Notably absent here is the fact that planes can land themselves. In fact the plane can do everything on its own besides taxi on the runway and takeoff...most of the time. Yes, pilots are there to take over if needed, but that doesn't change the reality of autopilot which is not just "keep it in a straight line"
Hang out in the Aviation StackExchange long enough and you'll see exactly that question come up. "Why do we even still have pilots?", or "What does a pilot actually do?".
Yes, in general, people are ignorant of what pilots do and what AutoPilot can and cannot do.
This is made even more confusing by recent progress in autopilot with some large jets getting auto-landing features.
And yes... a pilot can program the FMS with waypoints, altitudes, etc, get into the air, push a button... and the plane will indeed fly itself. Modern jets even have automatic throttle/power control too.
A better name for Tesla's system is what it actually is... Driver Asist. But that's not sexy... and we're far off into the weeds.
"Instant" means instant. There is no way to paint it differently.
It's disingenuous to call an ACH transfer "instant" instead of "It'll take several days during which time we'll lend you money", like RH did here.
"15 minutes" to settle cash for next trade is enough "instant" for most traders I think. The part that irritates people is the "2 business days" problem in the regular account.
I have heard it is complicated, but can someone elaborate the "computing cost" of a regular (non-coin) digital transfer?
Btw, transfers within 15 minutes are being done all over the world without the fancy blockchain and coin. I do understand the need for some transfers to be delayed , say liquidating all of one's investment to take a few days just for security reasons.
All of that risk is associated with holding the goods and currency for this delayed period! It all makes sense, but, if ACH was 10 minutes instead of two days, the entire issue would barely matter.
> Complicated enough that it took the invention of Bitcoin to take it out of the bankers hands and move it to the digital realm.
That's not at all what bitcoin does or helps with.
Settlement is not complicated. ACH is complicated, but ACH isn't just settlement. Bank to bank wire transfers are just settlement, and are regularly same-day (even same-hour) with immediate fund availability.
That’s not the same as what parent comment was suggesting. You can’t send money to literally anyone using only an email address. You and the recipient still have to have regular bank accounts within the settlement system. The email address only serves as a more friendly identifier than the account number.
I should've been clearer: as long as the recipient has linked their email and/or mobile to their account (via PayID) settlement is instant and their email/mobile number can be used to address transfers
There is precious little explanation in the article you cite on how this is actually implemented on the back-end.
Banking plumbing is notoriously harder than most folks realize, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't very hard (and very small) limits to how big of an amount / how many TPS you can actually execute with this system.
I might be wrong, but I'd be surprised if you could move 10M pounds instantaneously with this.
In a lot of countries bank transfer is near real time. Chip and pin is the standard for more than a decade. Checks are no longer al primary way to pay anymore.
Yeah, but with lightning you really need enough value along the network path(s) to execute a transaction, possibly causing a similar thing as this to happen. I still think it would be an improvement though, as enthusiastic buyers could expand the network and get their buys through.
> Yeah, but with lightning you really need enough value along the network path(s) to execute a transaction, possibly causing a similar thing as this to happen.
It's atomic, it either completes 100% or it fails, there's no partial state where the money gets stuck in one of the middle-nodes.
