iinnPP

I live in Canada where not all that long ago, Rogers took out digital payments at most places for ~48 hours.

I had cash and zero problems. Many had no cash and many problems.

You specifically mentioned banking as a problem and I mentioned a specific solution. Based in real life, not fantasy.

I am arguing your point and you are attacking me rather than making a point of your own.

This is why you keep some cash in a safe place, like your wallet, purse or dwelling.

I just wanted to point out that I have started to note this "phenomenon", seemingly globally, on any topic.

The sum of people not even close to the topic has risen, according to my feels at least.

Has this rang true for anyone else?

So, you're attributing a bunch of ideas to me that I never expressed. Making some pretty wild assumptions along the way.

I speak literally. It's much less cognitively exhausting. How does one effectively navigate the minds of others anyway?

All I'm doing is an expression of sentiment for individual consideration.

The comment is meant to illustrate that I don't think their statement is different enough to contradict.

The lack of effort to vote is obvious. As is what happens when you vote out all of the incumbents.

It's not a solution, that is obvious. Mostly because it's not suggesting anything concrete, either.

My suggestion is quite a bit more concrete. It's grounded in reality. The level of organization required to vote out ALL incumbents, is better used actually solving the problem.

I wouldn't presume to present such a solution, as I am only me. I would happily suggest voting in specific people over voting out the incumbents, at the very least.

If everyone avoided the ballot box? I imagine that coming to pass would indicate that the change has indeed already happened.

You can't vote out of this, you can only organize across groups and control your way out.

I'm happy to hear the alternative where you manage to vote incumbents out without the cooperation needed to actually fix the problem.

Indeed. We are the ultimate problem.

You are correct, but everyone does it can ALSO be used to prevent anyone from getting away with it.

In the specific context though, it is relevant. So the aside is more closely related to the behavior being outlined.

Presumably to remove it from the need to calculate. Everyone is using a different approach and one DB may require a lot more than the 30$ server can provide.

Now everyone can understand the math.

Time to pressure the local place to do the right thing.