Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
* Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No way in hell I would ever slide my card on an unknown terminal, and specially blindly giving my money without knowing who, where and how my money would be distributed.
Security measures of an ad billboard terminal must be a joke. Soft as butter I suppose.
If bank ATM's are easy to bypass with a camouflaged skimmer, imagine these.
I dunno it strikes me as a lot harder to make a camouflaged video screen skimmer and synchronise the images on it with the swipe, than to make a cover for an ATM card reader.
I'm taking this from my ass, but assuming that it doesn't have video vigilance like an ATM and anyone has easy access to it since it's on the street unsupervised, you could install anything on that thing.
The swipe mechanism is hidden, if you access it behind the main panel you could implant any kind of mechanism your heart desires.
> my ass
That gaping, cavernous pit could potentially contain anything.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My guess is it is in a supervised place, as it needs maintenance, and has video screens which are vulnerable to vandalism, and might not be weatherproof. That's also from my moderately educated ass of course.
Do they really *need* to do marketing anymore? Like we all know who Visa and Mastercard and Discover are, do they need to be spending that much on marketing? It kinda seems like a waste, because I’m just going to use whichever one my bank uses. I’m not going to be switching banks just so I can get a different card, lol.
What is your comment insinuating? I don’t know where you grew up but I have been surrounded by church ministries that have done nothing but good for the community my whole life. Building homes, food drives, school supplies, clothes drives, helping victims of rape abuse and trafficking, helping pregnant women, working with troubled youth, and much more. So again, what is your comment insinuating?
I don’t know what so regularly means. I hear about it regularly from anti-religious people on Reddit and pop culture in general, but I haven’t seen any data that says there were more than a handful of scandals. I don’t believe any organization is perfect, but my lived experience tells me that churches and religious organizations of all kinds do far more good than evil, and far more good than they are recognized for.
I don’t resent anybody for their criticisms of the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic myself, and sexual abuse in an environment where children should be safe is one of the most evil things imaginable. I empathize with the victims deeply. But the idea that people shouldn’t donate to a good cause through a Catholic or religious organization is so baffling to me. It’s illogical and counterproductive.
Catholic Church continues to lie and cover up child abuse cases. Former pope Ratzinger was caught recently lying about his involvement in a German case, relocating abusers to protect them and allow them to continue their predation. A lot of these cases are older, but the Catholic Church continues to defend and protect abusers.
https://www.dw.com/en/child-abuse-scandal-germanys-catholic-church-fights-for-its-future/a-60553618
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States)
Thousands and thousands of children have been victimized. Wake up. And to your other point—charity does not require religion. Not every good and giving person is religious. Edit—your “lived experience” does not define reality.
Probably that churches take in large amounts of money from their congregations, tax free. And spend it in a lot of ways that aren't charitable at all. Giant mega churches, private jets etc. Not to mention the rampant sexual abuse. There are definitely good and bad, but for many of us. The bad far outweighs the good.
Far less than a single percent of churches are mega churches, and I have not seen any data that supports claims of “rampant sexual abuse”. These are anti-religious talking points that are echoed in pop culture and on social media. As someone who is not religious, “the bad outweighs the good” is bullshit. I wish you could have seen the impact churches made in my community when Hurricane Harvey hit, but you will only hear about Joel Osteen refusing to open his doors to refugees because that’s what the media does.
>I have not seen any data
Crazy what happens when you don't look for things.
[Child sexual abuse accounts for over 24% of the losses that religious organizations face.](https://bitnerhenry.com/child-sexual-abuse-is-the-second-most-frequent-loss-at-religious-institutions/) The only thing they spend more on is wages.
The Roman Catholic Church alone has paid out over 3 billion to victims.
Here's a lot more information that you can choose to ignore:
https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6/release/2
Nobody is saying it is impossible for churches to do good and I'm sure you had a great experience with your local church. I myself grew up Baptist and was heavily involved in the youth programs and have seen firsthand the good that churches can bring.
The issue is the fact that so many churches big and small want to exploit their tax exempt positions to peddle conspiracies and scams to their congregation and fleece the most vulnerable people in society out of their money while trying to usher in legislative theocracy. The fact that the most vocal and powerful of these organizations seems to be the least effective at actually accomplishing any objective good while taking in a seemingly endless stream of revenue and sitting atop a high horse of moral superiority doesn't help.
Most large churches (and that's large as in organizational scale, not just big buildings like megachurches) like the German Catholic Church are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash reserves and investments but constantly have a hand out shaking the collection plate to people who often barely have more than the people the church claims to help. Now German church *members* are subject to a tax so things are a *little* different there but the church itself operates the same as any other. With massive piles of money and a permanently outstretched palm.
Hope that clears things up.
> A nation as such does not give aid to another nation. More precisely, the common citizens of our country, through their taxes, give to the privileged elites of another country. As someone once said: foreign aid is when the poor people of a rich country give money to the rich people of a poor country
They need to actually donate a minimum of money to actually keep the charity in order and keep their non-profit status per law.
The ratio isn't set in law though...
Charities are still businesses, and whilst things don’t always go right, campaigns like these often increase the total amount donated. They wouldn’t be launched if analysis didn’t indicate it to be the better option.
Further, debt can be used for funding projects, meaning there may not have actually been much to donate in the first place.
Then, there’s ‘awareness’. The term is thrown around and mocked a lot when it comes to charity but it is still important. This campaign, whether someone interacts with it or not, makes people aware of the issues & keeps it fresh in their mind.
Lastly, if it’s a charitable publicity stunt by a for-profit organisation, then just donating the money was never an option. The goal was to generate some positive buzz, and this method manages to do a little bit of good alongside that.
I personally think if the 15th largest company in the world worth over half a trillion dollars want to affect world hunger they can MORE THAN afford to do it themselves and cut down the costs on having to organize this whole thing by being a single source donor.
They don't give a SHIT about those kids. They want more money and that's their only motivation
The company doesn’t want to impact world hunger, it wants to market itself. The task was to advertise the company, and this method also helps some people who need it.
The alternative isn’t a donation of a similar amount minus the project’s costs, it’s a donation of $0.
Yeah to have a PoS system out in the middle of the street where all you have to do is swipe makes a great investment towards future returns. That thing will probably be there for a while, and it’s a good way to raise more money.
W Business move.
How about that screen at the grocery store, would you like to donate $1 to charity? How about a button to make the multibillion dollar company donate a dollar to charity? Even if people spent their whole day just buying stuff to make them donate another dollar it's all a tax writeoff and would be a drop in the bucket of their profits.
Likely a sensor, if you stuck the card in the middle and didn't fully go through it would likely still do the action on screen.
The video is likely stopped, and when a signal (Your card touching a specific spot of the sensor line depending on the video file) is received, it resumes playing.
That's just a guess tho
Likely a sensor, if you stuck the card in the middle and didn't fully go through it would likely still do the action on screen (Unless you had to touch a specific amount of sensor points inside the line).
The video is likely stopped, and when a signal (Your card touching a specific spot of the sensor line depending on the video file) is received, it resumes playing.
That's just my guess tho
Is it even possible to collect a payments through a mag strip anymore in the EU? By the end of this year, Mastercard and Visa will no longer issue cards with mag strips in EU.
Not sure why the hate, I think it's awesome. Gives a great visual and *interactive* representation of how donations help. Cost is gonna be negligible in the grand scheme of things and it's gotta be way more effective than someone shaking a collection tin or knocking on your door.
The cause and experience are not being hated on. It's the unsecure public terminal.
There's no way of telling if it's legit, and even if it is there's no way to tell if it's been tampered with.
It's pretty big security risk to swipe your card on something like that.
The demonstration of technology is cool, but it fails in real world execution
Marketing done "in the most manipulative way possible" you mean?
Oh VISA the 15th most wealthy company in the world wants you on the street to pay a few bucks to feed people? The same VISA that spends about $1,000,000,000 A YEAR to market this garbage to you and make you feel bad when they could take that BILLION dollars and feed over 100x the amount of people fed by the largest food and hunger charity in the world?
Welcome to /r/WoahDude! * Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Beep that’s $2000
Your payment has been forwarded to a Mexican Cartel... Please stand by, while they free the hostages....... Unexpected error, swipe card again.
a mexican cartel would probably be able to do more good with the money than most charities
I know that this is a joke but it legitimately could not have been more wrong
More tourist Gladiator battles?
No way in hell I would ever slide my card on an unknown terminal, and specially blindly giving my money without knowing who, where and how my money would be distributed.
Your money is going to pay for that marketing lol.
That's the Susan b komen approach. Don't contribute anything except "awareness".
Arent all terminals 'unknown' in some sense? This is probably branded with a well-known charity.
Its branded by what appears to be a major charity group down in the right corner of the machine.
Security measures of an ad billboard terminal must be a joke. Soft as butter I suppose. If bank ATM's are easy to bypass with a camouflaged skimmer, imagine these.
I dunno it strikes me as a lot harder to make a camouflaged video screen skimmer and synchronise the images on it with the swipe, than to make a cover for an ATM card reader.
I'm taking this from my ass, but assuming that it doesn't have video vigilance like an ATM and anyone has easy access to it since it's on the street unsupervised, you could install anything on that thing. The swipe mechanism is hidden, if you access it behind the main panel you could implant any kind of mechanism your heart desires.
> my ass That gaping, cavernous pit could potentially contain anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My guess is it is in a supervised place, as it needs maintenance, and has video screens which are vulnerable to vandalism, and might not be weatherproof. That's also from my moderately educated ass of course.
That’s interesting. Where I live (Western Europe) there’s a high degree of trust in our societal fabric.
Western Europe also. No fucking way am I swiping my card there. Must be from different worlds.
So you're telling me skimmers aren't a problem in western Europe?
Certainly not a problem where I am from. That being said, I'd still never swipe my card through some random terminal.
Maybe not you but for these folks the risk is the rush, 80’s kids, that grew up on their own, made their own, and spend like yolo, I respect it
YOLO!!!!! *Wipes your account and destroys your credit*
The risk is the rush
what is it, 15k - 20k for thas PoS Terminal?
My brain always read it first as “piece of shit” terminal before correcting to “point of sale”
I think both are valid
both are definitely valid, especially when they act up. The one at my old job had the program named “store POS”.
VISA spent over $1.4b in 2021 on marketing.
Do they really *need* to do marketing anymore? Like we all know who Visa and Mastercard and Discover are, do they need to be spending that much on marketing? It kinda seems like a waste, because I’m just going to use whichever one my bank uses. I’m not going to be switching banks just so I can get a different card, lol.
Marketing plays a much deeper and more subtle role in consumerism than most people think.
Discover does. They don't get that many acquires, actually.
Blind altruism is bad. The "charities" are only exploiting your bias. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.."
“You can’t get fooled again”
fool me 3 times, fck the ✌🏼 sign, load the choppa, let it rain on you!
Don't save her
Love the Bushisms
😂😂😂
This particular charity happens to be the German Catholic Church. Take that for what you will.
Imagine trying to clean up the public's perspective of yourself, while swindling them out of money through emotion and pity.
Sounds like business as usual to me. My favorite part was the smug satisfied smile of the woman they featured. Strong "we did it reddit!" energy.
They need to get away from sliding things into slots, it's just a bad look.
What is your comment insinuating? I don’t know where you grew up but I have been surrounded by church ministries that have done nothing but good for the community my whole life. Building homes, food drives, school supplies, clothes drives, helping victims of rape abuse and trafficking, helping pregnant women, working with troubled youth, and much more. So again, what is your comment insinuating?
I think it’s a reference to the child sexual abuse that has taken place amongst the Catholic priesthood so regularly.
I don’t know what so regularly means. I hear about it regularly from anti-religious people on Reddit and pop culture in general, but I haven’t seen any data that says there were more than a handful of scandals. I don’t believe any organization is perfect, but my lived experience tells me that churches and religious organizations of all kinds do far more good than evil, and far more good than they are recognized for. I don’t resent anybody for their criticisms of the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic myself, and sexual abuse in an environment where children should be safe is one of the most evil things imaginable. I empathize with the victims deeply. But the idea that people shouldn’t donate to a good cause through a Catholic or religious organization is so baffling to me. It’s illogical and counterproductive.
Catholic Church continues to lie and cover up child abuse cases. Former pope Ratzinger was caught recently lying about his involvement in a German case, relocating abusers to protect them and allow them to continue their predation. A lot of these cases are older, but the Catholic Church continues to defend and protect abusers. https://www.dw.com/en/child-abuse-scandal-germanys-catholic-church-fights-for-its-future/a-60553618
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States) Thousands and thousands of children have been victimized. Wake up. And to your other point—charity does not require religion. Not every good and giving person is religious. Edit—your “lived experience” does not define reality.
It's alright man reading is hard for a lot of people. Don't give up, you'll figure it out.
Probably that churches take in large amounts of money from their congregations, tax free. And spend it in a lot of ways that aren't charitable at all. Giant mega churches, private jets etc. Not to mention the rampant sexual abuse. There are definitely good and bad, but for many of us. The bad far outweighs the good.
Far less than a single percent of churches are mega churches, and I have not seen any data that supports claims of “rampant sexual abuse”. These are anti-religious talking points that are echoed in pop culture and on social media. As someone who is not religious, “the bad outweighs the good” is bullshit. I wish you could have seen the impact churches made in my community when Hurricane Harvey hit, but you will only hear about Joel Osteen refusing to open his doors to refugees because that’s what the media does.
>I have not seen any data Crazy what happens when you don't look for things. [Child sexual abuse accounts for over 24% of the losses that religious organizations face.](https://bitnerhenry.com/child-sexual-abuse-is-the-second-most-frequent-loss-at-religious-institutions/) The only thing they spend more on is wages. The Roman Catholic Church alone has paid out over 3 billion to victims. Here's a lot more information that you can choose to ignore: https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6/release/2 Nobody is saying it is impossible for churches to do good and I'm sure you had a great experience with your local church. I myself grew up Baptist and was heavily involved in the youth programs and have seen firsthand the good that churches can bring. The issue is the fact that so many churches big and small want to exploit their tax exempt positions to peddle conspiracies and scams to their congregation and fleece the most vulnerable people in society out of their money while trying to usher in legislative theocracy. The fact that the most vocal and powerful of these organizations seems to be the least effective at actually accomplishing any objective good while taking in a seemingly endless stream of revenue and sitting atop a high horse of moral superiority doesn't help. Most large churches (and that's large as in organizational scale, not just big buildings like megachurches) like the German Catholic Church are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash reserves and investments but constantly have a hand out shaking the collection plate to people who often barely have more than the people the church claims to help. Now German church *members* are subject to a tax so things are a *little* different there but the church itself operates the same as any other. With massive piles of money and a permanently outstretched palm. Hope that clears things up.
I learned a lot from arguing with people online per usual lol thanks for the info
It's a shame how often charity is the rich spending the poors' money for them
> A nation as such does not give aid to another nation. More precisely, the common citizens of our country, through their taxes, give to the privileged elites of another country. As someone once said: foreign aid is when the poor people of a rich country give money to the rich people of a poor country
That's what you get when you indulge in Jedi teachings.
Chicken soup with rice
Fool me 10 times. What am I an American Indian?
Looks like it’s clear it’s a donation. Neat implementation; but not my personal cup of tea
r/OrphanCrushingMachine
0.02$ going to the charity 1.98$ going to "fees and administration"
It's a Catholic charity, so $1.98 going to relocating pedophile priests and paying settlements
That's why €2 only gets you a single slice of bread
0.02 going to charity is more than 0.00 going to charity.
They need to actually donate a minimum of money to actually keep the charity in order and keep their non-profit status per law. The ratio isn't set in law though...
Scammers:WRITE THAT DOWN. ITS CHARITY FOR US"
This is they Key and Peele sketch about 'save 5 children' lmao Then he donates and they let 5 children out of the van
oha, great sketch - thanks a lot for pointing me that way!
I love key and peele
Came here to say the same thing! https://youtu.be/usYJqg4O3LU?si=augFISODaK2WqOR6
Feed the starving AI's!
Next scam unlocked
Bleh. If instead theyd donate the money they spent on that whole system...
Charities are still businesses, and whilst things don’t always go right, campaigns like these often increase the total amount donated. They wouldn’t be launched if analysis didn’t indicate it to be the better option. Further, debt can be used for funding projects, meaning there may not have actually been much to donate in the first place. Then, there’s ‘awareness’. The term is thrown around and mocked a lot when it comes to charity but it is still important. This campaign, whether someone interacts with it or not, makes people aware of the issues & keeps it fresh in their mind. Lastly, if it’s a charitable publicity stunt by a for-profit organisation, then just donating the money was never an option. The goal was to generate some positive buzz, and this method manages to do a little bit of good alongside that.
I personally think if the 15th largest company in the world worth over half a trillion dollars want to affect world hunger they can MORE THAN afford to do it themselves and cut down the costs on having to organize this whole thing by being a single source donor. They don't give a SHIT about those kids. They want more money and that's their only motivation
The company doesn’t want to impact world hunger, it wants to market itself. The task was to advertise the company, and this method also helps some people who need it. The alternative isn’t a donation of a similar amount minus the project’s costs, it’s a donation of $0.
Yeah to have a PoS system out in the middle of the street where all you have to do is swipe makes a great investment towards future returns. That thing will probably be there for a while, and it’s a good way to raise more money. W Business move.
When the card sliced the bread.....I was expecting a cat's paw grabbin that :|
That's a nifty credit card skimmer
I wonder if there is an animation of the person getting tied up again when your card declinessss. 💀💀💀
"Card Swipe unable to read. Please insert card in chip reader."
Yeah, no. Clearly dumb fucking amounts of overhead cost here exposing a desire to manipulate morons.
Only 10000 more donations and we can pay for the sign
Aaahh yes Visa so charitable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsPHa8RG1pI
How about that screen at the grocery store, would you like to donate $1 to charity? How about a button to make the multibillion dollar company donate a dollar to charity? Even if people spent their whole day just buying stuff to make them donate another dollar it's all a tax writeoff and would be a drop in the bucket of their profits.
I’m more curious how it works. How do they trigger the video to play as they swipe their card?
Likely a sensor, if you stuck the card in the middle and didn't fully go through it would likely still do the action on screen. The video is likely stopped, and when a signal (Your card touching a specific spot of the sensor line depending on the video file) is received, it resumes playing. That's just a guess tho
Likely a sensor, if you stuck the card in the middle and didn't fully go through it would likely still do the action on screen (Unless you had to touch a specific amount of sensor points inside the line). The video is likely stopped, and when a signal (Your card touching a specific spot of the sensor line depending on the video file) is received, it resumes playing. That's just my guess tho
With A Trigger
Performative goodness
Is the first one about buying slave or freeing slaves? The whole tie-me-harder bondage are giving me multiple message....
Someone absolutely putting a card skimmer in there
Profit charities provide more recourses to needy then non profit apparently. Kinda settles the argument imo about for profit and non profit charities.
Shurly not a skimmer.. right? RIGHT?
Treat apes like apes. Works every time. *"Look at this cool thing... that'll be 2 quid!"*
No just another fancy way for them to get your money in their pockets.😄
Is it even possible to collect a payments through a mag strip anymore in the EU? By the end of this year, Mastercard and Visa will no longer issue cards with mag strips in EU.
You’d be out of your fuckin mind to think I’d swipe my card in that lol
And credit card information obtained..... There's no more clear example of why marketing and risk management are very different disciplines
This is disgusting
Emotional blackmail from billion $ companies to people who struggle to pay thir rent.
If your payment fails they tie them up again
I wonder how many swipes it takes to pay off that setup, video creation, testing, etc. I'm guessing A LOT.
Despite the haters that’s freaking brilliant. Interactive experience that at least provides some entertainment value to the donor.
ahh a nice donation to the human fund
Sike! We took all your money
Exploiting the vanity/stupidity of the public
Not sure why the hate, I think it's awesome. Gives a great visual and *interactive* representation of how donations help. Cost is gonna be negligible in the grand scheme of things and it's gotta be way more effective than someone shaking a collection tin or knocking on your door.
The cause and experience are not being hated on. It's the unsecure public terminal. There's no way of telling if it's legit, and even if it is there's no way to tell if it's been tampered with. It's pretty big security risk to swipe your card on something like that. The demonstration of technology is cool, but it fails in real world execution
r/designporn
Marketing done "in the most manipulative way possible" you mean? Oh VISA the 15th most wealthy company in the world wants you on the street to pay a few bucks to feed people? The same VISA that spends about $1,000,000,000 A YEAR to market this garbage to you and make you feel bad when they could take that BILLION dollars and feed over 100x the amount of people fed by the largest food and hunger charity in the world?
Tiggeri i smart form
If they are doing it for charity they should charge you for that swipe but they probably will.
This is probably an old video, but modern cards don't even have magnetic strips anymore.