I live in sweden.
All the Coop supermarkets closed for 3 days due to a cyberattack in the USA.
Maestro circuit went down for 1-2 days occasionally.
3 days with no food, if it happens in winter, are no joke.
All the Coop supermarkets closed for 3 days due to a cyberattack in the USA.
Maestro circuit went down for 1-2 days occasionally.
3 days with no food, if it happens in winter, are no joke.
I was in Sweden for 2 weeks in September btw. Using cash was a challenge.
The biggest pain was bill splitting at restaurants. That's so much easier with cash.
Lovely country, btw, recommended. California-ish prices. Get your SIM from 7-11, they're cheaper and also get the 7-day public transit pass, totally worth it.
> Using cash was a challenge.
Uh? Where did they not accept cash?
> 7-day public transit pass
This doesn't exist in every city. We don't have it for example.
When I was in Stockholm and Uppsala in 2019, all supermarkets I visited had signs posted saying that they do not accept cash. Around the same time I read an article from an American newspaper (New York Times?) about how, for example, even Swedes selling coffee at events could easily get payment terminals and no longer wanted to take cash.
People selling coffee and stuff will use swish, which no tourist ever will have.
Second to respond: "Uh? Where did they not accept cash?"
As a tourist I mostly went to restaurants, cafes, and museums. The grocery stores still took cash but the other places not so much. I had to make a decent effort to get rid of the remainder of what I had prior to my departure. Tourists and locals often don't have significant cross-overs, so that might be the difference in our experience.
I defer to you of course on the actual experience of cashlessness. I wish you the best.
The overarching question of freedom from surveillance is much more interesting. It sucks, but it seems for most of us the tedium of using cash is much more inconvenient than value of the perceived loss of freedom & privacy.
I don't see why we must pay fees to foreign companies and give them all of our data.
But the average swede doesn't care about privacy at all. We have a website where you can just look up the address of everyone.
Three days with no food will have no negative consequences of any kind. It isn't even possible that you'd be harmed by going without food for such a short period.
I just recovered from pneumonia; one of the symptoms was a loss of appetite. The disease was not a joke; the fact that I didn't eat for three days was meaningless.
(Lack of water can cause problems much more quickly than lack of food can.)
It's also not an argument in the context of maintaining payment systems. Who even needs to pay for anything, right? People survived just fine before there was money.
Going without food for three days has no negative consequences. There are no effects that will last beyond your next meal. And of the effects that occur before then, none are significant. You will not be stopped from doing anything you might otherwise have liked to do. You won't even be inconvenienced in the effort.
"No joke" is much stronger language than it's reasonable to use for that circumstance.
I can clearly tell that you've never been in Sweden during the winter.
The first and last of those combined to create severe problems related to dehydration, such as when I briefly passed out in the kitchen and had an uncontrolled fall into the furniture there.
So my advice tends to be focused on that problem: force yourself to drink as much as you can (I was given a target of two liters a day which proved to be less than would have been ideal, but it was about all I could do to drink that much in a day), stock water or, better, sports drinks close to your bed so that you don't have to get up before rehydrating, and ideally have some people around you who can check on you and bring you things.
When I did not appear to be getting any better after three days, and a splitting headache persisted through a fairly aggressive schedule of tylenol and ibuprofen, I visited an emergency room and was given antibiotics. That's when I learned I had pneumonia.
Medical advice on loss of appetite was: don't worry about it; whether you eat or not doesn't matter at all (assuming you and your appetite recover on a reasonable time frame).
Back on topic, this is true in general of formerly healthy people. Lack of food will not cause any problems in the present, because you were not suffering from it in the recent past. And unless it persists a long way into the future, it also won't cause any problems in the future, because you will regain access to food and start eating again.
Try not eating for three days when you're otherwise healthy, and observe what it does to your body and mind.
Only the first 18 hours or so are a problem (depending on your eating habits) day 3-5 are the best, because your mind is really clean and you don't feel any usual discomforts from eating late or eating something you shouldn't.
You do feel light and weak of course and I'd recommed avoding any hard work but otherwise 3-5 days without food is completely fine (assuming you don't have any conditions that require a stable intake of food).
That's the point here. It doesn't do anything to your body and mind. Both will continue functioning at the same level as before. Three days is not a significant period of time to go without food. This is like asking what happens to your car if you drive it for an hour without refueling. Nothing will happen unless it was already running on empty.
There is a very common belief that missing meals for a single-digit number of days will hurt you, but this is not based on reality.
Note that, if you assume that fasting has negative effects on your body and mind, the immediate implication is that eating is more important when you're sick (and need to be functioning well), not less important. The implication is false over the short-to-medium term, and this is possible because the premise is false.