TWeaK

It does happen often, and it changes over time. For example, my HSBC app used to work just fine without Play Store at all, then it requried some integrity, now it requires strong integrity.

Yeah it’s very hit and miss though, and potentially the bank could require strong Play Store integrity, which can only be achieved with a clean keybox file (hard to find).

With regards to contactless purchases, you’re actually better off doing it with the physical card contactless, in terms of consumer rights. A contactless card purchase is processed as “Cardholder not present”, where the seller assumes some of the liability for verifying the transaction is legit. With such a purchase you can easily argue that someone stole your card and made transactions without your permission, making it easier to claim under consumer protection laws.

This type of purchase has existed for decades and was used for catalogue purchases as well as early internet purchases. If you make a purchase with your card and PIN, or your phone with its PIN, then the purchase is considered authenticated by you and it will be harder to argue it wasn’t you. These days a lot of internet purchases are also authenticated (often by SMS or apps) but a contactless card purchase is not.

Magisk (root) plus possibly modules. I don’t think Revolut requires that, I think you can just set Magisk to Zygisk domain and hide root by putting Revolut in the deny list.

If it requires more then you’ll need to look into MicroG implementations on your device. Assuming Pixel devices (because the user above said GrapheneOS etc), then you’ll be installing MicroG as a Magisk module along with Play Integrity Fix, Shamiko, Tricky Store and Zygisk Assistant, at least for Android 14. You’ll need a clean keybox file though, and those are very tricky to get, if you want to pass strong integrity but you should be able to get most Play Store Integrity checks to pass then. Without the keybox though some banking apps won’t work (because those banks are bastards) without passing strong integrity.

At least you can get around that.

Isn’t Revolut that company owned by the son of a member of the board of Russia’s Gazprom? Weren’t they also partnering with a mobile phone company that was owned by Russians, so to get around sanctions they sold it to a German Russophile for €1, meanwhile continuing to pay profits to sanctioned Russians?

Revolut isn’t really a good alternative for Buy European - and I say that as a user myself. By all means take advantage of the deals and low rates (good currency exchange rates), but be wary of integrating it into your traditional banking and definitely think twice before making it your main bank.

They already fulfilled their targets in the stock market, time to reset the deal until they’re ready for the next round of manipulation.

Maybe, but I think a transitional approach would be needed to minimise the damage locally. In other words, get the services up and running first, so that the alternative is at least somewhat viable before you force people to pay for not using it.

Yeah, I mean we do get some American food over here, but it’s sold as specialty stuff and ridiculously expensive. I’m basically addicted to US Dr Pepper (they use a different recipe in Europe, hell in the US and Canada Dr Pepper is produced by Pepsi but in the EU it’s made by Coca Cola) but the price is already crazy. A 12 pack is about $6 USD (pre tax) on offer in Walmart, in the UK on Amazon it’s £28 (inc tax) for 2 ($38.05 or $14 per 12 pack). On the shelves in places that have it the cheapest price is probably £1.50 per can ($2.04) but only goes up from there.

There are a fair few US candy shops around Europe, at least in major European cities, but more than likely these are money laundering fronts first and foremost.

Thank you, this is something I’ve been screaming from the rooftops.

Trump doesn’t care about the American people who will pay his tariffs. China doesn’t care about Chinese people paying their tariffs on US goods (although there are probably fewer US imports to China anyway). The EU does care about its people, and shouldn’t tax them with tariffs.

Tariffs only work if you can prevent the local harm (eg Canada were going to tax electricity exports, the US can’t stop buying electricity so Canadian businesses wouldn’t lose sales) or to at least have a plan beforehand to reinvest in local businesses that can replace the imported good.

No, blind retaliatory tariffs would be stupid. When someone is punching themselves in the face, the correct thing to do is not to also punch yourself in the face.

Tariffs have 3 effects:

• The buyer pays more.
• Because the buyer pays more, the seller makes fewer sales.
• The government collects tariff tax revenue.

Whichever way the tariff goes, export or import, it will negatively affect that nation’s people. An import tariff, like this, would negatively affect local consumers. An export tariff (eg Canada tariffing electricity exports to the US) would negatively affect local businesses through lost sales (the genius with Canada is the US can’t stop buying electricity, so sales local sales would stay the same).

The only way a tariff makes sense for a country is if the tariff tax revenue is reinvested into the local economy. For example, if you tariff imports, you should use that revenue to incentivise local businesses to grow to replace that import.

Trump is not doing that. He’s just collecting tax money from American people. He’s almost certainly going to spaff that away on some scam, probably crypto, and basically bankrupt the American taxpayer and fuck up everyone’s livelihoods.

EU countries should not copy Trump and blanket tax their citizens for American imports. If the EU were to implement tariffs (and I argue this isn’t necessary or worthwhile), they should only be done with a plan to reinvest, such that there is a net benefit. Blunt tariffs with no plan will almost certainly have a net negative effect.

China is like Trump, in that neither of them care much about the negative effects on their people. That’s why China went hard with retaliatory tariffs. The EU does not need to emulate that behaviour.

The EU never really had much in terms of American products, ie food stuffs. The kind of American products the EU has is primarily internet services where there aren’t always alternatives (or at least ones that are as polished as the big US ones). Then there’s the fact that most people don’t even consider a lot of things as American - WhatsApp isn’t even recognised as owned by Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook/Meta, for example, for many people in spite of it being overwhelmingly the most popular messaging app in many countries.

Well they would say this when countries like Sweden are literally giving them land for free to build like 50 data centres there.

It’s not yet a lawsuit, it’s a proposed lawsuit, and will likely fall foul of this:

In March 2024, a federal judge in Oakland, California said drivers in that case must pursue their claims in individual arbitrations, not a class action.

Again with the names. If you could acutally come up with something of actual meaning and relevance, I might feel insulted.

But you don’t have meaning, what you say is irrelevent, and you don’t have value. You say you don’t argue and yet you’ve replied every time, because there’s nothing else for you.

Applying a retaliatory tariff, as you suggest, is what would be appeasing Trump. He wants to wreck everything - not just the US - and retaliatory tariffs would do just that.

Thank fuck you don’t decide economic policy. I’d hate for a nation and its people to be in such a sorry state.

I’ve demonstrated a lot more thinking here than you. You’ve presented nothing, you’re just attempting to be insulting. The most likely reason for this is that you don’t know how to argue nor have anything to back up your position, ultimately because you’re wrong.

In that context I think tariffs are absolutely valid. In particular, as you mention, because China is subsidising their EV market and thus discounting the export price. A tariff should raise the price of the imported good such that the local good can compete - and we’ve seen this with extreme tariffs on Chinese EVs. Trump actually led the way on this in his first presidency, proving he is the proverbial broken clock. Now Europe also has tariffs on Chinese EVs.

Ideally, this should also involve ring fencing the tariff revenue and exclusively re-investing it into incentives for local businesses to pick up the slack of the imported businesses. This rarely happens, but it should.

This doesn’t work when tariffing the US, though. The US is often already more expensive for the things people import from there. People buy US goods and services because they want the US version; there is no better alternative. The tariff just makes US products even more expensive, costing buyers more. The only thing it does is raise revenue for the government.

In other areas even tariffs against China have been meaningless. If China sells a trinket for 1/10 the price of local industry, then even a 100% tariff would mean the Chinese product costs 2/10 of the local price. People will still buy the Chinese product over the local one, but now they just pay more. Maybe they buy less, so Chinese businesses make less money, but they’ll probably pay more overall. The government get this extra money. This is what Trump is doing in the US with his general tariffs on China, there’s no plan behind them and they’re all but meaningless - the only thing they do is raise tax revenue for the government.

If the only thing a retaliatory tariff does is raise revenue for the government, then it’s no better than what Trump is doing.

A good tariff should minimise the effect at home and maximise the effect against the foreign country the tariff is meant to penalise. I don’t think that’s viable with import tariffs against the US, the effect at home just isn’t worth the minimal damage it would do to US businesses.

It’s 2025, and 90% of all software devs in Hamburg have worked for Otto at some point, and they still can’t get their shit together.

I’d put money on that being a dumpster fire of a workplace - the kind where turnover is very high, everyone is constantly busy putting out fires with slapped together solutions, and if anyone tries to do anything that might prevent future fires they get shouted at for not putting out fires.

The comment above said they were 3A charging and that that wasn’t “fast”. I haven’t seen the charging spec for these cables, but they do have a 60W cable. 60W is fast charging, and is likely achieved with 3A at 20V. It’s not as fast as 100W or 240W, sure, but it’s as fast as most phones will go.

These cables probably aren’t rated for 100W or above. Most cables aren’t. However, you can get multiple longer cables rated for that much power for less than one of these.

How am I trying to appease Trump? You call me a moron, and yet nothing you say makes sense.

At least we can agree that Trump is a cunt lol.

All I’m saying is that IF a country wants to apply a retaliatory tariff, they should do so in the interests of their own country. They should ring fence the revenue from the tariff and re-invest that in local businesses to replace the foreign imports.

However I don’t think that’s necessary. America isn’t a cheap manufacturing source, it’s expensive high tech. Tariffs are meant to balance prices - like tariffs on cheap Chinese EVs, such that other EVs can be competitive on price. American stuff is already more expensive, so a tariff doesn’t change the equation.

People don’t need tariffs to incentivise themselves not to buy American. They need alternative options to American goods and services. Tariffs won’t do that, at least not without proper planning and re-investment.

Export tariffs would cause even fewer European goods in USA. Nah, let’s not do that.

Not necessarily. Canada has had some success with tariffing exports of electricity. The key part here is that the US can’t stop buying electricity, so sales from Canadian electrical businesses don’t go down, the US just pays more to Canada.

The point being, a tariff has to be clever. It has to minimise the damage at home and maximise the damage overseas. Trump’s tariffs don’t do this, because he’s trying to damage America just as much as he’s trying to damage everywhere else.

Other countries should not do what Trump’s doing, as it will damage their own country.

We’re going to hit them where it hurts.

That’s the thing, a retaliatory tariff probably won’t hurt them. For one, it would only (mildly) affect certain US businesses. For another, people generally don’t have an alternative source, so they end up just paying the tariff. Both US businesses and local people get hurt, the only benefit is that the government gets more money - but that’s not really a benefit if the government isn’t re-investing it. The US government doesn’t really care about US businesses, so they’re not going to capitulate. In the end no one wins except the two governments have more money to piss up the wall.

We’re already looking at buying less from the US wherever possible. People want alternatives, and the US isn’t a cheap source (like China is) so it’s already easy for local businesses to undercut them on price - you don’t need to add a tariff to tip the balance. Tariffs won’t incentivise people, they’re already incentivised, they need options.

If a tariff isn’t paying for such an option then it isn’t worthwile.