The Internationale begins playing in the background
The Internationale begins playing in the background
Why is 50% the target?
It’s not about the protocols. It’s about business. We can have all the tech we want but until someone is willing to establish relationships with and pay the 3-4 middlemen involved in every single card payment it ain’t happening.
Did he actually recommend one? That said, it’s obvious the author favors Marginalia personally, but there’s no point pretending they don’t have biases. At least for me, making them obvious helps.
Idk, doing this “properly” would take an immense amount of effort and manpower. This feels more like a “let me get enough info for an educated guess” EDA process, which still seems to have taken a lot of effort and I appreciate it a lot.
But what if your hard to explain kinks damn near kill you?
While increasing energy efficiency and available space, both of which can be used for extending EV range (by adding more batteries that deplete more slowly) - one of the biggest EV issues right now.
Or you could just fit a mini party bus inside a hatchback, whichever you prefer.
To your point though, one of the othe big EV issues is cost (both purchase and maintenance) - even if a large chunk of it is artificial. Wonder what the price tag and lifespan on these things will be.
Of course what could have happened is that that cut was way bigger then the usual Apple Pay deal.
Didn’t know they were so generous with the terms. But I meant the fees they charge merchants. At least that’s how the business usually works if I’m not mistaken. Biggest cut of the merchant fee goes to the issuer bank, a smidge to the payment network, and a smalish portion to the merchant bank. Apple usually takes a portion of the issuer bank’s cut (in this case GS)
That could be true, I don’t know honestly.
But then it’s an issue of bad fee structures, or rather overestimating defaulter numbers. It’s not like the amount of money you make from fees reduces as your interest earnings go up, so - if this is indeed the cause - the only thing I can conclude is that to meet their total projected earnings they assumed people would default en masse. Bad long term business and slim margins if you ask me.
At the same time I have a hard time not drawing a parallel between this and GS Marcus. Apple had nothing to do with the latter and both went under (effectively), with both being forays into regular consumer services for GS.
Then again I’m just an armchair general. What do I know.
That’s just mismanagement and inflated input costs. The average cc company is happy either way. Idk what it is with Goldman but they mucked up consumer banking too.
True, but the business still pays them plenty. It’s not so much that they lose money, it’s they they earn less.
The trouble with that is that it shows a certain amount of respect
You know, you may have just changed my mind
Given his theories I’m convinced the man had some sort of food/gainer fetish he didn’t know how to deal with
Hey, we’ve all been there, I know I have. Proud of you ❤️
We actually found one: a good [blank]. I get where you might be coming from, but you’re better than this. I really believe that.
Low interest is subjective (it can be, but is hard to quantify succinctly). I’d argue including it is more biased than not.
No, shareholder interest, which - in the absence of the clear desire of the majority shareholder(s) - is assumed to be profit. So I think the question above is quite important actually