• tiramichu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I don’t understand the PayPal one either.

      Who is the ‘first party’ in this case? The banking system as a whole?

      If it’s the whole banking system then I’m not sure how that’s solved, because as I understand in the US it’s still not easy to send money to another private individual via the banking system. And there are Venmo and cashapp and such now but they are just other third parties.

      Meanwhile in the UK here it has been possible for decades to send money between bank accounts directly, and free. I still use PayPal though, because my use for it isn’t sending money to individuals, it’s being able to buy things online without creating an account and without giving my card details.

      Maybe people are thinking in phone terms, and the first party is “Apple” or “Google” and the solution is Apple Pay or Google Wallet?

      • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Thank you for providing a different point of view, I didn’t realize things were so complicated in the united states. In the EU there is a system called iDEAL which iirc is maintained by a collaboration of different banks and lets you pay for stuff online instantly and with zero fee. For sending money person-to-person, there are apps like tikkie that are just a thin wrapper around iDEAL. And in cases where these things don’t work, you can just do a direct bank transfer by typing in the other person’s IBAN in your bank’s app/website. Slightly less convenient, but still nearly instant and zero fee.

        • groet@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Never heard of iDEAL. Wikipedia says its a a Dutch system that was acquired by the “European payments initiative” last year. The EPI just became active as a payment system 1 month ago.

          This is VERY much still in development and not at all an established system in the EU.

        • Lemzlez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          iDEAL sounds a lot like Bancontact/Payconic in Belgium.

          Which doesn’t do everything Paypal does either. Others have mentioned the buyer protection, but there’s also multiple payment methods you can link to it, subscription management, and one-click payments (where it also enters your address for shipping) - and crucially: available worldwide.

        • Redredme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ideal is not the same, by any means, as PayPal. Read up.

          With ideal you loose your money. Ideal is made from the pov of the bank and the shop selling you stuff. Its almost impossible to claim your money back without the sellers consent.

          Tikkie is not the same as PayPal since tikkie only works with EU banks. (and quite possibly at this moment only NL banks) PayPal does not need a bank account. Its also not really a wrapper around ideal but thats another discussion. And mostly a semantic one so lets not go there.

          Effe wat meer moeite doen en de kleine lettertjes lezen medenedelander :)

      • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s that PayPal was one of the firsts to provide a method for collecting credit card transactions electronically.

        Before PayPal, you’d often have to visit a website, then call the phone number for the seller to collect payment.

        eBay needed paypal because their sellers were often not businesses, just people yardsaling stuff online.

        Coincidentally, I interned at a PayPal competitor in 1998 that went under during the bust. We had an electronic interface through MS access, but it was a still a human entering in the CC number into one of those dial pads on our side and then confirming the transaction. I’m sure with all of the concerns around security nowadays that you can understand why that was a terrible long term business model.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        in the US it’s still not easy to send money to another private individual via the banking system

        Bizarre

      • puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        In Poland for online payments everyone uses Blik. It lets you generate six digit number in your banking app that you then give to the site you’re making payment to. Your banking app then asks you if you want to make the payment with information about how much you pay and to whom. You accept and you’re done, no card details were shared.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yea, this isn’t US focused. A person working here from the UK told me “They tell us when we go over to expect a nice modern society with a third-world banking system. Oh, and guns.”

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      In the EU we have SEPA instant transfers

      For a global solution you’d want Wise or Revolut or something. Or PayPal, but the others have features PayPal doesn’t. But there are instances where PayPal wins.

      But all the different banking systems are still a mess sadly.

      • NickwithaC@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Given that banks’ whole thing is transferring money you’d think they’d have got that sorted from the start but no.

        • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          My hypothesis on this is they just don’t want to facilitate moving money out of their bank to another one. Moving money between accounts held by the same bank is usually much easier. The major US banks are for-profit businesses, after all.

          Alternative hypothesis - US banks aren’t implementing new features because they’re mostly all still running on ancient IBM mainframes.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’ve heard from people in banking and in health care that regulations around transferring money and health information have not at all caught up to modern technology in the US. They’re tedious and cumbersome, which means thing more more slowly and more haphazardly.

          • Euphorazine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            My guess is no one is willing to take on the liability. Any new system that introduces bugs or introduces attack vectors from hackers don’t want to be responsible for any lost money and I’m sure banks/insurance don’t want to take on the risk either.

            Magnetic tape and clearing houses for the indefinite future!

        • Kairos@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No? Is it? Isn’t Zelle just like a directory?

          Either way it’s owned by the banks. It is the first party solution.

          • tiramichu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Then I think I was wrong, and you are right.

            As someone not from the US I knew of zelle but never used it, and believed it was a direct competitor to Venmo or PayPal.

            The reason I thought it was its own thing was because it has its own app, and a catchy silicon-valley-startup type name, and a brand logo, and all of that.

            Contrast that to the UK where the ability to send free person-to-person payments has been integrated directly into the banking system for decades, and does not have it’s own brand, or app or anything.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      What first party solved the issue with PayPal?

      iDEAL solved it for countries that participate. For countries that don’t, sadly there’s no good first party solution. Revolut and Transferwise are much better alternatives to paypal tho.

      • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        India also has very good and robust online payment infrastructure.

        It’s actually mind-boggling that USA hasn’t figures that one out, despite being saviour of capitalism.

    • GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, I don’t get it either. I made a store for my website a couple of years ago, and jQuery was crucial for me to handle all the events and triggers. Trying to do it in pure JavaScript looked like a complete nightmare.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Many of the things that jQuery made easy back in the day are now pretty easy with pure js (Ajax calls, improved selectors, programmatic DOM manipulation, etc), and browser support for most JS features is way more standardized.

        Granted, your pure JS is likely to be way more verbose to write, making it look more intimidating than jQuery.

        That being said. jQuery is performant in modern browsers, and when being delivered compressed and minified is tiny, so if you want to use it, go for it. Anybody who criticizes you or tells you “you should use [x]” for your online store or website is a JS elitist.

        jQuery is really only a “bad” choice for big interactive web apps, where frameworks that handle state and routing independently of the DOM are a much better choice.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          jQuery is performant in modern browsers, and when being delivered compressed and minified is tiny, so if you want to use it, go for it. Anybody who criticizes you or tells you “you should use [x]” for your online store or website is a JS elitist.

          I was huge into jQuery but the “modern” frameworks seem like a complete dumpster fire full of poo to me.

          All of this MVCC non-sense, and components and services and bundlers and shit, megabytes of libraries and tons of time spent in the build process, security vulnerabilities in libraries like “hash-dash-framework.js” in the dependency chain, a final output that requires gigabit speed to load in a reasonable timeframe, and still I see the pages developed with Angular making 4 or 5 calls for the same fucking bit of information from the backend.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In many ways you’re correct, the “modern” js toolkit can be a nightmare. I work for a SaaS company that makes emergency management software. I’m pretty proud of our setup. It’s Vue 3, it’s incredibly optimized. We have tree shaking and code splitting, e.g. there’s hundreds of potential JS files you might load using our software, but they will only load when you need them, over a brotli compressed HTTP/2 connection so it really is efficient.

            With the amount of data we process through our API and how it’s presented to the client it would be a nightmare to not have Vue for state management and routing, axios for API calls, etc. But many SaaS products certainly aren’t optimized like ours

      • Ahardyfellow@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I just created a new tool for my company, and I opted to leave out jQuery as I wanted to see how it would be without it.

        After going through the process I don’t think I’ll use jQuery again unless it is already a dependancy. Vanilla pretty much has everything covered that jQuery made easier, just need to be a bit more verbose in some cases, but I’ve found that typically makes the code easier to read and modify.

        No hate if jQuery is your thing though, just if you’re on the fence I’d give vanilla a go and see if it fits your needs!

    • _____@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      jQuery is very slept on imo. I think new Gen react heads don’t understand just how much you can do. Iirc the minimized size is also very small.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    jQuery

    We gonna ignore the crap storm that is JS frameworks, npm packages, and entire superset language to make JS half usable?

    Not to mention literally everyone still uses jQuery while pretending not to.

  • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    I feel like Jquery is unfairly lumped in here.

    While other solutions have eclipsed Jquery, it doesn’t mean it’s in any way bad. Unlike the other products here, it’s still a capable library that solves the tasks it sets out to do. It never became a bloated mess or sold out to the highest bitter.

    That being said I wouldn’t really use it today. It doesn’t play that well with modern tooling, and it is extremely easy to write anti patterns into your code. I would recommend either VanillaJS, a web component library like Svelte, or React depending on what you’re trying to do.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah, I though so too. Like, the antiviruses use actively malicious marketing tactics to scare users into giving up their money, paypal is a piece of shit, and flash was a security nightmare. Jquery is allright. If a website uses it and nothing is actively broken, then there really isn’t a reason to replace it.

  • Korne127@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    What’s better than PayPal / what issues does PayPal have? I don’t know any better alternative…

    • badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I assume just normal credit card payments online? PayPal started because people were scared to use their card online, but now you get all the same buyer protections and insurance.

      • woodgen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        How do you send money to friends or businesses with credit card? Is there a paypal card which has your login information printed on it?

        • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Venmo usually, but many banks have built in cash payment apps too.

          I’m 35 and never had a PayPal account and have never felt the need for one

          • woodgen@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Obviously you can do a SEPA transfer as well, but it’s not instant and you have to type a long number and don’t have a consistently good user experience. Bank apps lack good UX. Stuff like “send this friend 5 bucks again, this is his profile picture” and are a pain to log into.

            I don’t say I like paypal or banks, i actually dont like either. But paypal is just more convenient.

    • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      For a merchant; PayPal fees are quite high, their merchant support is abysmal and you have to be a decent size SME before you get a dedicated account manager.

      And dont even get me started on their so called “merchant protection” offer for disputes.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      PayPal stole my money and I’m far from the only case. Venmo is much better, but still provides fundamentally the same service

  • Lumilias@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    On the enterprise side, we use McAfee/Trellix and we’re pretty much glued to them for endpoint security. Why? Nobody else allows you to write custom YARA rules straight to the IPS engine like Trellix does.

    Every other vendor only allows you to use rules they have defined for you and doesn’t give you that low level access. It’s frustrating because their support is dogshit too, but my company has niched itself into a corner.