hansolo

Cool beans.

JFC on a stick. Here's a few reasons why this is assenine.

10 years ago implementers tried to stick blockchain into everything. It flopped over and over again. It's simply not practical for 99% of what humanitarian assistance does.

USAID programs and budget and spending was all FOIAable and heavily audited public record. Do you want to see the invoices submitted for all programs in Malawi from 2018? You used to be able to get that. Annual reports showed detailed budgets. Presentations to Congress presented detailed budget documents. Top to bottom this was already more detailed than a blockchain can realistically provide. They broke a system because they couldn't understand the difference between dense and detailed but visible, and impractical EILI5 level simplicity.

So you put the transactions on a chain. Great. How does that turn into a salary payment for Malawian staff who only have Malawian bank accounts? It doesn't. So now you have 2 systems. Meaning twice as much opportunity for error and chance for fraud to go unrecognized.

Most developing world fraud is things that look like perfectly reasonable procurements where the terms of the tender are overly specific as to limit who can win a bid (see Oklahoma school bible solicicitation). Blockchains don't correct for that. That's all public information in most places, which is why the fraud has to be so clever.

The data is based on a sample, so unless your relatives collected a phial of spit from you and didn't tell you why, there's not a lot they would really have. Maybe name and DOB based on a family member adding it to a family tree, but you can likely just ask your family of they did that. IIRC, that's a premium feature anyway.

What disagreement? This is literally what Rubio said in his confirmation hearing.

Oh cool, I have a free OK cupid account I can delete? Fun!

This is the best thing I've seen online in a week.

Not really. I've only seen it at a couple local type places. No large chain has it as a standard combination. TBH, that's kind of weird to peg that of all things as "an American" slice.

I also use them, and have liked the results.

Literally only because they handle similar payments on a smaller scale. All they'll end up doing is selling the debt anyways, they can't possibly do the servicing themselves.

That's implied. Wouldn't have it any other way.

That's not how any of this works. The contracts are with the individual people, listed by name. They assumed they could do what you said, and the law proved them, and you, wrong.

Welcome to a core aspect of the lawsuits so far and under whose legal authority contracts can be canceled.

It's not a liability issue, it's about details of under what legal authority based on job roles things can happen, and who is or isn't around to exercise those authorities.

A contracting officer doesn't spring from the head of Zeus fully grown and convered in the armor of niche personal liability insurance. They are legally required to take specific trainings before they can have signing authority. That's the law... Today at least. And the GOP has struggled with it because thinking and details are hard for them.