Putting your card in, say, Apple Pay is equivalent. How do you think Apple Pay works? It’s tap-to-pay, equivalent to your credit card. That’s why you can use Apple Pay wherever you use tap-to-pay on your card. That’s why Apple Pay doesn’t work at Walmart and merchants need to do no work to support Apple Pay.
In the US you really have no options. It’s card, or card, or maybe even card. There’s Zelle, which is irreversible. PayPal and friends, which charge a fee, so no. And crypto, which is used for drugs.
In india, nobody cares about Apple Pay. We care about UPI. Every nook and corner, every person old or young, every chai wala, every kirana shop uses it. The constraints that plague the US is irrelevant for us.
Salesman can scream the amount, the customer can zoom and scan without meddling through the crowd and make the payment from a distance while the loudspeaker announces the payment.
Imagine using cards there, people will riot :)
Shops in general are wary of cards. Busy shops simply won't tolerate cards as they require someone to enter the figure.
Busy shops will shudder. Goto banglore, visit a busy street chai shop, ask him to accept cards, he will shudder.
Besides the whole Tap to Pay itself is problematic as it puts the customer at the mercy of the receiver and his device. UPI ensures customer controls how much money is being transferred. More secure. Less hassle. No physical cards. More modern
In 2026 "backward" is a dysphemism for "reliable".
Not sure what's making you shudder about carrying a payment instrument that doesn't need its batteries charged, doesn't need to run firmware or an OS, doesn't need a network connection independent of the payment terminal, and isn't simultaneously a surveillance device, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.
LLMs usually points to the most idiotic future trajectory on my work, and I have to curse it inorder to let it keep up with my refined understanding.
But what else would one expect from a probabilistic weighted next token predictor, other than to conduct probabilistic search which are 99.99% deadends.
But LLMs can pave the way towards constructing resilient and correct architecture which can be iterated fast by a human.
Architecture and determinism is where my money is in.
This feels like an AI comment, but I feel compelled to respond.
Recursion is not needed when you regress system components to its foundamental representations, which can be derived without any recursion involved. In the thread example, I don't need to recursively determine how to compress how a planet orbits a mass. I only need to 'jump to the end' by define the rules of gravity and the mass/velocity of the bodies. What I'm driving at: I am suspicious of "Recursion is the Key" to better intelligence as it moves the goal post of understanding intelligence to 'mere' reflections without having to address other qualities of representations, qualia, novelty, etc.
I am flattered that my comment was equated to AI content. English is not even my native language. I will take that as a compliment.
Apparently you misunderstood. What made you think I claimed recursion as the key to better intelligence?
Clearly you will have noticed that I agree with compression and merely remind one not to forget "recomposition".
But once you add recursion to the "mix", we immediately enter the domain of self existing entities.
Then things get interesting.
If understanding == compression + recomposition, then recursion(compression + recomposition) yields what can be thought of as a self existing "understanding" entity.
A sort of philosophical "understanding god" of sorts.
reply