Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#41

Post by guelo »

closeparen wrote: post #39
guelo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank goodness for the homeless for preventing at least some of the people that don't like looking at poor people from moving here.

This comment is perfect San Francisco. We welcome the homeless as props that reinforce our moral superiority for welcoming them. More extreme or visible distress, behavior further outside social norms, etc. suits us even better. But God forbid we make any tradeoff whatsoever to actually improve their situations or bring behavior within norms. Please , let's bring in as many migrants as possible who don't like looking…

I was responding to a comment that had the idea that we shouldn't do anything to benefit the homeless because it might attract more homeless. But I'm the one that doesn't want to improve their situation.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#42

Post by paulddraper »

aplummer wrote: post #28
tinus_hn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that darned privacy! If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I’m saying it would need to be private, but still able to prevent money laundering, payments for sex trafficking, drug trade, weapons trade. I’m aware such a thing doesn’t exist and may never, but this would be the ideal state IMO.

> it would need to be private, but still able to prevent money laundering

That's like the big screen TV that is small enough to for in your purse.

Let's not pretend both these things are possible.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#43

Post by ben_jones »

guelo wrote: post #41
closeparen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is perfect San Francisco. We welcome the homeless as props that reinforce our moral superiority for welcoming them. More extreme or visible distress, behavior further outside social norms, etc. suits us even better. But God forbid we make any tradeoff whatsoever to actually improve their situations or bring behavior within norms. Please , let's bring in as many migrants as possible who don't like looking…

I was responding to a comment that had the idea that we shouldn't do anything to benefit the homeless because it might attract more homeless. But I'm the one that doesn't want to improve their situation.

For one thing I was born and raised in the Bay Area so I wouldn’t cross your fingers that you can prevent people like me coming in. I am from here.

To your point, I wasn’t advocating for a decrease in homeless services offered by local government. I was saying the forcing of businesses to personally intervene (versus just a tax or similar abstract approach) makes me uneasy. Similarly I don’t agree with an alternative justice system being applied to any class of Americans, though chucking everyone in prison doesn’t help either...

I realize I could’ve made my points clearer which may have avoided this turning into an emotionally charged online argument.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#44

Post by borumpilot »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #22
ben_jones wrote: post #11

I disagree that every store must accept cash. Life-impacting transactions such as grocers and transportation sure, but if a ritzy boutique or Apple store wants to make things more streamlined by only accepting card so be it. It’s better as a customer. I’m also wary of what I would consider to be ADA-styled protections for the Homeless by forcing businesses to accommodate them in increasingly fringe ways (IMO the rall…

You're free to open your cashless business anywhere else, where it's legal. Just don't count me in as a customer. I may not even necessarilly pay cash. But I try to avoid doing business with assholes. And a physical store not accepting cash is, in my book, pretty high on the asshole scale. edited to clarify: I'm not refering to the parent as an asshole, but to physical busines' who won't accept cash. If you still fin…

In Amsterdam, the cashless option is for security reasons: too many violent, & armed robberies on the smallest of shops. They need to protect their employees, and since only the hardly visible police and criminals are armed: what can you do?

As much as I dislike it (you will loose me as customer too), I understand their logic.

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#45

Post by CaptainZapp »

borumpilot wrote: post #44
CaptainZapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're free to open your cashless business anywhere else, where it's legal. Just don't count me in as a customer. I may not even necessarilly pay cash. But I try to avoid doing business with assholes. And a physical store not accepting cash is, in my book, pretty high on the asshole scale. edited to clarify: I'm not refering to the parent as an asshole, but to physical busines' who won't accept cash. If you still fin…

In Amsterdam, the cashless option is for security reasons: too many violent, & armed robberies on the smallest of shops. They need to protect their employees, and since only the hardly visible police and criminals are armed: what can you do? As much as I dislike it (you will loose me as customer too), I understand their logic.

What can I say? You definitely make a valid point.

Living in Zurich, I have to admit that such considerations don't really play a role. But yeah, there are other places where even bus drivers get robbed.

As a side note: The famed coffee shops must have quite advanced logistics, since they (at least I assume so) mostly deal in cash and present a juicy target since there must be a lot of it.

It's weird: Nowadays I visit Amsterdam for museums and culture, not for coffee shops. So what do I know? :)

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#46

Post by borumpilot »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #45
borumpilot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Amsterdam, the cashless option is for security reasons: too many violent, & armed robberies on the smallest of shops. They need to protect their employees, and since only the hardly visible police and criminals are armed: what can you do? As much as I dislike it (you will loose me as customer too), I understand their logic.

What can I say? You definitely make a valid point. Living in Zurich, I have to admit that such considerations don't really play a role. But yeah, there are other places where even bus drivers get robbed. As a side note: The famed coffee shops must have quite advanced logistics, since they (at least I assume so) mostly deal in cash and present a juicy target since there must be a lot of it. It's weird: Nowadays I visi…

> Living in Zurich

I live in Bern, so I know what heavenly security feels like.

> The famed coffee shops must have quite advanced logistics

They do, but that starts with the (ridicules) law that (permited) coffeeshops can not hold more then 500 grams of the stuff they sell at any given moment. This means there is a constant flow of new material coming in from safe houses, which are prime targets for rippers & pissed of police.

So the quite advanced logistics start there. Know where to hide your surplus, protect it, transport it and on return take the money to a safe place.

> It's weird: Nowadays I visit Amsterdam for museums and culture

That dates you. The (Amsterdam) locals recognize 3 age & target groups. 25 Red light district, >35 the arts ;)

Re: San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores

#47

Post by aplummer »

paulddraper wrote: post #42
aplummer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saying it would need to be private, but still able to prevent money laundering, payments for sex trafficking, drug trade, weapons trade. I’m aware such a thing doesn’t exist and may never, but this would be the ideal state IMO.

> it would need to be private, but still able to prevent money laundering That's like the big screen TV that is small enough to for in your purse. Let's not pretend both these things are possible.

I’m an optimist that it’s possible. There are systems that are private but for legitimate government requirements with sensible public oversight. Maybe not in your jurisdiction, that would vary more than just about anything.
Post reply on HN