In Australia it's pretty great: my driver's license can be provided by an app on my phone and legally must be accepted if it is. So between that and NFC payment support, a phone is the only thing I need to remember to operate outside the house.
In Australia it's pretty great: my driver's license can be provided by an app on my phone and legally must be accepted if it is. So between that and NFC payment support, a phone is the only thing I need to remember to operate outside the house.
It's pretty great as long as it doesn't evolve into them no longer printing the cards and requiring use of their app, consequently on one of their approved OSes.
I mean yes but that is a case of the slippery slope fallacy: the existence of a future possible decision does not affect whether a current decision is a good one.
If they try to move in that direction, we can protest it then. Denying ourselves a useful capability now doesn't stop it from happening anyway, nor make it more likely.
When a pattern is repeated many times, it is not a fallacy to recognize that pattern at the begining.
If I see a tiger crotched in the bushes, is it a fallacy to gather my children and head back to the cave?
Pattern recognition is not a fallacy.
When has this happened before? Presumably you have several examples near to hand since it's "a pattern".
I personally live in a country with a large religious population that rejects the smartphone, so thankfully I personally have not encountered a situation where needing a smartphone is vital. However we've seen many people right here on HN mention how some specific vital service - often government or banking - does require a smartphone.
Or you could just take cash, as long as you don't need to drive.