1. our public transport added a free wifi to busses, some years ago already. it's got a "login" page, connect to wifi, get a phone notification, tap it, opens page with an ad and 10 second timer on a "click to continue to internet" button.
... okay.
recently, the geniuses decided to harvest mail addresses, which... *gritting teeth* if you must...
BUT... "please input your mail address". i input and submit.
"we have sent a mail with confirmation link to that address, please click the link to confirm to get access".


2. i had a second unrelated minirant, but i forgot what it was, so another one instead:
a long time ago, in a country where i live, the transaction slip the ATM gives you after withdrawing money used to contain info about remaining funds after withdrawal.
then, the info was removed from the slip, and a "feature" was added to atms where you "can" check the money on the account.
doing so costs you 0.50€

greedy asshole fuckers.

  • 9
    Checking your balance costing anything at all should be illegal.
  • 4
    @p100sch withdrawal from ATM costs 1€ or 1.50€, depending on your bank, btw.

    (unless you're withdrawing 50€ or more)

    as they say, being poor is expensive.
  • 2
    @Midnight-shcode thank god I live in a country where getting access to your own money is free.

    You already work for that money and then you still need to pay to actually get it ? why...
  • 4
    @Grumm because they need to keep you in the rat race.

    because the banks don't provide you a service, the banks employ you as their asset provider.

    your job is to give them money which they use to earn billions.

    the salary they pay you is occasionally giving you your money back, minus the fine for you daring to take that money away from them.

    and minus the penalty they issue on you for having to keep track of how much money you put in. (fees for having account with them. we have those too. in some banks. luckily i'm a slave for one which gracefully doesn't have at least these)
  • 1
    Yes, that is part of the societal corruption i tend to talk about.
  • 0

    communism is not the solution, though. i hope you know that.
  • 0
    @Midnight-shcode I came to the conclusion, that the underlying economic system actually doesn't matter. If people have the opportunity for corruption, there is a chance that they spontanously become corrupt depending on how big the reward is in relation to how much they already have and the risks involved. That chance is increased massively by them seeing other people getting away with corruption or when starving.

    I guess, a big part of preventing corruption just is to have lynch mobs for corrupt politicians and enough food for everyone else - combined with a lot of bureaucracy everywhere...
  • 0
    @Oktokolo i agree, the underlying economic system doesn't matter for levels of corruption, but it does matter for levels of poverty and mass starvation ;)
  • 0
    @Midnight-shcode Sure it does. But i doubt that we actually using the correct economic system for poverty avoidance yet. We currently see a regression in standard of living in one of the richest countries on earth that may or may not lead to the first case of mass starvation in a capitalist economy...

    We know for sure, that the extreme soviet-style centrally planned economy doesn't work at all when you are pumping all available resources into a massive nucular war machine.

    Social market economy (free market, but with tons of regulation, red tape and intervention) seems to be the most promising candidate for avoiding poverty in my opinion. But the tons of regulation and intervention are likely not what the rich want. So you would need a real democracy to get there - not our watered-down-til-you-can-call-it-homeopathy representative shit. But how to get to a real democracy when the rich basically own the current representative one, that still is an unsolved problem...
  • 0
    that regression is due to the fact that there's politicians in power who are actively trying to sabotage the whole system for the past 2+ years, and tgey are being helped by global powers doing the same
  • 0
    @Oktokolo if anything, the current situation is a case AGAINST tons of intervention, since the current situation is wholly the consequence of tons of "regulation" during the past few years
  • 0
    @Midnight-shcode We surely need less trade wars.

    But less regulation would just lead to even more monopolies and oligopolies. It also would lead to even less consumer protection and even more environmental damage. A heap of the current regulations is just bans on hazardous materials and minimal safety requirements. You need a lot of red tape to actually make those work. And as is pretty darn obvious everywhere around the world, people do accept the destruction of the environment for a meager increase in profits if they don't have to fear hefty consequences for themselves (consequences for their children seem to not count).

    The remaining regulations are mosty about making sure that the state gets his share so he can do what states do: Pay for way too few public services that aren't to be profitable but reliable instead - and let the majority of the income disappear by corruption of course...
Add Comment