Well, millenials and younger saw their parents kill themselves at the job when giving a rat's ass, and still saw them get laid off/their bodies destroyed by the toll of a lifetime of manual work/a whole life of hustle leading to a meager retirement, and they realized none of it was worth it.
> the edge employees —- ie the people who interact with paying customers —- don’t own anything, and are 12 levels of management away from anyone who does.
Bingo. I found the breakdown in terms of the owner/renter/maintainer classes [0] very useful.
When the owner/renter/maintainer of a business/service/etc are the same person/community, incentives are aligned and quality tends to ensue.
When those 3 roles are clearly delineated and separated, no one gives a shit and owners care about maximizing their profit, maintainers care about getting the job done asap regardless of whether the maintenance will hold in the long term or not, and renters are left out to dry.
[0]: I first encountered it here, not sure if he got it from somewhere else.
The worst hardware store in town is a little locally owned one where the owner is often not only in the store but working the checkout. They really push the locally owned angle, the place is neatly kept and folksey, but just try to return anything and they'll give you the third degree. And if you've lost the receipt absolutely forget it.
Who doesn't hassle customers about returning stuff? Lowes.
This is amusingly the main argument at the cornerstone of most leftist theory.
Capitalism works great as an improvement from feudalism and mercantilism however it starts to majorly break down as a system once the capital owning class cements itself as only needing to invest their capital and manage assets to maintain perpetual dominance. From there they slowly accrue capital and the rift between the working classes and the capital owning classes spreads further and further until the two are effectively completely divorced with the working classes providing 100% of the labor and the capital owning classes consuming 100% of the profits.
And the sign that this decay has reached the point of no return without major social upheaval is the death of the petit bourgeois/petite bourgeoisie, i.e. the end of the self employed shop owners and family businesses. This is one thing people famously get wrong about Marx. His view was that under capitalism the petite bourgeoisie will always eventually be cannibalised by the haute and grande bourgeoisie despite generally siding with them politically (ergo acting against their long term interests). This of course contrasts with the view popular with the state socialists (who misguidedly view the petite bourgeoisie as a threat to and toxic element of capitalism).
And so now we stand at the precipice with the widespread death of the canary in the coal mine that is the small business owner and the question that remains is where do we go from here?
But this divide is farcical. People like Musk/Bezos/etc don't make their money from literal profits, but from the stock price going up, which is driven by speculation. In particular the total valuation of the stock market is worth more than literally all money in existence. And neither Amazon nor Tesla pay dividends, so you can't even go that route. And the owners rarely just sit around letting the money come in, but quite often are obsessive work-a-holics.
I'm very antagonistic towards people like the Waltons who, themselves, have mostly contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to society and are just coasting off daddy's success - being born to tens of billions of dollars and then dying with your biggest accomplishment being born to tens of billions of dollars is just so many degrees of pathetic. They fit quite closely to what you're describing (and WalMart does pay dividends), but they're a vanishingly small percent of the ultra-wealthy.
Musk had a video game system installed in his DOGE office. I've had that kind of 'workaholic' boss. It's that they have no life, so make work their life, not that they are so good at 'working'.
This is just such a stupid take. He started from relatively little in spite of claims from his estranged and strange father, and has built up literally species-changing industries in both rocketry and electrical vehicles.
The world is a million times different, and better, because of him. Disliking him because he's anti-woke is so banal and petty.
Here's a steelman for some brand of leftism (I don't ascribe to any label, though I'm an alleged market socialist)
You can buy votes, even if it's banned, by buying up and controlling the media.
Therefore money and political power can be exchanged.
The existence of billionaires - People who have as much money (and therefore, as much political power) as ten hundred millionaires - Therefore represents a dangerous accumulation of power.
When we look at the market and capitalism, we aren't seeing a fun little game where some speedrunner gets a high score and there are no consequences. We are seeing an incentive landscape trying to reform the aristocracy. We are seeing kings arise from first principles.
This should be stopped.
One nonviolent way to stop this is to fund just massive welfare programs, close all tax loopholes, all offshore tax havens, and give poor people money, which is the most American franchisement you can have.
Implementation is left as a simple exercise for the reader
This is true is all systems. People will never be equal in society, because the things that need to be done vary radically in difficulty and the number of people realistically capable of doing them - and those close to the top will always be 'more equal' than those who are doing basic labor. I'm also sidestepping the issue that's probably inescapable in practice - hierarchy. And historically social economic systems have created systems where it's even more difficult to transition between top and bottom, than it is in capitalist systems.
I do not think your solutions are viable. Giving people money is going to simply drive mass inflation, because you end up massively increasing the amount of money in circulation, but keep the same amount of products. Okay, so then the typical response is well then we just add price controls. And now you end up in a scenario where you have empty shelves because supply no longer meets demand, but also you likely have declining production because the things producers are producing become worth less in real terms, often to the point of them being unable to continue profitably producing them.
I offered some solutions that I think are more viable here. [1]
> This is true is all systems. People will never be equal in society, because the things that need to be done vary radically in difficulty and the number of people realistically capable of doing them - and those close to the top will always be 'more equal' than those who are doing basic labor. I'm also sidestepping the issue that's probably inescapable in practice - hierarchy. And historically social economic systems have created systems where it's even more difficult to transition between top and bottom, than it is in capitalist systems.
This is called "capitalist realism".
The problem of capitalism isn't that "some people are better at doing things". The problem of capitalism is that anything that exists or can be imagined can be designated as private property and any claim to this property is enforced with the full monopoly of violence of the state.
The problem of modern capitalism is that we've expanded the concept of private property to the point where the vast majority of profits generated are not tied to actual sales of products any more but come from the finance industry - essentially a system of speculative gambling multiple layers of abstraction removed from even the notion of actually "running a business".
And it's not just the "evil bankers" or investors. Even retirement is nowadays based on the finance market. We gradually replaced relying on the community to take care of its elders with relying on your own family to take care of you as an elder to having the government set some of your wages aside to pay for taking care of you as elder to having your company set some of your wages aside to having you invest money in the finance market.
And with everyone having to participate in the finance market despite only receiving a minute fraction of its profits, the interests of the finance industry also shape the nature of the real industry of service and production, driving up deregulation, encouraging short-term growth over long-term sustainability, pump and dump schemes, lobbying against labor protections, etc.
And as any of the Georgists here on HN will tell you: of course this also means that sales (i.e. transfer of property) have been displaced by rent-seeking because rent-seeking is more scalable.
None of this had to necessarily follow from "some people are better at doing some things than others". Of course a lot of this logically follows from the existence of a class of people who hold power over others continuously wanting to maintain and extend that power out of a persistent fear of losing it and ending up on the other side of the equation. But in order for this to work we had to have a culture that would enable this. And the myth of those at the top having gotten there (implying they all started wherever you did as a recipient of this myth) simply by being better at doing something rather than by having literally an entire society provide them a stepladder and handing them the reins, this myth has been reinforcing this culture of enablement for tens of centuries.
I mostly agree, but I'd argue that this is largely because of funny money. Check out this great site. [1] The event it's alluding to is the end of Bretton Woods, which is the point that the government completely unrestricted in their ability to 'print money'. In an economy it may or may not be true that money trickles down, but it's indisputable that it gushes upward. And so each time the government dumps trillions of dollars into the economy, that money makes its way straight to the top in very rapid fashion.
Next thing you know you have people and companies that literally have more money than they know what to do with. And then government and industry become increasingly incestuous as politicians filter money to various companies while in office, and then those companies not only stuff their election coffers full of money, but then have cushy 7+ figure 'advisory' roles for these politicians, or their inner circle, once they leave office - sometimes not even waiting for that. And then the government ends up printing endless amounts of money to keep this businesses afloat after they come crashing down to their own incompetence, completely wrecking the natural process of progression over time. All the while the stock market continues to reach record highs even in the midst of an economy destroying epidemic simply because it's all fake and driven on endless speculation, backed by endless injections of funny money.
And then on top of all of this you have various meta-effects. For instance when you live in an economy without much inflation or deflation, it's practically impossible to lower wages simply because people won't accept that. But in an inflationary economy? Somebody might even be happy about earning 25% more than they were in 2020, when in reality that means they've actually taken a pay cut thanks to inflation. And inflation is driven by the excesses of funny money.
And an inflationary society also strongly incentivizes the hoarding of things which, in turn, drives rent seeking behavior. Your things become worth more over time, but money becomes worth less over time. So you want to accumulate as many things as you can and rent access to them. Whereas in a stable or deflationary economy, things remain a comparable cost or even become worth less over time - so there's less motivation to hoard things and more motivation to hoard money.
I’m the farthest thing from a Marxist but the reason they see the petty bourgeoisie as a threat is that they and the comfortable middle class in general are the main bulk of the opposition to revolution and very threatened by it (understandably, and if we’re being honest, rightly so) and thus are natural anti-communists.
Of course. The issue with the common leftist stance is that it takes the wrong thing away from that. That the petite bourgeoisie are toxic is not at the root of the issue, rather it is a symptom of capitalist rot.
Petite bourgeoisie are an important component of any non-state leftist economy as they are workers who directly own the results of their labor. The focus should not be in punishing or excising these petite bourgeoisie but rather in educating them, "converting them", and folding them into the cause. They are a key component of the struggle and any movement which wholly excludes them devolves into authoritarianism and in the process throws fuel into the fire for the rise of fascism.
To borrow a quote from Trotsky[1]:
> The fascists find their human material mainly in the petty bourgeoisie. The latter has been entirely ruined by big capital. There is no way out for it in the present social order, but it knows of no other. Its dissatisfaction, indignation, and despair are diverted by the fascists away from big capital and against the workers. It may be said that fascism is the act of placing the petty bourgeoisie at the disposal of its most bitter enemies. In this way, big capital ruins the middle classes and then, with the help of hired fascist demagogues, incites the despairing petty bourgeoisie against the worker.
The petite bourgeoisie at the end of their ropes inevitably turn to fascism in an attempt to survive with their status in tact. In doing so they tie the noose that the haute and grande bourgeoisie use to hang them with as they seize control of the state as a tool to reign in the worker and limit the capacity for upstarts to challenge their authority.
The alternative of course is to integrate the petite bourgeoisie and encourage them to embrace their place among the worker class rather than ostracise them for their adjacency to and overlap with the managerial class.
I don't think they can be "converted" for so the same reasons they regularly decide to side against their own long term interests. They don't want to see themselves as workers. They've been raised in a society that tells them "worker" is the lowest rung and no small part of them started a business in large part for the status of being an "owner"
Everyone wants to feel VIP, and there's lots of money to be made in making people think they're going to get the VIP experience, so we get a flood of shitty VIP experiences like airport lounges.
If you don't like this state of affairs, you basically have two choices:
1) hustle and try to make enough money so that you're an actual VIP with access to actual VIP experiences
(OP in the article says "Charge me a premium, I don’t care.". Buddy, if you could afford the premium, you wouldn't be writing this article)
2) drop out, and don't patronize those experiences in the first place. Question why you are in a fake VIP airport lounge waiting to head to your fake VIP Disney/Vegas/Venice/whatever vacation in the first place.
> Buddy, if you could afford the premium, you wouldn't be writing this article
I agree. I think if we are so curious about airport lounges we should ask: Why are there so many of them now? More than twenty years ago, you were really a player if you frequented airport lounges. None of this miles upgrade nonsense. You were a regular business class flyer. Airlines really wanted to improve your experience to keep you spending. The number of business class (and above) seats has not meaningfully changed since then, yet there are far more people using airport lounges. I am willing to bet that the author is a member of the premium mediocre American class that is not a regular flyer in business class, nor was a regular user of airport lounges twenty-plus years ago.
> This is why I utterly detest media outlets who amplify those people by reporting on petty "shitstorms", giving them way more power than they deserve
My thoughts exactly when “highbrow” outlets like the NYT started making headlines out of every silly thing Trump said in 2015/2016. All those media sources who professed to be against what he stood for didn’t realize that the words were meaningless, and merely by reporting on his inanities, they were implicitly endorsing exactly what he stood for.
I’m a photographer, and am on a bunch of beginner photography groups.
These groups used to be a mix of people being confused at how their camera worked and wanting help, people wanting tips on how to take better pictures, and sometimes there was requests for editing pictures on their behalf (eg “I found this old black and white faded picture of my great grandparents, can anyone help restore it?”)
These days, 99.9% of the posts are requests that involve synthesizing an entirely new picture out of one or more other pictures. Examples: “can someone bring in my grandpa from this picture into this other family picture?”. Or “I love this photo of me with my kids, but I hate how I look. Can someone take the me from this other picture and put it in there? Also please remove the cups from our hands and the trees in the background, and this is my daughter’s ex boyfriend please also remove him”.
What’s even crazier is that the replies of those threads are filled with dozens of people who evidently just copy pasted the prompt + picture into ChatGPT. The results look terrible… but the OP is always pleased as punch!
People don’t care about “reality”. Pictures have lost their status of “visual record of a past event”* and become “visual interpretation of whatever this person happens to want”.
There’s no putting back the genie in the bottle.
*: yes, you can argue they were never 100% that, but still, that’s effectively what they were.
You've never seen those stands at the boardwalk where artists draw caricatures? They're extremely formulaic and rarely resemble the subjects aside from a few distorted features, but humans have being paying other humans to pump out that slop for ages.
1) This is, amusingly, kind of a shift back to when portraits had to be painted.
2) This seems very similar to me to those weird fuzzy double-exposure, heavily posed portraits that used to be really popular, or in general not that different from going and having family photos taken at a cheap mall photo studio with one of five shitty looking background-tarps.
I suspect there are some interesting class components to that second one (Fussell may even have mentioned it in his book, I can't recall, but it's definitely the kind of thing that probably could have served his analysis) but overall I think the "unwashed masses" have long preferred really shitty, lazily/poorly staged & manipulated photos to authentic ones. Now they can just apply that same aesthetic preference to photos that weren't originally like that.
Young people often ask "what's the point of fine art photography? It's just capturing what I can already see with my eyes, I prefer art like paintings which are more creative and imaginative"
And the answer is often "GOOD photography is about capturing a fleeting moment in time, forever, so that we can enjoy it longer"
But what is happening now is going the other way - people are using photography to be more imaginative, as a creative medium more akin to composing a painting. Transforming reality rather than merely recording it
But people have be editing photos like that before AI and even before Photoshop, I don't see the big deal. What I've seen recently is synthesizing whole new pictures with AI, by training a LoRA on their face and body and asking the AI to create themselves with a specific setting or background.
I value old photographs of my and my family not because they look good or whatever but because they show where we've been and what we've been doing etc. They're documented history. Once you start heavily editing, making them showing things that weren't there, you loose that history. I think that's a loss.
They’re not mutually exclusive though. My wife has our portraits taken about twice a year and sometimes during a vacation or major event. So we have those, we also have tons unedited candid photos we take on a daily basis and never share (or only on a closed platform like a shared Album in iOS Photos), then my wife does a lot of editing and montage stuff for some of the stuff she posts more broadly to SM. I post nothing to SM so can’t speak from personal experiences here, but what I’m saying is there isn’t a single use case anymore. We have the tools at our disposal to just scratch curious itches even when they don’t get posted or shared (which I’d bet is a majority of photos). You’re viewing it as reductive but it’s expansive from what I’ve seen.
Ironically one of our framed photo is my partner and me posing next to an historic building in a pueblo magico in Mexico. A stray dog decided to piss on the wall when my sister in law was taking the picture. She actually realised it and took a second picture but it turned out we like the first one better as it is just much more authentic.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think I entirely agree. If we live in a world where you can't tell if a picture is real or fiction, then it becomes necessary and reasonable to think of all pictures as fiction.
This is only an issue with a single photo or low sample sizes. In the case of family photos, you’d like have a whole bunch of them to reference and could spot inconsistencies more easily. If it becomes so good to be completely indistinguishable from reality, then not sure what the gripe is. You could just as easily think of all pictures as unaltered. It’s a matter of optimism/pessimism or perhaps red pill/blue pill.
Granted, if your grandparents are showing you their vacation pictures from their world travels that never happened, this is a different scenario that is weird and can could happen. It’s a balance of trusting nothing you see while making a few exceptions for your family and whatnot
> If it becomes so good to be completely indistinguishable from reality, then not sure what the gripe is.
Being 100% convincing doesn't make it true. Not being able to tell what's true from what's fake is a self-evident problem. It means you're at risk of forming an invalid view of the world. The only safe approach would be to never believe anything, at which point we've even lost recent history. Madness lies that way.
The motivation behind taking pictures has definitely changed over time. People used to keep them mainly for themselves and their close family. Then they started to share with close and not so close friends. Now they use it to boost their "personal online brand". Yes, it was possible to heavily manipulate pictures with Photoshop, or even in analog photography, but it wouldn't make any sense for most people.
> But people have be editing photos like that before AI and even before Photoshop
Very few people who had the skill, time or money. I think we are now discovering that everybody wants to edit the photos, they just couldn't do it before in what they consider a reasonable amount of effort.
Yes, I agree, but I am specifically looking to understand the above photographer's point. They said the requests they used to get versus what they get today have changed, but I argue that that doesn't make any sense, people have always wanted to edit their photos in the "now" example even back then.
My point is that their "these days" example was already possible 20 to 30 years ago, so if they're just seeing these requests today then they're missing out on what people have wanted even back then.
I'm specifically responding to their point about how "these days" people want different things and I'm saying that they always wanted those things, nothing new about it.
I disagree. My parents generation took photos on point and shoot cameras. They waited a week or longer to get them developed, never really knowing what they took.
These photos ended up stuck to pages in an album to be brought out occasionally, or they were really good, in a frame placed on display. They have pictures from the 80s still out on their mantle.
Maybe once a decade they would go to a studio like at Sears and get a pro to get the whole family together. These would be edited, but also very rare.
Even the thought that they would be taking pictures for anyone else to ever see would rarely cross their minds, let alone the need to make major edits. Regular people simply didn’t have this vanity or need for approval when taking pics like the smartphone era
My parents' generation also took photos but if something was off, they'd ask our photographer relative to edit them. This was over 20 years ago. At least some part of the population did know what photo editing was and did it, either themselves or with the help of someone else.
On the contrary, there is plenty new about it. People’s perception of how much you can change influences how much they ask. Seeing new possibilities gives you new ideas.
You'll see the big deal when you realize that you don't trust absolutely any photos or videos of current events unless the photos are provided by a news source that you trust. You'll see the big deal when you take a picture of something real and show it to a friend who isn't interested because they don't think the thing in the photo actually exists.
I feel the same way. Thankfully there are still obvious signs in case of using LLMs, but it is not always so obvious. I think we may be better off assuming X is fake, and go from there. Sad but what could we do? There are websites that tell you (with a %) whether or not something has been written by an LLM. Unfortunately, however, some of my writings come out false positive. We may need to do improvements on this front, and I believe we will.
Take for instance instagram, youtube shorts and tiktok. I see people watching tons of small either supposedly funny or shocking videos. And people seem to believe they are totally real and not organize/produced content until I challenge them on a number of trivial details that make those videos totally unbelievable they would have been recorded by chance or in an opportunistic manner.
That attitude actually feels a couple of years out of date to me, now the response is often along the lines of, "So what, everything is staged, it's just for fun, get over it and stop being a killjoy".
There's a general belief that nothing is real, but we should still just act, and be influenced by it, as if it were real.
This is wild to me. I take plenty of smartphone photos and have literally never in my life wanted to distort a picture in this way. None of my pictures are ever getting published or being used to promote a product; being a visual record of a past event is exactly what I want out of them. I'm honestly pretty surprised to hear this is turning into such a minority view.
Self-driving is one of the most interesting technologies of our times, from a legislative/social standpoint.
Will every large city in the globe be filled with self driving cars in 2035, or will the situation be roughly identical to 2025?
Honestly it feels like it could go either way - the last ten years have been such "one step forward, two steps sideways, one half step backwards" on every front - what the technology seems able to deliver on, what companies claim they can/will do, what regulators and the common people make of them, freak accidents that inevitably sway the popular opinion, etc.
Personally I hope the technology matures and becomes ubiquitous in my lifetime (the sooner the better), because I hate driving (a few acquaintances have been in grisly accidents due to drunk drivers coming the other way) and I just want to get in a car at 10p with my backpack in tow, lie down, and wake up at 7a 600 miles away.
In the countryside where I am there are 2 buses a day (only during the school year, for students, although they let non students ride it) and the nearest train station is 30 minutes away.
The real concern here is people driving when they shouldn't (drunk, tired, etc.) because they have no other option, putting lives at risk, so to the degree that self-driving cars will curb that I am wholly for the technology.
Do you really think there will be more of these in the countryside, where people are more likely to have a car? There’s not much profitability there. They will be clogging up city streets, not driving drunk people in the middle of nowhere.
"Self driving cars" is better termed as "autonomous vehicles".
There will be many modalities of autonomous vehicles and one of them will be buses. Autonomous vehicles will hopefully be a large boon to public transport or just transport for people in general as it should drive down prices along with making it more accessible as it can run 24/7/365
> There will be many modalities of autonomous vehicles and one of them will be buses.
I'd have a lot more faith in our society if we could prioritize automation of our highest density transit rather than catering to the fantasies of the wealthy.
I think we’re a long way from autonomous buses. There are lots of extra variables in how a bus operates. In fact, I doubt we would ever see a fully autonomous bus with no employee. How does it handle a disabled passenger? How does it handle security in the middle of the night? The wait is possibly long enough that these taxis have already killed transit agencies.
Yes, and in addition a drivers job isn't just to drive the vehicle, but to make the right call in a million different emergency situations, help people e.g. with a lack of mobility, etc.
One could argue the business-as-usual-driving is actually the easy part to automate.
I think it is true that systems with very frequent headings tend to be driverless though. However, the technology for a driverless train has been around for a long time.
As a species, (health-wise, resource-wise) we'd be better off with "walkable cities". Continuing to push cars as the mode of transportation makes walkable cities even less likely.
Curious, are you really making light of "saving the planet"?
Wouldn't it make public transportation better? You could have mini vans basically acting like public taxis that would try to maximize capacity and minimize path traveled
Some places essentially attempted ride-hail as public transport and just like all car based services, they're far worse in terms of capacity and cost and so they essentially siphon money away from already proven modes like buses and trains. In Columbus Ohio, the attempt at this saw the consultant basically wind up shop and run away with millions of dollars in federal grants that should have just gone to cota. I expect AV as public transit to be similar.
A mini van can hold a maximum of 7, maybe 8 passengers. That’s already worse than a bus because it means a lot more cars on the road. That’s also a best case scenario because you rarely have 7 or 8 people going from one exact location to another. Maybe your plan is instead to make multiple stops? That doesn’t sound like the best experience. Cramming 7 people into a smaller bus, sitting in traffic for an hour plus due to all the other “public taxis”.
Regardless, it means a lot more traffic and a generally worse experience for everyone. Cities should tax the hell out of these and put the money towards improving actual public transportation.
Funny, it’s actually after I come back from a week of backpacking that my “internet quality time” is highest - there’s a bunch of new, meaningful content for me to go through.
After a few hours of catching up tho, that’s when my internet usage devolves to reading pointless faff and refreshing my timelines in a loop.
Signatures seem to be completely useless. Like you, my signature has devolved into a squiggle that is never the same, and it has never mattered.
I remember experimenting as a bored young adult with my first credit card, before tap to pay, when you often had to sign with a stylus on a terminal (in the US) - I would sign something different every time, sometimes nonsense, sometimes a little drawing, sometimes writing “Obama” or “Einstein” to see if I’d get a call from my bank or something - never did.
Maybe there was an era when actual matching signatures mattered, but it seems long gone.
I guess if you’re a celebrity signing autographs then it matters.
I've seen a suggestion that a signature is now nothing but a signal. An agreed-upon way of communicating "this is serious and binding". Being able to point out that a signature was faked in some cases is a rare side benefit at best.
If papers were signed, then something was agreed upon. A trade performed, a commitment made. If no papers were signed, then it's just idle talk.
That's all it ever has been; it was dressed up as a legible, personally-styled literal composition of one's name for a few centuries.
Many of the signatures throughout Europe's premodern era were crosses - anyone can make a "t" shape, everyone knew what it meant (and what it implied, morally), and it was as valid for this William as it was for that Henry because it was witnessed by state-recognized authorities (Notaries, if you will).
Egyptian signatures weren't written BY the person signing, but if you had your own cartouche, ain't nobody faking that... Wax seals only had names written in Latin print. Thumbprints were used in China, and handprints in paleolithic France.
Modern web interfaces give up on the "draw something like your signature with this janky software" bullshit, and fall to "just type your own name and we'll assume it's you."
All are societally-recognized authentic signatures.
I'm from Germany and you need to redo your signature if it doesn't match you official's, when for example opening a bank account. I needed to draw my signature on a tablet to get my ID, and was unable to do so properly, because my hand is just gliding on a glass surface. After several tries they gave me a paper to write my signature on.
I've heard stories from friends that their bank mails them whether a transaction is supposed to happen, because their signature was sloppy.
reply