The new Google Pay won't work with Google Apps for Your Domain / Google Enterprise / Google whatever they are accounts, which I think means my new pixel 4a will lose NFC payment capabilities soon.
I'm devastated.
I've owned virtually every Nexus/Pixel phone, and have been an android user for 10 years. When I purchased my original Motorola Droid (after standing in line outside the Verizon store in 2009) I also decided to pay for gmail via (what was then branded) Google Apps for your Domain, under the assumption that if you're paying for it, you have more control, you can move the email address away from the custom domain, etc.
I've been nothing but happy with it for 10+ years. Sure, every now and then some newly-launched google product wouldn't quite integrate well, but especially over the past 5 years or so it has been "just another google account".
When I try and install the new Google Pay, I receive an "Account not supported: Enterprise accounts are not supported on Google Pay, please sign in with a personal account" message.
I really hope this is fixed soon, or an error, or there will be some alternative. I literally have given google money at every opportunity, but soon they will take away my ability to give _other people_ money with my phone.
Sounds like it’s time for you to exercise the end-game move you smartly prepared for since day 1: move your email to a new service and begin the painful but necessary task of decoupling yourself from Google. Their suite of consumer services is a RNG at this point, not to be relied on.
Unless they're going to reject your credit card for being associated with another account. Which seems entirely possible, though I don't know if they will or not.
You could also get another credit card, but what a hassle.
I've given up on Google. I used to love them as a company but I've just moved on to Apple. I no longer worry about them mining every aspect of my life (phone activity) for profit and storing it off to the web which is forever. I moved my files over to icloud and my email to ProtonMail. Neither of which seem as "slick" but they're fine and more privacy oriented. I've mostly only ever used MS and Open Office so documents weren't an issue. Apple Pay works fine as well. They don't mine your purchases but I'm sure the CC sell it off to 3rd parties so not much I can do about that but switch to cash and that's not going to happen anytime soon. I had been a pixel buyer myself (since the first nexus phone). Google has lost all their luster for me.
The GSuite/Google Workspace UX on my pixel 4a has been awful. It's so painfully obvious that they do not care. Their customer service sucks too, they sold me an expensive screen protector that immediately got scratched to hell, then told me to go fuck myself because it was past the return date (because I preordered...)
Obviously I cancelled Workspaces, but now my Fi account barely works, and I don't have the time/energy to deal with their idea of customer support (a community forum...) to fix it.
I am in the middle of this right now; new professor at top-10 university in CS (with a PhD in biomedicine). Funding science is a frequently-debated topic and everyone is aware there is a problem, but one part is that in the US we have combined four different organizations: federally-funded scientific research organizations, post-highschool education, vocational training (doctors, lawyers), and professional sports.
People think a LOT about the broken science incentives and write a lot about it, but progress is hard. On one hand, it's hard to facilitate what you can't measure, but many pushes towards scientific "metrics" feel a bit like trying to quantify artistic output: is the number of paintings/sculptures/etc the right thing to evaluate people on? What about popularity? What about popularity amongst art critics vs the general public?
The more I think about it the more I think we need to explicitly recognize the need for a diversity of sources _and_ structures. For people who don't know, here's an outline of funding sources. The metrics will be in grad-student-years (think ~$70k) because overhead/indirect-costs/etc. vary wildly. Yes, most of these orgs (esp the NSF) just want to fund labor, and there's an expectation that a lot of it is "training" labor.
- NSF: The big one for non-biomedical STEM, maybe $8B/yr. "normal" grants tend to be small, say 2 grad students for three years. But once you get the grant you can do whatever you want with it within reason. The grants are reviewed by "study sessions" where a team of your peers sit around and rank the grants.
- NIH: Budget is $32B/yr (4x the NSF), and very clinically focused. The staple, the R01, funds ~4 PhD students for 5 years. These are very hard to get and generally go to more senior PIs. It's common for faculty to get their first R01 AFTER they have tenure (7-years into the job, say 40 years old). Once you get the grant you can do whatever you want with it within reason. But the bar for getting one often requires you to have "preliminary data" which is effectively 30% of what you were proposing anyway. As funding gets tighter and more people apply, orgs have responded by becoming more conservative, pushing these preliminary-data-expectations even higher. Note that the NIH is very aware of these problems, and is trying to address them, but the entire infrastructure is dedicated to effectively brutal stack-ranking. Every time they suggest things like "maybe famous professors shouldn't have more than 6 of these grants" there's a lot of community pushback. Maybe they're not wrong? Maybe it is better to give Ed Boyden or George Church effectively a blank check.
- DOD (non-DARPA) : Various orgs like the Office of Naval Research, Air Force Research Labs, etc. fund a LOT of basic science. Each one has several long-standing "program managers" who are former scientists that have an agenda for the sorts of things they want to fund. A lot of this funding is dependent on how excited you can get the PM. Think of this like pitching an Angel investor. If you get in good with a PM they can fund you at a decent rate for a long time!
- DARPA : I have a soft spot in my heart for DARPA because the model is so different from the other orgs. A DARPA Program Manager 1. can only work there for 4 years (to prevent personal relationships between PMs and "performers" getting too cosy" 2. Generally is in charge of one to three programs during the course of their tenure. A "program" is a very specific research thrust with a lot of money behind it ($20-80m). They are CONTRACTS, not grants, meaning that the PM expects you to actually hit deliverables AND they can yank the funding at anytime. But they have had some great hits and deep pockets. When I almost went to be a PM it was pitched as "like being CEO of your own science startup". I don't think that's quite right, but it's not totally wrong either. Other fun facts include it can take two years to get a program off the ground, meaning the PM that STARTS a program is probably not the one that finishes it, so three years into your project you suddenly have a new boss.
- HHMI Investigators: The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is a MASSIVE philanthropic organization that funds biomedical research in the US. Two main mechanisms come to mind: HHMI Investigators, where they identify promising young scientists in academia and give them like $10m ($2m/5years? $1m/10 years? not sure the exact numbers) so they DONT HAVE TO CHASE GRANTS. Many HHMI investigators go on to win Nobel prizes and stuff, although the causal influence is murky (did the HHMI money let them do great work or is HHMI just good at picking winners?)
- HHMI Janelia : Evidently HHMI had so much money that they opened a CAMPUS in the mid-2000s outside of DC where they have 40 labs. Each Janelia "group leader" gets up to 6 employees (mostly postdocs, staff, a few grad students) and effectively an unlimited budget BUT you are evaluated based on publications/resources used. That is, unlike at a university (where if you spend $10m to get one nature paper, it's great! you got a nature paper! And in fact the university _likes_ that you spent more money because they get a cut) Janelia cares about the resources. Also groups can't grow huge (because of headcount limit) so you're encouraged to invest in capital and tech over labor. The catch? NO TENURE. You're renewed every 5 years, and whole research programs are sunset over 15 year timespans (this is new).
- National Labs: A lot of great science happens at national labs, but due to their legacy of nuclear stewardship they can be difficult places to do science (men with guns at the front of the complex!) Still if you're looking for a place to do mostly-science without chasing grants TOO much, and are willing to trade some autonomy to do good work, they seem like a reasonable place. They invest a lot in HPC as well if you're into that sort of thing. Not that much biomedicine though.
I love that there are so many different options, but I still think it's bad that SO MUCH of it happens in straight-up university settings. As I said I'm a new professor and the overhead of teaching and grant writing, coupled with the pandemic, really have me down and brainstorming other options.
That's a pretty accurate description of the national labs complex. It is part of the military industrial complex and it offers financial security in exchange of personal and professional freedoms. It is very difficult for one to get their ideas funded unless they align with research directions that come from the top, which are rarely inspiring.
I wish the legacy of the nuclear stewardship program could be separated into its own thing and fund the creation of a separate, open campus that can attract and recruit more talent to work on more innovative research directions. A place of greater transparency and openness. It's never gonna happen but I can dream!
National Lab scientist here. Too much of a revolving door has led to most National Labs becoming like universities now. LBNL is now effectively a UC Berkeley division (check it, their Lab directors, associate directors, division directors are all Berkeley faculty).
Secondly, DOE now is obsessed with the same productivity metrics, which flows down from the Congress. Dollars per paper has become the metric - which means you are trying to tighten the productivity screws all the time.
For example, I had five papers last year and was just barely FC (fully contributing) and narrowly escaped getting written up for unsatisfactory productivity. Even worse, unlike tenure, national lab scientist positions are entirely soft money funded. This state of affairs results in a situation where you need to be bringing in over half a million dollars per year to pay your salary+overhead if you are a famous person.
I'm devastated.
I've owned virtually every Nexus/Pixel phone, and have been an android user for 10 years. When I purchased my original Motorola Droid (after standing in line outside the Verizon store in 2009) I also decided to pay for gmail via (what was then branded) Google Apps for your Domain, under the assumption that if you're paying for it, you have more control, you can move the email address away from the custom domain, etc.
I've been nothing but happy with it for 10+ years. Sure, every now and then some newly-launched google product wouldn't quite integrate well, but especially over the past 5 years or so it has been "just another google account".
When I try and install the new Google Pay, I receive an "Account not supported: Enterprise accounts are not supported on Google Pay, please sign in with a personal account" message.
I really hope this is fixed soon, or an error, or there will be some alternative. I literally have given google money at every opportunity, but soon they will take away my ability to give _other people_ money with my phone.