin wallet
Oh absolutely. What I was commenting on is that the source of this protection is not the bank alone, but the expectation that someone will pull it through if it went bust.
