It could be argued that this is an anti-forgery feature. Or, rather, was, before everyone else caught on to it.
RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
81–90 of 111 posts
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#82This is the appropriate response to an error: "nobody died". I can't help but wonder what would have been the response if this happened in the US? I assume a full news cycle would be taken up with opportunistic politicians trying to score points by ascribing blame to their enemies.
It’s a nice security-by-obscurity feature if someone makes a counterfeit and doesn’t spot the typo. That would be easy to miss unless you had explicit instructions to spell the word wrong.
I doubt someone would attempt to remake the bill from scratch like that, instead of scanning.
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite something linking education level with an improved ability to spot typographical errors? According to the psychologist quoted in this article[0]/study our inability to spot typos might be an innate limitation of how our brains process information, rather than a lack of intelligence/education. [0] https://www.wired.com/2014/08/wuwt-typos/
This wasn't a typo. One person makes a typo. When creating a high-profile physical thing with text on it, there are authors, editors, typesetters (or the digital equivalent), copy editors, and proofreaders involved. If this wasn't reviewed by at least four people prior to printing, and if there weren't then test printings reviewed by additional people, then the entire process is flawed. But it still wasn't a typo. It…
> too many stupid people were involved
You've gone from one unconstructive thing ("lacked [a] grade-school educations") to another ("stupid"). My link explains why neither one of these adequately explains why people make or miss these kind of mistakes, rather than just hurling out glib insults as an explanation.
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxes and contracts can a big impact on the people they affect, though. A typo on a bank note has no direct effect on any users. It's an aesthetic problem, not a functional one.
Really? Isn't it going to throw a lot of false positives when people try to spend them and the cashier thinks that the misspelling means it's counterfeit?
You really think any cashier is going to read the microtext on every bill they get? You practically need a magnifying glass just to see the typo. It's an absolute non-issue no matter what way you spin it.
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#85They also misspelt "emphasize" but no one even noticed. I guess the missing 'i' became the "centre" of attention.
Are you saying this is a genuine error, or are you making a joke about spelling in American English diverging from British and Australian English?
I would assume a joke based on the scare quotes around the spelling of "centre".
And at the risk of killing a joke (which I liked), I found the chart of "centre" vs "center" usage interesting:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/87978/how-and-wh...
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be funny if note forgers would use the same software for improved authenticity, re-type the text, and do it correctly - the forged notes could be easily spotted since they use the correct text.
Reminds me of: https://www.gislounge.com/map-traps-intentional-mapping-erro...
Mountweazels and Paper Towns!
"Fictitious Entry" is a fun read:
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#87Best method I've ever used for spotting misspellings in what I write: read the words you've written from last to first. Reading in this order breaks the prediction your brain does on what it expects to read next and stops you from filling in the words yourself or simply recognizing them by "shape" instead of reading each letter. Of course this does nothing for grammar or general flow nor does it help you if you've sp…
I have text to speech read back what I've wrote. You'll immediately notice incorrectly spelled words and doubled up words.
If you have access to a computer, why not just use a spellchecker :)
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have text to speech read back what I've wrote. You'll immediately notice incorrectly spelled words and doubled up words.
If you have access to a computer, why not just use a spellchecker :)
I print my stuff on actual paper and do a manual proof read when I think I’m done. I’m constantly surprised by how many spelling mistakes I still find during final proof reading that Word isn’t underlying with red squigglies.
Re: RBA not fazed by Australian $50 note typo
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our wonderful polymer notes last much, much longer than paper/linen money. Lots of detailed lifespan graphs here: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2015/sep/7.html
So the banknote lasts about 20 years, then the plastic takes another 1000 or so to break down?
Except, as you can see from the graphs in parent link there's a lot less of them produced in the first place due to lasting longer.
And then once they are EOL, they are recycled. https://banknotes.rba.gov.au/production-and-distribution/rec...