The problem is people like you redefining what risk means, then saying the people who define it properly don't understand it. The problem is people with small minds or an agenda on their small mind, redefining what is important to others, and calling them stupid. By your false definition, the risk of me getting hit by a car when crossing a street is less than the risk of me getting killed by the smog cars make. While quantitatively true for a statistical population, it is qualitatively false. And people's opinions are qualitative - they're based on a definable reason, not just explainable symptoms. Guess what: black people are 15% of the population but commit 50% of the violent crime, according to FBI statistics. Quantitatively. Does not mean that statistic applies to a single random person on the street and he can be arrested because he's likely to commit a crime. That's your logic applied to risk of getting stabbed.
Here's the risk as society that doesn't pretend to be purposefully dense defines it: when something goes wrong, how bad it is. Take all the coal plant disasters, and compare them to all the nuclear disasters. Now let's take a future disaster, the reason for which you don't know and cannot account for with "new design" which will be called "old and faulty design" in a few decades. During that disaster, looking at past disasters, do you want that destroyed power plant to be coal or nuclear?
Coal has no risk. Coal has a well defined, predictable, and understood small and slow detriment. You define that as risk. The world defines that as the opposite of risk.
Lived in Kiev for a year an a half, took a bus trip to Chernobyl.. Guess what they got in that huge area where no one lives (actually there is a crazy old lady who lives there, still in her house). Did you guess it? Yeah, fresh tree stumps.
That radioactive wood is cut down by shady companies for free, and shipped to europe and other parts of Ukraine. Out of it you get houses and furniture. Did you account for risk of sitting on a radioactive couch in a radioactive house when you claimed you fully understood "risk?" Ah, that's because to understand the risk of something you first need to understand what the English word means.
Nice strawman. The topic is no cars in the downtown area. You are walking over 500ft downtown from your parking spot to your destination, and there is no Walmart downtown.
AMEX is what provides that solution, and fine the merchant as a bonus. It's called disputing a charge. Other cards have the option too, but AMEX will fight for you the most. I've literally had merchants issue a partial refund, disputed the original charge, and ended up with bonus money, multiple times.
There is a cost to using credit cards. One of the main reasons to use them is this protection against bad actors, and punishment of those actors by fines.
Reversing the charges doesn’t work with Facebook because they will block your account and for most people that’s not an option. And Americans Express is not going to fine Facebook or suspend their merchant account. That’s for small merchants.
I doubt even a company like Facebook is very big by credit card processing standards. Visa and Mastercard constantly run a huge amount of money through their systems. If your fraud rate goes above a certain level they give you a warning. If it stays too high they'll cut you off.
Yeah, a company that stored your credit card number and charged it w/o your permission - don't want to get blocked by someone like that. Definitely never an option for most people.
You can dispute CC charges in Europe as well. All of my cards specify that I should do this as soon as possible, but no later than one year after the charge.
I have never needed a chargeback, but I had a peek at MasterCard's policy just now and it looks like you need to contact the issuing bank. I would assume it works the same for other four-party schemes such as Visa.
I click dispute in my online statement, check a couple of checkboxes to verify type of transaction, and write 1 line of why. Takes 30 seconds. Visa is not good for this, so I never use a Visa.
Here's the risk as society that doesn't pretend to be purposefully dense defines it: when something goes wrong, how bad it is. Take all the coal plant disasters, and compare them to all the nuclear disasters. Now let's take a future disaster, the reason for which you don't know and cannot account for with "new design" which will be called "old and faulty design" in a few decades. During that disaster, looking at past disasters, do you want that destroyed power plant to be coal or nuclear?
Coal has no risk. Coal has a well defined, predictable, and understood small and slow detriment. You define that as risk. The world defines that as the opposite of risk.
Lived in Kiev for a year an a half, took a bus trip to Chernobyl.. Guess what they got in that huge area where no one lives (actually there is a crazy old lady who lives there, still in her house). Did you guess it? Yeah, fresh tree stumps.
That radioactive wood is cut down by shady companies for free, and shipped to europe and other parts of Ukraine. Out of it you get houses and furniture. Did you account for risk of sitting on a radioactive couch in a radioactive house when you claimed you fully understood "risk?" Ah, that's because to understand the risk of something you first need to understand what the English word means.