Live data from Hacker News

Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

cbc.ca

321–325 of 325 posts

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#321
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Grocery stores until the mid-1900s did not actually sell products to women. Women would pick out and receive products and a bill would be sent to her male supervisor for his approval and payment. I find this hard to believe, how would that work in large and anonymous cities where nobody knows each other? If a woman went grocery shopping they would send the bill to where exactly, just a random address she gives them…

Because it's not true. Maybe mid-1800s, but by mid-1900s women could totally use cash. Not credit cards though, 1974 is when women were allowed to get those. In other words, the exact opposite of what that comment is saying.

Up until the invention of the self-service supermarket you could not walk into a grocery store, pick out a can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, flip a dime to a cashier, and walk out with it.

The self-service grocery store did not exist until WWI.

They did not become common until some time around WWII.

They did not go extinct until the 70s.

My grandmothers could not (and did not) use cash to buy groceries because there were no cash-and-carrys near them. They needed an account, until the 60s-70s in rural Tennessee and Missouri where they lived.

Everything was paid by check. Drop off the order, pick up the order, bring home the bill, the husband sends in a check.

There was an exact and precise 0.0% chance in many parts of the United States of America of a single unwed woman getting an account at a grocery store without a male cosigner.

Like I said, cultural amnesia.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#322
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the alternative is, what, you can spend whatever is left in your wallet, but the rest of your money is still frozen? The difference from maintaing physical cash seems very marginal. Or are you suggesting we all pull all our money out of bank accounts and store it in cash under the bed, just in case one day we get unpersoned? The costs of doing that vastly outweight the expected benefits.

This is a strawman argument: You've setup a scenario where cash isn't very beneficial, and then show why it's not beneficial. Before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, women could only use cash. Sure it would have been way cooler if they weren't discriminated against, but many women still only survived because of the cash option, and none of them would have said "Well since I might run out of money anyway go ahead and…

It's not a straw man, it's literally the scenario the guy I was replying to was talking about ("if your accounts are frozen"). If you had a bank account like a normal person, and then you are surprised by your account being frozen, you are going to be almost as screwed whether physical cash exists or not, because you won't be keeping that much cash on hand anyway.

Cash was the normal way to pay for things before the ECOA so I don't think it's comparable to today, where nobody uses cash anymore. You used to be able to be paid in cash, or in a cheque you could cash at the grocery store. Now you probably need to have your pay deposited into a bank account, which you may only be able to access electronically, so if your account is frozen you are far more screwed.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#323
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So MLK and the suffragettes blockaded the town square and blew truck horns all night. Got it. Oh, wait, no, they voluntarily sacrificed their freedom and were arrested, beaten, and tortured for their beliefs. I guess you're confused.

You posted many flamewar comments in this thread and appear to have done more than any other single account to spoil it. We ban accounts that do this, and your account has (it turns out) been doing it for a long long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34537163 (Jan 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22904111 (April 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22114100 (Jan 2020) https://news.ycombinator…

Actually I think I'll stand by quite a few of those comments, Dan, including the ones I've posted in this thread. If you feel the need to ban my account, I won't stand in the way, but I will say I don't respect a lot of the objections you've gone back almost 10 years to dig up, especially when considered in the larger context of the threads in question.

Don't want flame wars? Don't post flamewar-inciting links, as many of those arguably are, then object selectively when some people take the bait you're dangling.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#324
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You posted many flamewar comments in this thread and appear to have done more than any other single account to spoil it. We ban accounts that do this, and your account has (it turns out) been doing it for a long long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34537163 (Jan 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22904111 (April 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22114100 (Jan 2020) https://news.ycombinator…

Actually I think I'll stand by quite a few of those comments, Dan, including the ones I've posted in this thread. If you feel the need to ban my account, I won't stand in the way, but I will say I don't respect a lot of the objections you've gone back almost 10 years to dig up, especially when considered in the larger context of the threads in question. Don't want flame wars? Don't post flamewar-inciting links, as ma…

> Don't want flame wars? Don't post flamewar-inciting links

That's not how HN works. Commenters are responsible for how they react and whether or not they follow the rules. It's not as if you have zero choice in whether you get incited or not, although I know it sometimes feels that way (to me too).

To remove an entire topic to prevent some commenters from posting abusively would be to punish the ones who are following the rules just fine. I don't think that's how HN should operate. Here's another recent post in case it's of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40852027

Of course, not every story is on topic for HN, and indeed most provocative stories aren't—but that's a separate question. Some are, and the rules still apply in those cases. In fact, they apply especially then, as the guidelines make clear: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise, at least in liberal democracies.

Empirical evidence can suggest anything you want it to if you choose to ignore empirical evidence that's inconvenient to you. The Canadian trucker protesters were not "terrorists" by any stretch of imagination, but sure let's assume otherwise because it helps us sleep better at night, right?

Pretty sure building a bomb on Parliament Hill makes you a terrorist group. Nevermind all the other dangerous stuff that was going on.
Post reply on HN