Post AzI27gyWIOKDs0BbLk by tbortels@infosec.exchange
(DIR) More posts by tbortels@infosec.exchange
(DIR) Post #AwwpfL8lYsHr1h1TY8 by dangoodin@infosec.exchange
2025-08-07T17:49:36Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
A reminder that software makers, hardware makers, cloud services, payment processors, and the like will throw their customers under the bus whenever it suits them. Your payment card, food delivery account, AWS instance, Gmail address -- all can be taken away on a whim for any reason or no reason. These providers are NOT your friend. Make plans now. Have backups in place. Practice self-reliance. Ween yourself off these one at a time.
(DIR) Post #AzI27gyWIOKDs0BbLk by tbortels@infosec.exchange
2025-10-17T01:29:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dangoodin Best, most practical advice I know to give: you need *at least three* sources of money for an emergency. That means (ideally) cash-on-hand and multiple banks. Because any one bank may at some point and without warning just decide to not work for a lot of bad reasons - and it can take months to straighten out. This is "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
(DIR) Post #AzI27ik3j7wjLjR55U by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
2025-10-17T05:09:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tbortelsThis of course assumes one has enough money to be practically split three ways! @dangoodin
(DIR) Post #AzI2Xxsq3Mhhq73Z9k by tbortels@infosec.exchange
2025-10-17T05:14:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tomjennings @dangoodin If you don't have enough money to be practically split 3 ways - you still don't have enough money to deal with your bank deciding to freeze your account for fraud (for example). You're probably better off going cash. Multiple accounts - even with only $10 in them - mean you can swap things over far more quickly than if you don't already have them set up. They also mean fraud can only get to part of whatever you do have. Do they solve for poverty? Nope. But that wasn't the goal.