i said a lot things in that post. What are you asking for evidence on?

You’re talking about a different law for a different purpose. There is indeed truth in advertising laws and consumer protections that prohibit deceptive practices in the marketplace. Those laws predate the law I linked, which specifically bans the practice of surchaging electronic payers even when properly disclosed. At the same time, no law prohibits surcharging cash payers given proper disclosures that circumvent misleading prices. And so the reality that we see playing out is that cash payers are forced to pay surcharges and/or penalties. This is the case with rail, buses, utilities, etc.

This is a false conclusion.

On what basis are you concluding the contrary? Neglect to extend reciprocity to cash payers is trivially verifiable. Find in the paper where the contrary is true (that there is a prohibition on cash surcharges). Can’t find it? Yes, indeed it’s not there. Because there is no statutory reciprocity in the statute the article refers to. It is therefore a true conclusion.

Apparently, some merchants have done this in the past, and this is now prohibited. But they can never charge you more than the published price if you pay cash.

You’re confusing cash with electronic payment. There is a new prohibition on surcharges for electronic payment. The same is not true of cash payment. Or do you have a source to cite proving the contrary?

To be clear, proving the absence of law is non-trivial. But if there is a protection for cash payers, I would be very interested in seeing the citation because I will use it in legal actions. I will wait while you dig that up.

But then you criticize sources linked by other while claiming you are right.

Sources exist to be scrutinised. That’s the whole point of sources – to see what information comes from where and to assess the quality of it. But in fact I saw nothing to criticize in your sources because your sources actually supported my claims by proving that dynamic pricing is in play (which is trivially verified anyway).

If you are not able to provide even a glimpse of evidence of what you say, I end this discussion.

I listed the cash options that incur penalties. You failed to prove that cash payers have a penalty-free option. You only had to find 1 possible cash option, and you failed. I cannot prove a negative. It’s your burden to prove the positive claim here. If you cannot come with a penalty-free cash payment option outside of Amsterdam, then we are indeed done here.

I’m not sure how you are not grasping this. If there is no cash penalty, the proof you need is not that dynamic pricing exists (this actually proves my point) – you need proof that cash payers can buy a future ticket from Flixbus using cash. Nothing in your linked article indicates that cash payers can avoid the penalty from the dynamic pricing that it describes. This is only possible in Amsterdam where they have a ticket machine.

The dynamic pricing is a cash penalty because cash payers are forced to buy last minute just before departure. If you approach a driver today and ask for a ticket 1—2 months in the future, they will refuse to sell you a future ticket to avoid getting stung by dynamic pricing. Exceptionally, Amsterdam residents exceptionally have a cash-accepting ticket machine for cash. The online sales does not support cash payment methods. E.g., no PaySafe card (which you can generally buy locally with cash).

Some cities have 3rd-party ticket vendors. They are independent of Flixbus and charge what they want. Commission can be as high as €20 for a ticket that costs €5… depending on what the 3rd party charges.

I mentioned Flixbus in another comment (this thread), where the cost can be in excess of 4 times as high.

Also consider SNCF, where a ouigo ticket can be as cheap as €10 online, but face-to-face sales incurs a fee that exceeds the cost of the ticket itself. I don’t think offline prices are given online in this case.

I don’t think there was an outage during the posting time. I noticed their reply to me came through to slrpnk but very slowly. And now a couple days later I finally see the initial comment get posted. So it was just a very long lag in the end.

No publications AFAIK… all anecdotal. You may or may not be able to verify depending on where in Europe you are.

The purpose of the thread is to collect similar scenarios across Europe.

Indeed I am personally anti-cashless (a consequence of being pro-autonomy, pro-privacy, pro-inclusive society, and increasingly disturbed with enshitification of banks which are reckless with data protection, finance climate detriments, etc).

Though I wrote in the sidebar that the discussion on that topic does not require everyone to be aligned. There are comments and votes in !cash from apparent pro-cashless folks. In principle someone can post about how they love cashlessness.

I am able to see this reply from you to me – though after a very long delay. I still cannot see your 1st reply from within slrpnk.net though.

@rumschlumpel@feddit.org

Did you do something naughty to slrpnk.net by any chance? I only saw your comment incidentally when viewing my thread directly on the custodial host. I cannot even force your comment to appear by searching the URL on slrpnk.net. I am not blocking feddit.org either.

Anyway, not sure you will see my reply because I cannot use the reply button on your post; but I’ll answer here:

Source? You’re definitely not paying 4x the online price when you pay in cash for a bus ticket where I live.

I’m not sure if this Flixbus problem is published anywhere. I can only speak from experience. A ticket starting at €10 will often get as high as €40—60 at the moment of departure. You can verify this just by looking at buses departing today and comparing to the same route a couple months into the future.

(edit) I imagine you are thinking in terms of public transport. In that case, some bus networks outright refuse cash at all possible sales points including drivers. There are some press shops that sell tickets for cash but only as a 10 pack, not single trips. So a cash payer who needs a simple one-off to go to the airport is fucked.

Fun video, but fucking hell… even that webpage is enshitified by some vimeo garbage:

    Enable JavaScript and cookies in your browser settings.
    Once JavaScript and cookies are enabled, refresh this page.

For detailed guidance on how to enable JavaScript and cookies in your browser, refer to your browser's help documentation or support website.

Ray ID: …

Remember that in capitalism, anything but growth is a tragedy

Can’t say I’m with you. If the top hat shop goes out of business because the demand for top hats dies off, it’s a good thing. It’s one of the few good features of capitalism to have a natural death of that particular variety of waste (the waste of producing beyond demand).

If the consumption of meat is dropping (good!), then it’s even more important for grocers to stock less of it.

Not eating it is much easier than stealing it.

Indeed. But also less effective.

I consider vegans neutral. They neither help nor hinder the industry of animal products. I love this quote by Desmond Tutu:

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Or, more controversally, stop paying for meat. I personally have no ethical problem with shoplifting meat. To buy meat is unethical because it supports the meat industry. To shoplift is to punish and deter those causing harm.

The only thing that stops me from shoplifting meat is I cannot be bothered to study the art of it and then take on the risks of getting caught.

Guardian is paywalled for me.

Certainly that’s the case in the US. It would be suicide for US republicans adhere to their conservative values and drop subsidies, which would outrage all the farmers whose vote republicans rely on. (edit) So the survival of the republican party inherently forces them into hypocricy.

But why don’t the dems nix meat subsidies? No farmers vote for dems, so no loss there. But I suppose there would be enough meat-eating dems who would abandon their own party. Just like in California a politician tried to push a fuel tax and got voted out by both parties.

Set it to make the Wi-Fi an open access point. Set it to rotate through a list of SSIDs like:

• “Find a more ethical shop than Wal·mart”
• “Watch out for Walmartians”
• “It’s ethical to shoplift evil brands (Nestle, Coke, Pepsi, Kraft, Unilever, P&G)”
• “Never show your ID to ICE agents”
• “Learn Spanish. Fuck republicans.”

Then find a way to hide it in a wall at Wal·mart, wired to power. (edit) Maybe clean every hair follicle from the keyboard first, and wipe your fingerprints.

Perhaps have a captive portal but with no uplink. One that just redirects to a web server running on the laptop that shows content supporting whatever ethical cause you want to promote.

For the laptop, you will want to ensure that the bottom of the laptop compartment is not at the bottom of the bag. A good design puts a few cm air gap between the bottom of the bag and bottom of the laptop compartment so that when you set down the bag, no shock reaches the laptop.

Maybe it’s common… not sure.