Cheques being phased out in Australia by 2030

[tggzzz]

Petronius Arbiter's famous quote applies to new products as well as new org-charts, viz: "I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization."

In my case I spent a large chunk of my career on the bleeding edge of technology in a well-known industrial research lab. That required keeping on top of all the new products and technologies, so that I/we could advance them.

99% of them weren't an advance. At best they were different (but not better), and nowhere near as good or revolutionary as their proponents claimed.

Recognising which were "froth" and which were "liquid" meant I didn't go down the blind alleys (now mercifully forgotten) that seduced many people.

Summary: most claimed advances aren't an advance.

The main reason "advances" are advances is "we control this one, and we don't control all the alternatives already out there performing well".

That is indeed one reason; the "conspiracy theory of history" is sometimes right.

Alternative reasons are "we are young and/or ignorant so we have triumphantly reinvented the wheel", "we think you are ignorant and easily lead up the garden path until after you have given us money". The former is the "cockup theory of history", the latter is another "conspiracy theory of history".

When younger (and still in my weak moments) I prefer the conspiracy theory. But usually the cockup theory is sufficient Depressing isn't it.

[coppice]

That is indeed one reason; the "conspiracy theory of history" is sometimes right.

Alternative reasons are "we are young and/or ignorant so we have triumphantly reinvented the wheel", "we think you are ignorant and easily lead up the garden path until after you have given us money". The former is the "cockup theory of history", the latter is another "conspiracy theory of history".

When younger (and still in my weak moments) I prefer the conspiracy theory. But usually the cockup theory is sufficient Depressing isn't it.

I'm always amused when the young and stupid tell me a product, which clearly did exist, could not have existed because they have no clue how it might have worked. An example would be weapons which performed Fourier transforms optically before a DSP type of FFT processor was feasible.

[tggzzz]

That is indeed one reason; the "conspiracy theory of history" is sometimes right.

Alternative reasons are "we are young and/or ignorant so we have triumphantly reinvented the wheel", "we think you are ignorant and easily lead up the garden path until after you have given us money". The former is the "cockup theory of history", the latter is another "conspiracy theory of history".

When younger (and still in my weak moments) I prefer the conspiracy theory. But usually the cockup theory is sufficient Depressing isn't it.

I'm always amused when the young and stupid tell me a product, which clearly did exist, could not have existed because they have no clue how it might have worked. An example would be weapons which performed Fourier transforms optically before a DSP type of FFT processor was feasible.

Yeah Black is white and no that very dark thing isn't really black.

There's one of those conversations going on ATM about what isn't digital logic. If you don't already know which thread that is, don't go looking for it!

[TimFox]

I remember when the Cooley-Tukey algorithm for rapidly computing the Discrete Fourier Transform was a new thing, and just going into practical uses.
At the time, image processing laboratories always had an optical bench to generate a Fourier Transform image by optical diffraction from a laser source.
Years later, the young people at work thought Fourier was spelled with a double-F.

[coppice]

I remember when the Cooley-Tukey algorithm for rapidly computing the Discrete Fourier Transform was a new thing.

You were around when Gauss was alive?

[TimFox]

I remember when the Cooley-Tukey algorithm for rapidly computing the Discrete Fourier Transform was a new thing.

You were around when Gauss was alive?

No, but my long life overlaps Cooley and Tukey, and their publication of the algorithm.
Prior to that publication, popular opinion held was that computing a DFT was a waste of time (except when only one or a few of the resulting frequency bins was needed).
See  https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf
Perhaps if Gauss had published his work, and had access to modern computing hardware, history would be different.
Shortly after Cooley and Tukey published their algorithm, Cooley and others researched the history of similar work more thoroughly.

[coppice]

I remember when the Cooley-Tukey algorithm for rapidly computing the Discrete Fourier Transform was a new thing.

You were around when Gauss was alive?

No, but my long life overlaps Cooley and Tukey, and their publication of the algorithm.
Prior to that publication, popular opinion held was that computing a DFT was a waste of time (except when only one or a few of the resulting frequency bins was needed).
See  https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf
Perhaps if Gauss had published his work, and had access to modern computing hardware, history would be different.
Shortly after Cooley and Tukey published their algorithm, Cooley and others researched the history of similar work more thoroughly.

It wasn't just Gauss that realised how many terms become zero when the number of elements in a discrete transform is a power of two. Reading the history of fast Fourier transforms is a lesson in how easily innovation gets lost over and over. Rather like LDPC or the youngsters losing track of a transform being possible by fairly compact low complexity optical methods.

[TimFox]

I remember when the Cooley-Tukey algorithm for rapidly computing the Discrete Fourier Transform was a new thing.

You were around when Gauss was alive?

No, but my long life overlaps Cooley and Tukey, and their publication of the algorithm.
Prior to that publication, popular opinion held was that computing a DFT was a waste of time (except when only one or a few of the resulting frequency bins was needed).
See  https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf
Perhaps if Gauss had published his work, and had access to modern computing hardware, history would be different.
Shortly after Cooley and Tukey published their algorithm, Cooley and others researched the history of similar work more thoroughly.

It wasn't just Gauss that realised how many terms become zero when the number of elements in a discrete transform is a power of two. Reading the history of fast Fourier transforms is a lesson in how easily innovation gets lost over and over. Rather like LDPC or the youngsters losing track of a transform being possible by fairly compact low complexity optical methods.

When comparing Columbus to Leif Ericsson, it is often said that after Columbus, the Americas stayed discovered.

[coppice]

When comparing Columbus to Leif Ericsson, it is often said that after Columbus, the Americas stayed discovered.

Yep. Its clearly relevance that keeps things known. LDPC didn't become relevant until decades after it was first worked out, so it was forgotten and needed rediscovering. Optical Fourier transforms became less relevant after AMD and others started driving the cost and size of a multiplier down, so people have started to forget about them. Its really sad. Chills in bearing castings are an interesting one. That was technology worked out by Victorians for broad industrial application, and the need for them didn't go away. The actual technology did, though..... until people in the 1970s and 1980s started questioning why 100 year old bearings were only just starting to need replacing, and why when they were replaced the new ones failed in a couple of years.

[SiliconWizard]

That is indeed one reason; the "conspiracy theory of history" is sometimes right.

Alternative reasons are "we are young and/or ignorant so we have triumphantly reinvented the wheel", "we think you are ignorant and easily lead up the garden path until after you have given us money". The former is the "cockup theory of history", the latter is another "conspiracy theory of history".

When younger (and still in my weak moments) I prefer the conspiracy theory. But usually the cockup theory is sufficient Depressing isn't it.

Usually, when new tech is promoted by older people, that means the goal is more control. When it's promoted by young ones, it's indeed more out of willing to do better than what people did before (which is natural and what has always driven us), but often without the experience to be objective about it. And the depressing part is that both can cooperate quite well to achieve things that do not benefit most of us.

[tggzzz]

That is indeed one reason; the "conspiracy theory of history" is sometimes right.

Alternative reasons are "we are young and/or ignorant so we have triumphantly reinvented the wheel", "we think you are ignorant and easily lead up the garden path until after you have given us money". The former is the "cockup theory of history", the latter is another "conspiracy theory of history".

When younger (and still in my weak moments) I prefer the conspiracy theory. But usually the cockup theory is sufficient Depressing isn't it.

Usually, when new tech is promoted by older people, that means the goal is more control. When it's promoted by young ones, it's indeed more out of willing to do better than what people did before (which is natural and what has always driven us), but often without the experience to be objective about it. And the depressing part is that both can cooperate quite well to achieve things that do not benefit most of us.

Agreed.

Still have a pain in all the diodes down my left side

[coppice]

Usually, when new tech is promoted by older people, that means the goal is more control. When it's promoted by young ones, it's indeed more out of willing to do better than what people did before (which is natural and what has always driven us), but often without the experience to be objective about it. And the depressing part is that both can cooperate quite well to achieve things that do not benefit most of us.

I would say the opposite. Young people seem to go for convenience so much they will happily stumble into being controlled. Older people have seen that before and try to avoid it. Studies of the attitudes of current young people seem to indicate that a sadly large number are very comfortable with being spied upon and controlled.

[vk4ffab]

Usually, when new tech is promoted by older people, that means the goal is more control. When it's promoted by young ones, it's indeed more out of willing to do better than what people did before (which is natural and what has always driven us), but often without the experience to be objective about it. And the depressing part is that both can cooperate quite well to achieve things that do not benefit most of us.

I would say the opposite. Young people seem to go for convenience so much they will happily stumble into being controlled. Older people have seen that before and try to avoid it. Studies of the attitudes of current young people seem to indicate that a sadly large number are very comfortable with being spied upon and controlled.

I tend to look at things a little different to most. The problem is not who is dumb or happy to be controlled, its that "WE" as a society allow for the exploration of others though technological advancement and as a society are slow to catch up. Google went from do no evil to how can we extract more money out of our users in a very short time span. Facebook went from a good place to keep in contact with friends to every other post someone telling me how to think because they paid facebook for the privilege. Youtube went from video publication to idiots pointing and looking like their got a stick up their butts and telling us how to think for add dollars. Now everyone is playing the various algorithms for maximum gain.

The effort that I go though to not be tracked online and to be rather anonymous as far as those harvesting data go is annoying to say the least. Running a Pi Hole and a bunch of browser plugins should not be the default way to interact in the digital landscape so as to not be tracked and manipulated though targeted advertising and suggested posts and videos. But it is what it is until governments start clamping down on the excesses that give you camberage analytica and we have the right to opt out, control our data and be forgotten.

[SiliconWizard]

Usually, when new tech is promoted by older people, that means the goal is more control. When it's promoted by young ones, it's indeed more out of willing to do better than what people did before (which is natural and what has always driven us), but often without the experience to be objective about it. And the depressing part is that both can cooperate quite well to achieve things that do not benefit most of us.

I would say the opposite. Young people seem to go for convenience so much they will happily stumble into being controlled. Older people have seen that before and try to avoid it. Studies of the attitudes of current young people seem to indicate that a sadly large number are very comfortable with being spied upon and controlled.

You're not saying the opposite - you're viewing it from the angle of end-users, when I was viewing it from the angle of the doers.

[Melt-O-Tronic]

In the US banks are obligated to make the deposited check balance to be available within 24 hours. They can settle the processing with the issuing bank.

This is not true.
Edited to expand:  This is true for cash deposits.  Check deposits can take up to nine days to be available (although I believe that to be an extreme case).

This is the base for a lot of scams that make people deposit bad checks and pay back some sum of their own money. The check bounces after a few weeks, but by that time it is too late.

[TimFox]

In the US banks are obligated to make the deposited check balance to be available within 24 hours. They can settle the processing with the issuing bank.

This is not true.
Edited to expand:  This is true for cash deposits.  Check deposits can take up to nine days to be available (although I believe that to be an extreme case).

This is the base for a lot of scams that make people deposit bad checks and pay back some sum of their own money. The check bounces after a few weeks, but by that time it is too late.

Somewhere way above this, I posted a link to the actual regulations for US banking.