Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
It's like when the GPT links were archived and publicly available that contained sensitive information.
With that being said, when it works, it works great but you have to evaluate whether it's suitable on a per-project/script basis.
Benchmark 1: python3 0_mvp.py bench.txt
Time (mean ± σ): 104.739 s ± 3.982 s [User: 104.213 s, System: 0.158 s]
Range (min … max): 100.303 s … 108.005 s 3 runs
Benchmark 2: python3 1_c_regex.py bench.txt
Time (mean ± σ): 14.777 s ± 0.017 s [User: 14.563 s, System: 0.158 s]
Range (min … max): 14.759 s … 14.791 s 3 runs
Benchmark 1: pypy3 0_mvp.py bench.txt
Time (mean ± σ): 9.381 s ± 0.204 s [User: 9.110 s, System: 0.234 s]
Range (min … max): 9.245 s … 9.616 s 3 runs
Benchmark 2: pypy3 1_c_regex.py bench.txt
Time (mean ± σ): 4.296 s ± 0.031 s [User: 4.038 s, System: 0.236 s]
Range (min … max): 4.262 s … 4.324 s 3 runs
First, the networks have brand protection stipulations for any partner that uses the network. None of them want to be known as the porn brand.
Second, porn (and other similar categories) have a different risk profile than other charges. Specifically chargeback risk goes through the roof. None of the members of the network want to deal with sales of things that spike chargebacks.
Third, the federal government and some states have outsourced enforcement of some laws to the banks and payment networks. It’s easier to ban things than to do this enforcement at times.
None of this is a ethics issue and none of this is about money transfers. It’s about extending credit, and there is no technical solution around credit extension with electronic payments.
Deleted Comment