10 ms·
That rumor actually makes sense. I recently heard of a startup that is disrupting the valet industry by helping them get rid of their cash boxes (which apparen
by hkarthik 13y ago
That rumor actually makes sense.
I recently heard of a startup that is disrupting the valet industry by helping them get rid of their cash boxes (which apparently are prone to theft) and use mobile payments. They're lining up customers quickly because the product essentially pays for itself by resolving the theft problem alone.
I wondered why we haven't seen anything similar for parking spaces, but the tax dodging, money laundering idea seems like it nails it. These folks wouldn't want anything that creates a paper trail.
- mindslight 13y ago> These folks wouldn't want anything that creates a paper trail If the tech community wishes to actually do something about widespread surveillance, it's going to have to come around to seeing this philosophy as a virtue.
- jmduke 13y agoThese things aren't binary: there's nothing fallacious about thinking we should have enough accountability to eliminate organized crime syndicates while also not having so much that it jeopardizes the livelihood of innocent citizens.
- mindslight 13y agoActually you've just made two fallacies - The first is the use of conflicting judgmental criteria that constrain the question to favorable cases. If the idea of innocence is tied solely to the government's rules, then innocent citizens are not jeopardized, by definition. If there is an external concept of innocence, then it's possible for organized rule breakers to be innocent yet unjustly "eliminated". The second is assuming that rules (and therefore (in)justice) apply stronger to larger organizations. In fact, the opposite is true - as an entity scales, skirting compliance requires a smaller fraction of its resources.