I moved away from my hometown longer ago than that and had no problem depositing cheques in branches other than the one with which I was registered. It may depend on the bank you are using, or possibly even the method of deposit and the branch's ability to provide the resources for it.
I think the whole concept of “branches” is basically gone.
Except if the bank sells off a region (e.g. merges with another bank, but is required to sell off some operations for competition reasons), then you’ll end up following your home branch.
It used to be that the home branch would technically be responsible for verifying cheques, but i’m Sure that’s all centralized now too.
"No actual businesses built" is completely not the case. At least not for all ICOs. Take PundiX, for example – they have a fully-functional product with a growing base of B2B customers which are starting to use the device in the wild.
While nothing has come from many (probably most) ICOs, there are certainly some great examples of "cool business ideas" which are being realised thanks to the ICO.
> "No actual businesses built" is completely not the case. At least not for all ICOs. Take PundiX, for example – they have a fully-functional product with a growing base of B2B customers which are starting to use the device in the wild.
Also lots of ICO's present false claims when it comes to adoption of their products. Do you have any factual figures how widely this certain product is deployed and in which state the development is? For example on Pundixes web page their payment terminal is just a 3D model.
The more I hear about ICO products and their businesses, the more sceptical I grow that this funding model is able to actually grow viable businesses.
As long as the data is used as one of many guideline sources which is scrutinised by human officers before the individuals are suspected and acted upon, I personally don't see a problem with the inaccuracy (which will get better over time).
> As long as the data is used as one of many guideline sources which is scrutinised by human officers
What makes you think that's going to happen? If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction - reducing the need for humans within automated systems as much as possible.
If a fast food store manager brings in robots to serve people food, do you think he'll still want to hire people around to make sure the robots are serving the right food to people? No, if he brought in robots, then it's because he wants to get rid of as many human employees as possible.
Maybe the humans will be there for like the first month or two while the robots are being tested, but that's it - or at least that would be the goal. Look how fast Musk wanted to get rid of human employees at Tesla, too. Complete 100% automation will be the goal for both companies and governments.
Even the Pentagon is rushing to allow its AI drones to kill "targets" on their own (thanks, Google). You don't think governments will rush to get humans out of the equation for more "trivial" stuff like arresting people?
If 20% of the people are wrongfully accused, but the system catches 99.9% of the actual criminals, then they will be very happy with that system. Just like Facebook is happy to censor 10%, 20%, 40% other innocent content, as long as it can brag to Congress that it "censored 99% of the terrorist content" (which probably isn't true, either). They don't care about the collateral damage.
Some programs are designed to replace humans, others are designed as tools. Automation does not always equal the replacement of humans.
I appreciate your analogies but there is not evidence in the article to suggests that police and investigators are being replaced by automated systems.
Data such as this can be used to eliminate a lot of the investigative work which usually goes into law enforcement.
Are you familiar with a police lineup? Police detain a selection of suspects based on various characteristics and ask witnesses to select the perpetrator, who may or may not be present at the lineup.
Neither a police lineup nor facial recognition are accurate or reliable when used alone, but when used in combination with other facts, tools, and resources an arrest can be made with increased speed and confidence.
> If 20% of the people are wrongfully accused, but the system catches 99.9% of the actual criminals, then they will be very happy with that system.
The opposite (presumption of innocence, preferring having some criminals leave free than a single innocent person wrongly imprisonned, etc) has been the norm in all occidental democracies for the last two centuries or so. What makes you think it could change?
I disagree. There are some ways in which GET can be non-idempotent, such as pageview counters and endpoints with a vast amount of constantly-changing content, for instance. One may argue that the first example may be possible with a GET followed by a POST, but any subsequent GET response (assuming it contains the counter) would still be different to its prior.
> This is crypto logic. In 'real' stocks this will be called a collapse for today or at least an extremely wild ride.
It is a wild ride. The reason this is a correction and not a collapse can be easily understood if you zoom out your charts enough so that you can see the ancient times of November 2017.
It's just a matter of volatility. If a stock drops by 15-20% once a month, a correction is not called a collapse. If it never moves more than 2-3% per day, a 15% drop causes panic.
BTC is by far the most volatile asset at the moment (excluding other crypto currencies and some exotic real currencies). I think the reason people talk about crashes so quickly is that no one has a clue what's going on. Is it a broad-based move? Is it a few speculators? Is it a conspiracy? For stocks, at least the regulator knows very quickly who sold and if there's something fishy going on. For BTC, no one knows which makes it more confusing.
according to reuters, "Bitcoin extends slide to trade down 18 percent on day at $11,191 on Bitstamp Exchange, on track for biggest one-day fall in three years" - so, pretty significant move.
There are a bunch of coins that lost over 20% in 24h, and the 7d-situation looks even worse with even huge coins like Ripple taking a 45% drop in value.
The reporter comes off as a bit paranoid and slightly egotistical. Read up on the rules and follow them closely or risk facing consequences. If you aren't 100% sure, ask.
Personally, I was held overnight in a cell in KIX (Osaka International Airport) because after 6 hours of back and forth interviews, I couldn't provide a convincing enough reason for working for a Japanese company (my own company) without the correct visa. This was entirely due to miscommunication but something that would have been obvious – and easily remedied – had I consulted the right people. Fortunately, I was granted conditional entry the following morning. Though despite the inconvenience, the officers and warden were extremely pleasant and very accommodating.
That's a terrible point of view. Who is he supposed to ask these questions that would be absolutely ridiculous to ask in any developed country? Heck, I can't think of any country in the world where staying at AirBNB would be an issue, and why shouldn't he be paranoid when they so easily could pull up info about when/where he stayed there.. Does the airport security also have a list of Chinese girls the visiting foreigners have engaged sexual relations with? How long until they start rejecting foreigners when they have slept with >50 Chinese girls?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point. This does not have anything to do with his sexual relationships so I am unsure of why you are making that analogy. It is completely usual to have to declare your place of residence to an immigration officer upon entry to a foreign country, wherever you are visiting. If you are suspected of wrongdoing, expect calls to be made and questions to be asked.
It is entirely the traveler's responsibility to understand the requirements for stay and local laws of a foreign country. Ignorance can only get you so far.
The immigration officer – who has absolute power over entry – neither asked anything unreasonable of him nor made any false accusations. This is despite the reporter technically having broken the law. He got off lightly, since the fine for not registering within 24 hours after arrival can be up to $300.
It's usual to declare where you are staying, it isn't usual to have to register with the local authorities in every place you do. I do accept it, countries have different rules and cultures. Foreigners do end up breaking such local rules when going abroad, including the Chinese. But doing so shouldn't result in being banished from the country. Imagine driving into Austria without a toll sticker and no longer being able to get a Schengen visa. Of course we don't know the full story. Hopefully this is more about the authors situation than something that will become commonplace.
It may be annoying or inconvenient, but China is not the only country a requirement to register with the local authorities. The fact that it applies to all types of visas may throw some travelers off. Still, it is their responsibility to make sure (preferably before arrival) that the requirements for entry are met.
When you break the rules (intentionally or not), you're taking a risk. Some people get off unnoticed whereas others learn the hard way. Ask people familiar with the country and its laws before arrival and plan your trip properly.
So whenever you visit a country then you spend several months reading up on all their local laws? Do they even have an official English version, or do you hire a translator? Here's a question for you, what's the Chinese law regarding the use of a VPN/proxy? Does the law differ based on when/where you used the VPN and what it was used for?
The sexual relationships is relevant because foreigners in China have a reputation of sleeping with a lot of girls, and this leads to a lot of resentment from many of the Chinese. If they at the airport can so easily see when/where a foreigner stayed at an AirBNB, then you have to wonder what other info these people, as well as the embassy people approving VISAs, can see. They do not need to give a reason for denying entry, so it seems it's only a matter of time before they're provided with even more private info that will most definitely be used against foreigners.
Well, usually I will ask friends or colleagues who have experience of that country. But if not then yes, I will spend an evening reading up on the country and its rules/customs while planning my trip. I don't know a sensible traveler who doesn't.
Spending an evening reading up on the country may result in you becoming familiar with the punishment of insulting the Thai king, or the risk of engaging in protests or anything political in China, but that's about it.. regarding China, you can't even Google the laws concerning VPN/proxy. You even give an example yourself of you failing to read up on the rules. There are millions of laws, many of which are not even available in English. You can't possibly expect people to become familiar with countries laws.. that would take months and you could still get fucked for no reason. People rely on common sense, and common sense tells you that if AirBNB is available in X country and you have no problem booking the apartment, then that's that.
The only terrible point of view I see is yours. Claiming to be morally superior because you view the law is not to your advantage. The rules are there for a country to keep track visitors. They exist elsewhere as well.
Most people rely on common sense when they travel - don't do drugs, don't steal, don't engage in physical fights, etc. And in my eyes, that's the only way. Are you saying you read the millions of laws of the country whenever you travel somewhere? Laws that may not even be available in English.
Tell me, which countries have you visited throughout your life, and what does the law state regarding staying at an AirBNB residence at each of these countries? Would be great if you could provide official source as well, I mean it sounds like it's very easy for you to look it up, so I assume you don't mind. If you don't want to reveal your travel history, then you can use this list: Germany, France, Iceland, Ukraine, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, Cambodia, Japan.
I have experience of Thailand and Japan so can chime in.
Thailand does not require registration, but authorities prevent travelers from re-entering shortly after their stay (cracking down on "visa runs") which has caught some tourists/nomads off guard. The strictest punishment is banishment for a maximum of 10 (IIRC) years.
Like China, Japan requires registration with the local city office if you are staying with a long-term visa. Although it should be noted that China applies this to all visa types whereas Japan allows tourists to stay without registration. Failing to register with the local Japanese city office can result in banishment.
As with registration in China, you are not told this information upon entry of these countries. If you blindly travel you will be caught out (and usually punished). However, asking around and doing the research before you travel can prevent that from happening.
Why would they want to crack down on visa runs? Those people doesn't take any jobs from the locals, and I'd assume they spend as much as any other foreigners.. seems like a win-win?
I've spent about 10 years living in various Asian countries, including China, and I have never met anyone who would bother to register whenever they changed apartment. I'm also certain if I asked all my contacts in China, then none of them would know anything about it.. and I'm talking about hundreds of people, including students/professors at their best universities. You greatly overestimate the amount of info you can get by doing research/asking around when you go abroad.
> The robots are designed to free up store employees' time so they can use it to help customers.
This is probably the most textbook spin I've ever seen. It's as if their PR firm didn't even try.
These robots are obviously being deployed to increase margins.
Personally I would have went for the "adding more value" angle, either by suggesting to the customer that "Your favourite product is more likely to be on shelves", or positioning these robots as "helpers" to shelf-stackers.
> Personally I would have went for the "adding more value" angle, either by suggesting to the customer that "Your favourite product is more likely to be on shelves", or positioning these robots as "helpers" to shelf-stackers.
To be fair, this post is about Google's UX for developers, which is admittedly very good. The APIs and supporting documentation and guides for many of Google's properties usually do an excellent job at appealing to skill levels that range from beginner to expert.
Good post, but it does not consider conversion of former customers.
I develop a subscription service which launched in January and now has ~9,000 MAUs. This above metric accounts for ~10% of "new" subscribers each month, despite not yet making an effort (such as by sending reminder or "sorry" emails) to re-capture them.
The post does make a good point about retaining existing users, though.
I would like to add that we saw MAUs spike when redesigning the cancellation process to be more thankful and apologetic than spiteful. (Being a service for Japanese users, we included a little "thank you bow" animated character at the end of the process.)
One more point – our cancellations for the first days of the month often come close to outnumbering new users. We have concluded that the reason for this is that users 1. perform their financial housekeeping around this time, and 2. find a low-numbered charge date easier to remember.
