It's not like pension funds are forced to invest in VC funds. It's the unions decision too, so ultimately if they are bad investments, it's average joe union workers fault they voted for shitty leadership.

The shit happens from how these funds are bound by their statutes to buy into index funds. A while back, there has been some insightful commentaries here on HN regarding the spacex IPO and the subversion of stock exchange.

True, especially since President Sanders tends to be a bit heavy-handed on exerting political pressure. He's been issuing an unprecedented number of executive orders since he took office...

5% vs 50% is a dramatic difference in how things would work out.

Yea, I've seen this a few times now on here where people are acting like ICE is going to arrest them for being here legally for a conference.

Visa/MasterCard take like 0.3% the rest of the interchange fee goes to the issuing and acquiring banks.

We just got layers and layers of entrenched middlemen (middle corporations) everywhere

Ruby is strongly typed

I feel like there used to be a time when wired magazine was worth reading, but I can't even remember when that was at this point.

1995

When was the issue with the embossed white cover with braille text? December 1994? January 1995?

That was peak Wired: techno hippies in Prague, the new year "scared shitlist" (President Dole... President Gates!), TV watches you, General Magic, Ricochet radio modems (the very first wifi), and it still had much more of a "moody b&w" aesthetic than the dayglo nightmare that was to come.

GitHub hasn't been moved onto azure yet, they just announced it's their goal to move over in 2026

Visa's fee in the US is also only 0.3%. Most of the interchange fee goes to the issuing bank and is used for cardholder rewards/benefits.

Except the networks are not forcing their morals onto anyone, they are not payment processors.

Visa/MasterCard are essentially a network of banks, they only get a small percentage of the interchange rate. Most of it goes to the issuing bank which they use for rewards.

This line of thinking also ignores an important aspect of credit cards that benefit the merchant. 2-2.5% is not that much when it means you can sell to people without worrying about if they can pay for it. When that customer ultimately doesn't pay their CC bill(look at how high CC debt is), the issuing bank still needs to pay the merchant.

> 2.5% is not that much when it means you can sell to people without worrying about if they can pay for it.

Is that not how these other payment providers work? Would they let a transaction through that won’t be settled afterward?

What payment provider is allowing payments without accessing the customers current funds? With a CC, you can charge $1000 with only $100 in your bank account. That is not something you can do with ACH, check, cash, etc. Pay Now Pay Later providers like Affirm would also allow this, but I'm not sure what that looks like from a merchant POV

Oh ok so you can’t pay with money you don’t have. I wish that cost wasn’t socialized.

Is the cost of a dining room socialized if a restaurant does take out? It's a business cost that was from it's inception sold as a way to increase potential customer base and reduce risk, which is still a valid and correct way of looking at it considering bounced checks don't get paid out to merchants and cash gets skimmed.