Ah yes, the fallacy of quantitative supremacy and human fungibility, that illusory phase of statistics kindergarten. Imagine a fictional universe where Steve Jobs was cancelled in his early career. "But it was only one person". How many human lives would have been impacted if Steve Jobs had been deleted from technology history? 2021 smartphone adoption is north of 3 billion humans.
> Very few people will ever hit this. Ever.
And this story has not been #1 on HN for five hours, nor has 500+ comments, and is not being read by journalists in multiple countries, or city-state regulators who care about equality, or engineers who build payment and surveillance systems, whose opinion can't possibly factor into the feasibility of building one of several alternative futures. Not one of those "few" people can change the future of electronic trade, of which payment is only a subset.
Nope, we have a singular cashless trading future and it's not subject to human negotiation beyond surrender. Or is it?
Ah yes, the fallacy of thinking that because HN cares, the general public will inconvenience themselves.
The fallacy of thinking that software engineers as a profession will base what work they are willing to do on any form of ethics rather than getting paid.
And finally the fallacy of thinking that because I predicted what I think will happen that I also think it should happen.
The post I replied to, to remind you, claimed that people would change their ways when they were suddenly the focus of their payments being banned. But most won't be subject to that. Most will rightly or wrongly think that only affects bad people, and given that, most won't change their behaviour. Software engineers in general will do what they're paid to, very few make any sort of principled stand, if they do someone else will be hired.
Are you contending that human beings are generally very good at inconveniencing themselves and changing behaviour in the face of a small minority having their rights or liberties infringed? Because if so I'd like some of your happy pills.
> claimed that people would change their ways when they were suddenly the focus of their payments being banned.
As stated in the original article posted to HN, the potential for change is not with those few who break the law, it's with the much larger group who believe in due process and social contracts. When trust is lost in a system, it affects many more people than the few humans who unexpectedly set a precedent in policy and become an exhibit in history books.
> Are you contending that human beings are generally very good at inconveniencing themselves and changing behaviour
When trust is lost in a system, it creates an opening for other systems, with different properties.
People don't choose inconvenience, but the failure of one system can motivate action beyond stable equilibria. People can then consider alternatives which may offer more convenience in some dimensions, less convenience (but other benefits) in other dimensions, and new properties which are not comparable between the two systems.
Most importantly, the loss of trust in one system creates an economic opportunity for competing systems, including investments that can change the calculus of convenience.
A bit awkward for cashless narratives that "behind" Americans are leading the world reserve currency, where cash use is increasing. Is there public data on the decline of cash outside America?
> Very few people will ever hit this. Ever.
And this story has not been #1 on HN for five hours, nor has 500+ comments, and is not being read by journalists in multiple countries, or city-state regulators who care about equality, or engineers who build payment and surveillance systems, whose opinion can't possibly factor into the feasibility of building one of several alternative futures. Not one of those "few" people can change the future of electronic trade, of which payment is only a subset.
Nope, we have a singular cashless trading future and it's not subject to human negotiation beyond surrender. Or is it?