Capitalism is free market which allows you to switch providers freely and, if enough people agree with you, it will eventually create a market force that will make PayPal step back or lose it's business.
It may be greed and lack of sight from PayPal side, but capitalism tends to adjust itself.
Sadly in the US its creditcards or PayPal. Banking system is archaic as hell, no innovation in decades. The big American banks could digitalize and utterly rape PayPal if they wanted but why bother?
Can I really switch payment processors freely as a consumer? Or is my choice mostly to eat higher prices (^F “cost of doing business” to see my other comment), or not shop using PayPal?
Isn’t the point of “disruption” so popular in startup culture to leverage the agility of smaller enterprises (and even a pitch used to rise capital) the tool to fight old paradigms? My point being that it isn’t “capitalism” fault, but that the markets are lagging behind the demand and it will fix itself eventually (again, see Stripe efforts in this matter for example).
PayPal is long past the startup phase, though. They're a very well established player, and as such they have power they can leverage. A lot of people feel bound to use PayPal despite disliking the way they operate. That by itself is a sign of the market not doing what it's supposed to do in the ideal case.
Markets certainly don't always automatically fix itself. They require oversight and regulation, or else they tend to result in cartels and monopolies. The free market is great when it works well, but quite often it needs a bit of help.
Just one data point, I’m from Argentina, we drink Mate here (as in yerba mate with a straw) the custom is to drink it very hot (around 80 deg celcius) and never knew any one with oesophageal cancer. You start drinking it as a child with sugar and cold (60 deg) and you just get used to it. After a couple of years you drink it bitter (Mate Amargo) and hot.
As for the present prospective cohort survey https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.32220, I'm surprised the actual tea (processing method/brand) was not listed as a confounding factor. They mention PAHs but to the extent of their generic use of the term 'tea' throughout the Discussion section makes me question the utility:
"However, tea also contains several other compounds with unknown effects, and some potentially carcinogenic compounds may be introduced to tea when being processed (such as possible contamination of black tea with PAHs)"
I actually thought they were linking it to the temperature + the fact that mate is often smoked during processing (which is one reason I think I actually like the flavor unfortunately)
the fact that you don't know anyone with a rare cancer doesn't mean that the chances are not doubled. empirical one man observations cannot contradict a study even if the study is flawed
Not annoying, just Hacker News. Funny/cute/meme/etc typically gets downvoted, even if it’s directly relevant, because of the strong fear of turning into the circle jerk of endless shitty joke threads like Reddit.
