There may be some situations where this makes a lot of sense, particularly involving currency manipulation. For example, in Argentina, the official exchange rate was much less favorable than the actual (black market) exchange rate. Monero could enable someone to sell at the more favorable exchange rate locally, rather than relying the transfer provider in the source country to do it.
However, it's important to consider potential market effects if this is done at scale. For some people, it could work, but probably not yet on such a large scale.
There's at least a decent chance that Monero may actually be a better store of value than the destination currency would be and the receiver might just choose to keep it in Monero instead of converting it to their local currency.
That could make sense if Monero was a widely accepted currency for goods and services in the destination country. However, as far as I know, it usually needs to be converted to fiat currency for this.
So you would purchase Monero peer-to-peer in your country send it to them and if they need to exchange it when they get it they can choose when to do so and how much to convert.
Sure, P2P is the ideal without KYC, but if used at scale, this is going to eventually lead to an increase in value of Monero in source countries and a decrease in destination countries, especially since P2P exchanges are usually local in nature and less liquid than centralized exchanges. There would be heavy sell-side pressure in these P2P exchanges, whereas likely not nearly as many people would be buying Monero there. The spread between the buy price in developed countries and the sell price in developing economies could exceed 6%.
This could work if there are reliable exchanges already available in local currency on both sides, and if both sides have bank accounts and the technical know-how to use exchanges. However, if Monero were to become a large scale method of remittance transfers, then Monero could be overvalued in exchanges in source countries and undervalued in exchanges in destination countries, especially in situations where the currencies are not freely convertible. With P2P exchanges this situation may become even more exaggerated.
Eventually HFT traders may catch on and level the market, but this would essentially mean a transfer of wealth from the masses sending remittances to a few HFT traders.
My point is, though sure it works fine in limited situations in strong economies (where there are liquid, freely exchangable fiat currencies and fair exchanges with low fees), it is a lot more complicated than it seems to use it at such a scale or in countries with underdeveloped economies.
You actually can do this (I think), if you claim the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion on taxes and earn less than like $110k/yr abroad, your adjusted gross income is 0 and with an income-based repayment plan you don't need to pay back anything until they get discharged after like 35 years I think
https://social.overheid.nl/about is the official Dutch government mastodon server
That makes sense. But in that case, why doesn't apple impose data privacy standards on cars that want to integrate CarPlay? It would still allow car manufacturers to design their own software. I'm not sure I'd trust CarPlay to safely operate all of the sensors and displays in a car. What if the speedometer freezes for example? Or if the car suddenly detects a car in front of it (that doesn't exist) and brakes because of it? It just seems like a really bad idea to grant such levels of control of the car to CarPlay, which isn't evaluated to the same level as standard built-in car software is (afaik).
Or, better yet, Apple should lobby for comprehensive data privacy laws in the style of GDPR, which would at least help resolve these privacy issues industry-wide. And, to their credit, it seems like they are to an extent. My opinion is that hardware car functions, such as air conditioning, windshield wipers, seat warming, etc. should be managed by the car software, and navigation and music should be managed by CarPlay. Though of course opinions may differ here.
Considering that Apple in the future is going to require even tighter integration with CarPlay (including handing over control to all screens and sensors to CarPlay), which Tesla may not like.
Prosecutors described [the next generation of CarPlay] insidiously as taking “over all of the screens, sensors, and gauges in a car, forcing users to experience driving as an iPhone-centric experience if they want to use any of the features provided by CarPlay.”
I wouldn't be surprised if it's the country where the SIM originates. A prepaid eSIM from an EU carrier (as secondary sim) is pretty cheap though and might work if this is what they do.
Brexit means that there will have to be a border checkpoint installed in Kent. This isn't practical unless there is a lot of demand
AWS is very expensive. There are other compatible storage options, like Backblaze B2 and Wasabi, that are better for this use case
Thanks to the new rules from the Gaetz wing though, the Democrats can rather easily remove and replace the speaker. And they just might if they end up with a majority.
The northeast corridor is densely populated and fast trains require very straight tracks. In a place like China, eminent domain is easier and the State can expropriate land for the construction of a straight track, but in the US this is harder due to higher costs (lower economies of scale) and endless bureaucracy for infrastructure projects. So I suppose they just found it easier and a better option to build a lot underground.
I think that if, in good faith, the person is unable to accept more CSAM due to the fact that their hard drive is full, there isn't an issue. The intent of the law is that, it someone knows something is CSAM, they need to report it. I don't think the government is going to come hard on Lemmy server owners unwittingly receiving CSAM through federation (though they certainly would want them to report and take down the CSAM on their servers)
Be careful with this though. I think I remember some jurisdictions require server owners not to delete CSAM and report it instead. Verify that you aren't obligated to keep it before deleting it
Apple just claimed an exception. It's still up to the EU to determine whether it is actually exempt or not.
I'm not just talking about faster. Over long distances flying is often almost an order of magnitude faster, significantly cheaper, more reliable (trans-continental rail journeys often involve tricky connections between different rail carriers), and much easier to book (for example, try booking a flight between Amsterdam and Bucharest, and then a train ticket). There are some connections where rail makes sense right now, but definitely not all connections.
Airlines are also obligated to pay compensation if their flights are delayed, railway companies are too under certain circumstances but the amounts are far lower and this doesn't cover separate tickets, which are often needed to travel on these very long railway journeys.
But I think we're in agreement that it shouldn't be this way. In situations where taking the train takes merely 2x as long as flying instead of 10x as long, it should definitely be the preferred option. Now the goal is to expand international railway connections, extend the railway compensation rights to make the trip safer to book, and provide a pan-European ticketing system that shows the lowest prices and allows all connections on a single ticket.
I'd like to see a direct connection Schiphol-Frankfurt. There is already a direct connection Schiphol-Paris, there should be air-rail tickets sold on this route just like there are Brussels-Schiphol