Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think that's an unnecessarily hostile viewpoint. Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient".

I don't think anyone would argue that since cars are bigger than cell phones, that we should make our cell phones as big as cars (it's incomprehensible to think that cars and cell phones should be different sizes). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because food takes more time to cook and prepare?

I don't think anyone would argue that since humans can only walk ~3mph, that airplanes should be limited to the same speed (it's incomprehensible to think that airplanes and humans should travel at different speeds). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because humans walk slower than an airplane flies?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The speed at which you eat your food does not impact the speed of the payment method you prefer to use. All the payment method impacts is how much stuff you have to carry in your pockets, and how much can be stolen from you at any given moment.



> I think that's an unnecessarily hostile viewpoint. Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient".

I think what the parent means is that there are several other reasons, and at the same time makes a case against the main argument in favor of card transactions.

Many people simply feel they don't want to give up control over their cash, over information how they spend it, and basically: how they live their lives. As history shown us, once you give up this control, it's gone forever, and here are many actors eager to take over this information, not necessarily to the benefit of the citizen.


> Basically your argument boils down to "some things take longer to do than other things, so there's no point in making things easier/faster/more efficient".

The argument is Amdahl's Law. Making something twice as fast which itself constitutes only 4% of the total latency doesn't make the whole task twice as fast, it only makes it 2% faster. Which absolutely does change how much you're willing to compromise in order to make that happen.

> I don't think anyone would argue that since humans can only walk ~3mph, that airplanes should be limited to the same speed (it's incomprehensible to think that airplanes and humans should travel at different speeds). So why should we use a slower and less efficient payment method just because humans walk slower than an airplane flies?

Because walking and flying are alternatives to each other rather than two components of the same task.

Consider why most people don't commute by air travel. Even if a plane would actually get you to work sooner, it isn't enough of an improvement to be worth the cost. You would still have to get to and from the airport, which creates a minimum latency no matter how fast the plane flies, and air travel is simply more expensive than driving.

Which is why high frequency traders pay electronically and not with cash, and why people traveling long distances fly. But people buying hamburgers may prefer to pay cash in a store they walked to because it's two blocks from where they live.


> Basically your argument boils down

It does not, in fact. My insinuation is that perhaps some people have a preference against going cashless which has nothing to do with speed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: