Anyway, if that's the quality of conversation you're offering then abandoning the conversation makes sense. Have a good one.

However, even if it were only in the hundred millions, there's no reason to throw away millions of dollars. The reason PayPal services these lines of business in the first place is because they make money doing so (since unlike Stripe, PayPal's product isn't subject to the constraints of the card rails).

I'll take the bet that you're totally wrong.

You are overindexing on your anecdotal experience to draw conclusions that make no sense. Paypal earns roughly 6x the net revenue of Stripe while processing a similar volume of transactions. Paypal has obviously figured out how to service these businesses profitably, yet for some reason you think Stripe would throw away billions for no reason.

Make that logic make sense.

Correct. But do you understand why that is? What is the theory of mind you have that makes you believe Stripe would come in and shutting off paying customers?

> I do believe that Stripe will execute they same Stripe pattern in the merged company which will reduce choices in the market for businesses.

Why would they do that? This doesn't make any sense unless you actually think morals are involved.

Excuse me for interpreting the comment as written, but either way, the comment only makes sense if you believe that Stripe is going to take over paypal and shutoff profitable lines of businesses based on moral principles - otherwise, what's the problem?

If you actually understand that this is all about money, then it's obvious that this is not going to happen.

The tone of your original comment suggests you believe they're going to take over and start shutting off morally unacceptable money printers.

As usual, everything is about money. You can be sure that part of the interest in a paypal acquisition is paypal's consumer wallet product which allows them to extend into lines of business that are currently constrained by Stripe's model.

> I just write my code and then point node at the main file, and this even includes front-end code for the browser.

Then you said:

> I never said Node is did anything for the front end.

So which is it?

And yet you're using one. Esbuild is one of the most popular bundlers in the js ecosystem, your workflow is functionally identical to any other bundler workflow except that the example you provided is worse than the typical workflow because it builds the ts file on every request rather than just once when the source code changes.

In such a future there would be a handful of lucky well paid artisans, a healthy community of hobbyists, and the overwhelming population of the planet who would be perfectly content to delegate their entire software diet to generative superplatforms that script themselves to perform any arbitrary software function. The idea of paying for individual bespoke software programs would become an anachronism for an era where software was so difficult to produce that entire teams spent years painstakingly tweaking programs to spec.

> I just write my code and then point node at the main file, and this even includes front-end code for the browser.

It sounds like you're just making stuff up.

So in other words, you created your own bundler?

Node isn't actually doing the work for you on the front-end.

You run node with the TS support - great.

That doesn't explain how your front-end TS code is transformed into JS. You seem to be suggesting that node does it automatically, but it doesn't. The explanation of your setup isn't adding up.

So what exactly are you referring to here?