ffhhttt

> too hard

Why would you say that? I wasn’t trying that hard at all.

It just seemed that you were implying that they will be significantly cheaper for consumers which is not at all obvious at this point.

> That's the rich for you

It’s one group of very rich people (possibly) trying to screw over other rich people, though.

> I just may not want to sell to you.

You almost definitely do though. You just want more money because you know that the buyer doesn’t really have a choice.

> When I like my land and I don't want to sell, than this is simply my right, no matter how much you think I have no excuse.

I guess in this case they do want to sell it, they just know that the ‘billionaires’ having already bought a bunch of land in the area don’t really have a choice and will have to pay significantly more than the market value was previously.

It’s not exactly a case of some mega corporation trying to rip off some poor farmer and “steal” his land…

> build a city for the rich on my land.

Not that I’m saying that the government should get involved but the only reason you own that land is because want to make as much money from it as possible.

You could probably support them more directly over Patreon/etc. so they’d get to keep a much bigger proportion of what you pay

> You realize that the whole point of self driving taxis is that they are cheaper to run than regular taxis, and that's how they will compete right?

Longterm that will be true if there is substantial competition between driverless car providers (since it requires very significant that won’t necessarily be the case).

Otherwise these companies will just keep their margins high and charge only slightly below what a car driven by a person costs.

So all the incidents they listed are fake?

I guess it depends on how we define a language. It’s not inconceivable that different languages might have developed from multiple different proto-languages.

Or that languages were lost and developed again from some semi-verbal communication systems independently.

I don’t think that we can conclusively say (or even close to that) that other Hominids were incapable of complex (to an extent) language.

Yeah, it’s generally the inverse from what they are saying. Isolated groups retain the old form of the language for much longer.

e.g. Romansh or even Basque.

> Swiss German

If we go a few hundred years or so it would’ve been considered a language as much as any other German “dialect”. But somebody decided to pick another dialect to be the “standard German” language.

Same applies to France and Italy. Especially when some northern Italian “dialect” are actually more closely related to “French” and some southern “French” ones to Catalan.

Just like for instance Dutch interestingly enough is closer to Franconian than to Frisian.

Not really, they are not even on the same sub-branch of Semitic languages. Aramaic is closer to Hebrew.

Aramaic is still spoken by Assyrians and IIRC some other Christian groups in the region though.

Why pick straws though? There are plenty of similarly environmentally harmful and even less useful things that we ignore (like all the excessive nested packaging for some preprocessed food products).

> Is it? I find it weird you think so.

We might focus on the law itself and not some hypothetical situation.

> nobody will ever know, so the law is pointless.

You can’t sign a contract for anything worth more than €3000 if you want to pay in cash. If you want to declare your income, pay taxes, prove that you obtained the money legally when you later want to deposit it to an bank, during a tax audit etc. Of course it won’t affect transactions which are already done illegally so it depends on what do you mean by ‘pointless’.

The $10k limit is also a thing in Europe, the exact amount varies by state though (I think).

Presumably you have to pay taxes so the standard is probably somewhere in between what the tax authorities acquire and no questions asked.

Buy yeah, some banks in the EU might be overzealous and small/medium businesses can often run into issues related to their idiotic fraud prevention systems. But I don’t see how is that an issue with the system itself and not with the implementation.

> RISC-V could leapfrog ARM in overall performance

RISC-v is an instruction set. If any company made a better RISC-v core than Apple can make themselves they could either buy it from them or make their own faster ARM core.

That’s what happened with Intel and PowerPC…

What improvements in the instruction set itself could make RISC-v fundamentally faster than equivalent ARM chips?

> They've already migrated MacOS to a RISC architecture,

Have they?

I certainly think you have a point about microcontrollers.

I find it very doubtful RISC-v would supplant ARM on the high end anytime soon. The licensing fees are pretty peanuts compared to the cost of designing your own cores and even the big players have been struggling to come up with anything that could compete against ARMs designs (besides Apple of course).

Also it’s not at all clearer what incentives would Apple have to switch to RISC-V? Sure they could do it.. what would they gain though?

Technically not true. Not all banks support instant payments even if they use SEPA.

EU is planning to make their support mandatory but IIRC this only be the case during “business hours”.

With SEPA you’d pay a fixed <1€ fee or it would be free. Also all at least semi-decent banks offer instant transactions.

> So how would I buy a car on a Friday afternoon otherwise?

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/integration/retail/instant_pa...

I don’t care about examples from the US. How is that relevant or at all related to this specific ban?

> and why does the bank need to be involved or aware at all

In the EU you can transfer the money instantly using your phone.

Not that I agree with the ban but a lot of the issues people are discussing here are only relevant in the US (checks? lol.. what is this the 60s?)

How?

Also, again, how is this specifically harming farmers more than anyone else?

You can get a functioning bank account usually in less than 30 minutes by downloading an app as long as you have a valid ID (no verified address is needed)

But yeah, if you’re not a citizen and don’t live in the EU it might be tricky (then again AFAIK bringing large amounts of cash from a third country is not that straightforward either).

What does this have to do with Dutch farmers, though?

So you need to be convicted by a court and the government needs to be able prove the money was obtained from illegal sources?

How is that unreasonable and more importantly what does it have to do with the €3000 limit discussed in this thread?

> they find more than 3000 eur in one place that is not pre authorized, they will confiscate

Any sources which would substantiate this claim?

Every single country in the EU has VAT. If you’re yearly revenue is to low (not that likely for commercial farmers) you still have to give out receipts for every sale.

Also have you heard about bookeping? It’s also a thing that has existed for thousands of years.

Doesn’t this only apply to individual transactions?

Only it’s very weird to just assume that this might apply to bank deposits…

I’m pretty sure the 3000 limit is not at all a huge issue in any of those cases pretty much anywhere in Europe and bank transfers are also cheap and instant.

Not that I agree with this ban. I really don’t but focusing on farmers specifically is very strange when farming is so heavily commercialized, especially in the Netherlands.

> Bitcoin is your best bet?

Because nobody can take out a fraudulent loan in bitcoin? Well.. that’s problem accurate.

I’m just not sure how is bitcoin even the tiniest bit relevant in this case?

I’m not sure Romans really did that.

Yeah, it’s a perfectly reasonable view. We just shouldn’t pretend that space exploration would still be a thing if governments couldn’t finance it (which your previous comment sort of implied)