>Why do you ask me to upload my resume and then still prompt me to manually enter data?
Question for hiring managers and HR teams: do you all rely on manually-input work and education histories? When I've hired (albeit only at small companies) I just read resumes.
And now when you want to set up a fresh Mac it's a parade of dialogue boxes:
Do you want to turn on Siri? No. (the dialogue-choice is probably "maybe later" ugh)
Do you want to share app analytics with developers? Yes.
Do you want to add Touch ID? No, because I'm setting this up for someone else.
There are more!
I gave those examples -- each of which having a different answer or reason -- to show that the problem of onboarding is nontrivial, but Apple has spent no(?) effort toward fixing it. It's the same for new iPhones and iPads.
NB I don't know if you sign into your Apple account it pre-answers these questions. That'd be nice.
"There's no step three!" -- I can hear his voice in my head.
But the Goldblum phrase I really try to keep alive is thinking jail, as in "What is beige? It's not even a color. Were they in thinking jail?" I often remark out loud when I realize I have been in thinking jail on a subject.
When you install Chrome, which you cannot accidentally do, and when you set it as the OS browser default, which you also cannot accidentally do...
... the next time you launch Safari, it will say that the default browser has been changed, "Did you mean to do that?" and of the two options presented ("Keep using Chrome" or "Switch back to Safari") the Safari option will be the default.
No, all those dialogs are there with Apple account sign-in as well. Maybe even more, since they might want to upsell you on something along the way (Can't remember, haven't bought a new phone in almost 3 years)
What does that graph tell you? Because I think patio11 wanted to send one message and people accidentally misunderstand the graph.
That's the interchange income corresponding to wealthy people. Interchange is paid by the card-accepting business, not by the buyer. The buyer pays interest and other fees and that graph looks very different.
From that original study the full picture table says in % of ADB that the "poorest" (below 620 FICO) pay ~45% interest and fees but bring only 2% additionally in interchange income. The wealthy (at 800+) pay ~10% interest and fees but bring another almost 10% interchange income, on 4 times higher spending, and 3 times higher rewards (so the wealthy get ~12 times higher rewards in $ value than the "poor").
Just the percentages paid by each group more than offset the difference in spending. There are also way more "poor" accounts than wealthy accounts. Intuitively you can tell that the banks are effectively subsidizing the fees and interest for the wealthy with the income from the poor, for the sake of the interchange income which is mostly generated by the wealthy but doesn't come from their pocket.
Those poorest of people (<620 FICO) pay more interest and fees (percentage and absolute terms) than any other group. There's a range in the middle on the wealth scale where the customers are actually a net loss for the banks (the 660-760 FICO range).
Businesses raise prices to account for interchange fees. So they are essentially is paid by the consumer. If we outlawed rewards credit cards (by capping interchange fees), everything would likely be slightly cheaper.
> Businesses raise prices to account for interchange fees
Agreed, which makes the picture even worse for those low income people. Even poor people are guaranteed to occasionally pay the "rich person tax" included in the prices of some of the products and services. At least until some AI pricing starts changing the price real-time based on the buyer's estimated wealth (sort of already real).
> So they are essentially is paid by the consumer.
Not from a bank's perspective. Only in the sense that prices are higher between the seller and buyer.
> If we outlawed rewards credit cards (by capping interchange fees), everything would likely be slightly cheaper.
I don't agree on the second point as a blanket statement. When Epic game store lowered its fee not a single game got cheaper for the buyers.
> Agreed, which makes the picture even worse for those low income people. Even poor people are guaranteed to occasionally pay the "rich person tax" included in the prices of some of the products and services.
Credit card fees are baked into the price of everything that can be purchased with credit card, excluding merchants that offer a cash price and a credit price.
Any time someone pays the (credit card) price with cash or a debit card is paying more than someone that earns CC rewards, it’s virtually every transaction.
>When Epic game store lowered its fee not a single game got cheaper for the buyers.
At least one reason for this is that Valve has language in their agreements to prevent you from selling your game cheaper on other storefronts. Unambiguously anti-competitive.
Outlaw rewards credit cards? Or make it compulsory that the true cost of a specific credit card is revealed to the merchant who has the right to absorb or pass on, in a line item, that cost to that specific consumer?
If I know I'm paying for my own rewards, I'd choose a card that keeps more money in my pocket. I'd go as low as the PITA factor of cash.
It's not clear to me what the net benefit is of a credit card over a debit card.
But for sure the confusion ensuing from allowing debit cards to be charged as credit cards should be illegal. The merchant account providers are probably the ones reaping the free money on the racket.
Credit is the POS default, for whatever reason. Not all POS are the same. e.g. US Post Office consistently knows if I am using a debit card, and it prompts for a PIN when I do. Every restaurant, bar, service does not ask for PIN, and the handful of merchants I've inquired with say their debit card fees changed by the merchant account providers are the same as credit. Scammy.
At least in Colorado it's legal for businesses regardless of the TOS contract with a merchant account supplier to pass on the transaction and processing fees of credit cards. It's not legal to pass on cost/fees for debit cards, ACH, or cash.
The simple solution is the one Europe adopted: Just cap fees. We do this for Debit cards and it's fine.
>It's not clear to me what the net benefit is of a credit card over a debit card.
In a fair scheme, the net benefit to the purchaser is having a rolling line of credit for whatever they want to use that for, like managing cashflow. It's also a benefit in that it puts a behemoth with immense contractual power between you and the merchant. It doesn't matter how a merchant fucks you over, the credit card company WILL give you your money back and punish the merchant.
To the merchant, the benefits are that credit cards unlock significant consumption that humans normally would not do. It literally causes induced demand. As a consumer, you will spend more money using a credit card, and you will purchase things you otherwise wouldn't. The disconnect in your brain is known. It can also, in very specific contexts, reduce the cost of managing payments and cash. It can reduce employee theft. But this improvement is overstated.
The reason merchants put up with giving away 3% of all revenue and eating $20 per fraudulent transaction plus whatever the cost of the transaction was is entirely about the fact that a consumer using a credit card buys more than one not using a credit card. It's a big boost to your revenue.
But there is absolutely nothing about a payment network that requires such transaction fees. Certainly not "Risk", as the credit card payment network itself carries zero risk on each transaction. Every dollar fraudulently spent comes out of the pocket of merchants, not the payment network. Their only risk is consumer default, but the entire "Credit Score" system exists to nearly eliminate that risk.
The structure of the system is built to get consumers to spend more money than they normally would, and incentivize everyone to play along to get a kickback. Everything in payment infrastructure in America is designed around this. Even gift card companies are built around getting you to spend money you were not intending to and kicking a portion of that back to the brand name on the card.
I think that's out of date. He links to a study showing interchange revenue net of rewards showing up to 3% by high FICO scores. (Just at a gut check that seems crazy to me, since interchange revenue doesn't really go much above 3%!). But that's from 2013. I remember when Fidelity launched its 2% flat cashback AmEx back in 2003. People didn't really know if it would be sustainable. Now 2% is a dime a dozen.
The most recent I've seen otherwise is this Federal Reserve study[0] from 2022. It finds that the marginal return on swipes is actually slightly negative because of how juicy rewards have gotten, and 80% of their profitability comes from interest (with most of the rest fees):
> we find that, on average, the credit function makes up approximately 80 percent of the credit card profitability, whereas the contribution of the transaction function is slightly negative, as rewards and other expenses on credit card transactions outpace banks' interchange revenues.5 In addition, fees—in particular late fees—comprise approximately 15 percent of credit card profitability.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
I understand the partisan juxtaposition of "X" and Moxie Marlinspike, and the partisan appeal of commenting on it, but to me it is a tangential annoyance.
I usually agree, but X has been pretty terrible as a medium. Not sure how OP meant it, obviously.
I'd created an account a year or so ago just to be able to view posts that pop up here. 3 months later I was banned for inauthentic activity, whatever that means. I googled and apparently that happened to a huge swath of people this year.
That was fine, I could still read posts. But now it gates me on wanting my biometrics for verification. Now clicking any link, including the above, asks me to submit biometrics. Assuming I'm not the unluckiest human alive, this feels like a terrible way to share content.
I agree with the logic of your comment, and to the extent that you're writing advice to Shirt Pocket and to other developers, I have no dispute.
> In this case, all I have to go off [...]
Well if you're looking for evidence that SuperDuper is good (and if you accept appeals to authority from internet strangers), SuperDuper is part of John Siracusa's backup strategy: https://atp.fm/703 John Siracusa reviewed macOS for ten years for Ars Technica (these _reviews_ are magisterial), and is an authority on the Mac.
Question for hiring managers and HR teams: do you all rely on manually-input work and education histories? When I've hired (albeit only at small companies) I just read resumes.