My wife found out her new card was Discover debit card right before her trip to France. Her bank sent her a new card unrequested. In an abundance of caution she activated the new card which automatically cancelled her debit Mastercard. Then when she landed in CDG found the new card didn't work anywhere.
This is what these peeps advocating for an "EU-based payment system" don't get, as they typically don't travel worldwide. VISA + Master just work. Have a debit plus credit for one each. (And no, Google / Apple pay won't do it, everyone who calls themselves a "hacker" should know that you too often can't even pay for transport using a rooted phone).
Aside from what the other commenter said about the hybrid systems, you proudly state that you have 4 cards at minimum, but having a system that would work continent-wide for ~98% of all money you spend would not bootstrap if someone needed to be bothered with having a separate travel card, which would rest in the drawer or as second Apple/Google/Garmin Pay choice most of the time?
Most adults I know have 2+ cards already, it's just that they were issued by Master Card or Visa. American Express and Discover still exist, despite definitely not having worldwide coverage.
We do actually. The German Girocards were, until Maestro ceased to exist, often co-issued as Maestro + Girocard, and global acceptance was pretty good under the Mastercard network.
There are examples of other co-branded national payment systems out there (troy + Discover comes to mind).
If a European payment system (with cards, at a store) is to exist, then visa/mc will still want a piece of the pie by at least playing along to remain as a co-brand and taking their cuts from international payments.
You’re allowed to advocate for your own interests, but there are limits to what you’re actually allowed to accomplish with that advocacy. At least in the US. You can’t just pass laws to confiscate the wealth of your political opponents, for instance. You can advocate for it (free speech), you just can’t do it.
Yes, the problem is capital. US has loads of it and Europe does not. So a lot of European startups have 3 options: remain niche, get bought out buy US investors, move the corporate seat/brain trust to the US.
There are many small European startups who do not have infrastructure to take on large European multinationals as clients. A lot of EU labor laws have hard requirements at 50 and 100 employees so startups stay below those lines and remain tech lifestyle companies.
Well the other large advantage is that the US is one single market with one common language (English) and while there are variations by state, pretty much one set of rules. So by starting a company in the United States you of course have access to incredibly deep capital markets, but you also have access to 350 million people mostly operating under one set of rules with one common language and largely one common culture. It's the same market advantage that China has, by and large.
It's one of the big ironies of the EU - every time it gets larger (good! increases market size) it also gets more fragmented in terms of languages, retained local rules etc. (bad, obviously).
Now up to 24 official languages and still potentially growing in the future (although this is a bit of an overcount because some of them are mutually intelligible to various degrees, it's still a lot).
It's interesting to think that at the time of original ECSC treaty there were only four languages (French, German, Dutch and Italian). That's just about manageable, now it is a bit of an issue
I've been working with European companies for a decade, language is not a barrier for scaling, local laws are.
E.g. why eu has some laws in terms of data and privacy, local laws take precedence (unlike in e.g. agriculture that it's entirely EU's business). Scaling across borders is expensive and difficult for regulatory reasons.
To be fair the US is not immune to that issue either, some states (looking at you CA) are very fond of making random extra state laws that don't exist at the federal level and affect commerce
Also culture. I had a friend try with several German companies, but she said the leadership would default to "no", and every decision would need too much review. She even worked with some that opened offices in SF hoping to learn to move fast, but even those were way too cautious to succeed. Lots of premature optimization, and trying to establish structures and systems before any proof of concepts could be made.
Obviously, this is just anecdotal but she had a real desire to have European growth in SF communities.
What we lack is risk appetite, young people dreaming to be entrepreneurs, talent, a truly unified market, regulations and proper corporate law. Say what you want but stock options essentially don't exist in Europe, so you either give equity upfront or you don't at all.
My impression was that Europe had a lot of old money. A lot of traditional and family banks that were only willing to risk it on "a sure thing." The startups I did work at were the founders did a stint in SV after being recruited from Europe. Came back with the knowledge and culture of startups. Tried to replicate it there and ultimately couldn't climb out the bureaucracy.
The capital is locked up in traditional large multinationals. I've watched them launch one boondoggle after another. And it fail because of endless meetings and fearing to know their customers.
I kind of wonder, capital wise. the GDP isn't too far off US and there's def companies/families w/ insane amount of capital esp in luxury goods etc. Unless they're just hoarding it like Smaug and not investing it back into the economy, in which case the problem isn't capital but business culture.
European per capita GDP is half of the US average. Total GDP is between 60-75% of the US with an extra ~15% population. I'm sure Europe does have enough capital to do this build-out but its a shrinking pool as Europe loses ground to the US every year.
One of the things Jim Farley, Ford CEO, brought up was they have a lot of 3rd party suppliers, and changes take a long time to implement. So a firmware update may require change notifications and responses from dozens of suppliers for something like door locks. This was in response to why Ford couldn't do firmware as fast or as often as Tesla. Vertically integrated means you have 1 big ship to turn around. Modern JIT manufacturing means your ship is built of 100s of cards and each one needs to be turned.
The lack of new models from updates I believe comes from the fact the CEO is busy elsewhere and the board is reluctant to address that. They have made the P/E so high that they can only continue to function in one direction, do just enough to bring in more outside investment.
To all the parents: read Careless People. Realize everyone, including the author, is flaming hot trash. And never let your kids near social media ever again.
The Myanmar story was definitely the worst (Mark Z + callow execs being willfully ignorant as Facebook clearly inflamed ethnic cleansing there and caused many deaths).
Later in the book, the China story was a close second. In order to get into China (to "grow") - exec team agreed to host Facebook's servers in China where the government could get access to customer private data, so they could stifle dissent.
Tons of other weird/bad/embarrassing stuff too. The author, a member of the core executive team, was seriously complicit but redeemed herself in my view with this no-holds-barred account of the complete lack of ethics up top.
In general a damning portrait of the executive team as just not giving a shit about anything except for growth and willing to actively participate in dictatorship in order to make it happen.
I want to point out a few things here because people are going to split hairs about definitions and other irrelevancies
I don't know exactly how they do this in non-english languages, but english speakers have complained that all the posts they see from friends are the most abrasive and inflammatory. Specifically those. So it's not just "a neutral platform". If this was happening in Myanmar then of course it inflamed ethnic tensions
Second, Facebook's barging into emerging markets - with Free Basics, they sent letters on behalf of Indians to the telecom regulatory body (including net neutrality advocates who were very much against it). Facebook in Myanmar would not even be a thing in the first place were it not for their larger internet.org initiative. (I don't dislike "social media". It's fine to connect with people, but not the way FB does it) Whether we ought to have these services wholly decentralized or some sort of KYC system - dunno. But FB (and specifically Zuckerberg) are just bad faith actors
But you're not addressing my fact it was artificial ranked ordering. Also, Facebook (per Sarah Wynn Williams) was told about this and they did nothing about it
> In order to get into China (to "grow") - exec team agreed to host Facebook's servers in China where the government could get access to customer private data, so they could stifle dissent.
That's exactly what Apple does with iCloud in China.
It wasn't just Chinese data, though. It was access to all customer data. They also built tools specifically for searching and filtering that data that they told congress were impossible to build...
My biggest takeaway from the book is Zuck is such a brat who got so grumpy and pouted so much when other facebook employees on the private jet beat him at board games that they set up an internal plan to always let him win.
Sheryl Sandberg comes off poorly too, calling her assistant "Little Doll," beckoning her to sleep in her lap during private jet trips and buying her lingerie on business trips. Then on another trip she tried to get a different employee to come cuddle and sleep in the jet bed with her and pouted when this person declined, saying the first assistant always would so why does this person have a problem with it. She also has racist comments, talking about how she likes to always hire Filipino nannies because they are "service oriented."
As a parent who doesn't let their kids on social media (and seems to be one of a handful of parent who use parental controls on phones), the FOMO is very real with the kids. They don't understand why I'm such a terrible person that won't let them have access to things their friends do. Friends will come over for sleepovers, and our kids will sit on YouTube for hours with their friends because we never let them on it and that's all their friends want to do.
I don't know how to educate other parents to encourage more controls. Most are too busy to care it seems, the kids are content with their brain rot etc. I hate that these companies turn me into a villain with my kids because they produce hyper addictive crap without any constraints.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. At parents' evening one teacher told me I was literally the only parent of that school year that uses parental controls.
Thankfully I don't have the FOMO part with my kids - they all seem to understand the reasoning and seem pretty fine with it - none of them have ever asked for TikTok for instance. We recently went to a family gathering though and I was genuinely shocked to see one toddler, barely able to speak, left alone with TikTok on a phone, just swiping away for hours.
I go to friends' houses and the kids are watching the dumbest, most egregious things imagined on Youtube, constantly. When I ask if they go outside to play, they claim it's too hot, too cold, or too dangerous. They are attracted to these overdramatic influencers doing Jackass style stunts. And I find the entire experience grating.
Have you read the book? It would likely give you some good talking/discussion points...such as "FB intentionally let genocide happen. Do you think we should support them with our time?"
There's a lot of indignant people who seem to expect or insist that meta should act according to their own incoherent set of ethical frameworks or half-baked "morality", imagining that their poorly conceived, narrowly defined and inconsistently applied morals are universal constants that must be operant for all. But somehow none of them has considered that fb is not a public good and they can just opt out. fb has always been a garbage heap for rubes, not sure why people need it to conform to their downmarket ethical delusions.
> When one would finish her exam, she would come back to the room and tell all the remaining students what questions she had and how she solved them. We never considered that "cheating" and, as a professor, I always design my exams hoping that the good one (who usually choose to pass the exam early) will help the remaining crowd.
You are an outlier. When I was in school any outside assistance was tantamount to cheating and, unlike an actual crime, it was on the student to prove they were not cheating. Just the suspicion was enough to get you put in front of an honor board.
It was also pervasive. I would say 40% of international students were cheaters. When some were caught they fell back on cultural norms as their defense. The university never balked because those students, or their institutions, paid tuition in cash.
International students in graduate programs at US institions are basically buying a degree from what I've seen. The professors know they cheat and they don't really care. The students are paying a lot of money and they will get what they paid for.
> The professors know they cheat and they don't really care.
To throw another anecdote in the bucket, I know at least one professor who does not tolerate cheating from any of his students, regardless of cultural or national background, or how they're paying for their education
I've seen, on multiple occasions, the professor's recommendations get overruled by the dean or university administration. If the school wants them there, they stay.
Andés Hess (RIP) gave an examination, 2006, in his Organic Chemistry course... which ended up with 35% of the class being reported to Vanderbilt's Honor Council.
He brilliantly tested students using open-ended, single-sentence questions (with half of the page blank to show your work)... which tested foundational topics and oozed with partial-credit opportunities. You then had an option to submit "test corrections" to explain why you should gain more points for your efforts (typically considered, when reasonable).
----
His first exam of the semester, there was a multi-step question which resulted in a single 1cm x 1cm box — worth 20% of the entire exam's scoring — for you to indicate whether that particular Grignard reaction resulted in a single-, double-, or triple- bond.
The majority of the class answered (incorrectly) that it would be a double-bond, by writing a `=` into the blank box. In fact, that reaction resulted in a triple-bond `≡`
35% of the class ended up just adding the third parallel line (i.e. changing what they had originally answered) when handing in their test corrections. Dr. Hess had made photocopies of all the penciled exams... and reported all the cheaters.
----
I answered it correctly, originally, so was never tempted to fib a similar mistake — but this definitely opened my eyes in reinforcement of not cheating. I eventually got into medical school, and most of that 35% of branded "cheaters" did not. Ultimately I never became a physician, but remember the temptations to cheat like everybody else did. I am happier/poorer because...
A truth of human behavior: most employees will steal if they think they can get away with it. Most students will cheat if they think they can get away with it.
Religion, the concept of sin as evil, codes of behavior, moral principles of right and wrong are the systems we developed to combat these tendencies.
Nobody wants to judge people's behavior anymore, for fear of hurting feelings or anxiety about confrontation.
>40% of international students were cheaters. When some were caught they fell back on cultural norms as their defense. The university never balked because those students, or their institutions, paid tuition in cash.
Twenty years ago, at Vanderbilt, this would have been an understatement — particularly among non-citizen asians.
I remember in organic chemistry an instructor attempted to re-give the same examination ("because ya'll did so terrible") and it was struck down by a dean as not allowable simply because the Honor Code was to be invoked that nobody/groups would share answers (yeah sure okay).
The minority following the Honor Code ended up getting into lesser graduate schools (e.g. myself) — because most courses didn't curve and VU didn't give out A+ as a grade. I have specifically not mentioned the specific country which cheated most-blatantly... but everybody from back then knew/knows.
I'm glad she got her flowers in the end. As a fellow Hokie who was in school around then I wish I knew of her and her accomplishments while I was a student. She was a distance learning PhD student so would have only been in Blacksburg occasionally.
The EU is moving in the opposite direction and trying to become more cohesive. The politicians and technocrats see the Euro as hamstrung with weak fiscal policies.
I finally had to give mine up. Needed to reset the password which required a trip to 4HELP office and I live halfway around the globe now. But the kiddo will be starting college soon so I can mooch off their edu email address.
Ah, I've been mooching off an old library card for years to rent books for my Kindle. Finally got an email saying "Just pop into your local branch to renew this year." Ah...
YES! I was a happy Kanopy movie viewer until last year I got a message that my library card no longer worked on Kanopy and I had to physically go in to the library to get a new one. Maybe someday....
You have to renew them? I've been using the same card since '03. I went in a 2 years ago to pay my fine for a book lost in the couch cushion for a few months. Librarian thought it was quaint that I still have my old tattered library card.
This was Chicago. I believe a lot of people had managed to get online cards without physically being in the city and they decided to call it in and get everyone to renew in person to see who was still legit.
reply