|
|
|
|
|
|
by happymellon
17 days ago
|
|
|
All of those talking points appear to be some preprepared copy pasta, because they don't appear to relate to my comment at all. I never spoke about speed. > the need to make a cognitive operation of 1st grader counting, which is apparently a daunting prospect for many people. Don't be a condescending prick. The fact that counting exists at all is a cost that people don't measure. > due to the AML surveillance from the discussed article the banking privacy is practically dead. Or if you read the fine article you would realise that AML rules generate so much noise that there isn't any analysis. |
|
|
Which is even worse, since the only practical use of that data is now selective enforcement and/or parallel construction.
Not to mention the constant hassle such laws have for regular folks trying to transact in cash while barely being a speed bump for those engaging in actual money laundering at scale.
> The fact that counting exists at all is a cost that people don't measure.
When cash skills were common and regularly utilized, the average cashier could count out most change in about the time a card swipe or dip happened. Tap makes it considerably faster though.
Today I agree - the average cash handling skills are effectively nonexistent to the point I comment on it when a cashier understands how to count back change correctly, much less do it from muscle memory.