Haha patio11 is great but he sometimes does things slowly that I can do fast. I went to Chase and needed to withdraw $50k from my account and they were willing to do it. I had some $115k at the time in it.
In the end I only needed $15k. There’s some stuff you have to fill out explaining why but it’s not something that requires too much work.
In my case, I was paying a wedding vendor and they only took Zelle or cash. I only needed $15k but I wanted to keep more in case other vendors were going to be like this too.
They asked me why, I told them, and then asked them if they’d make me 100 accounts so I could get around the Zelle limit. They said it wouldn’t work but that they wouldn’t do that anyway.
> There’s some stuff you have to fill out explaining why
I have never had to fill out anything. My credit union didn't even ask why I wanted the cash, they just asked for a second form of identification due to the amount being over 10k.
I know they fill out a SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) as required by law, but it's seemless on my end (besides waiting while they fill it out).
I always read about people being hassled by their banks, but never credit unions.
Banks are not required to file a SAR just because you withdraw (or even deposit)
over 10k. They are required to report it, but the report is not a SAR - having a SAR filed can be bad, because too many filed about you will likely cause banks to refuse to open accounts for you.
> having a SAR filed can be bad, because too many filed about you will likely cause banks to refuse to open accounts for you.
Aren't SARs private? I thought having too many filed against a person would cause a bank to terminate a banking relationship, but not prevent other banks from opening new accounts.
From what I understand, there are other reporting systems in the US like ChexSystems and EWS that do facilitate this form of information sharing.
Idk, maybe I heard wrong way back when. When I deposited a large amount of money, at another credit union, they knew who I was, but they asked for my driver license number (which I verbally told them) presumably for some report on their computer. Also when I withdrew the money from the first credit union, it seemed like they were filling out some ling form as well.
Maybe that was it and I misremembered. All I know was that it wasn’t onerous. I walked up to the teller, described things, and asked for the money. Then it struck me I could ask for the many accounts thing. Then it struck me I could just take the $15k and deal with the rest later. It was a while back but there was slightly more friction than when I usually take out smaller amounts like a few thousand.
Banks have always worked with me when I needed large cash withdrawals. They always like if you talk about it beforehand (e.g., don't go in and say you need $30k for a car NOW, but tell them you'd like it next week).
It helps tremendously if the bank manager knows you, or at least recognizes you.
Mine was pretty straightforward. I just walked up to the teller. I might have misremembered the filling in thing but I could have had my $50k in the next few minutes if I hadn’t changed my mind.
I’m in SF so this isn’t a big amount and I’d been to this branch once before. So it wasn’t like I was Al Pacino in Scarface pulling up shaking hands or anything.
I'm sorry, but you are an order of magnitude out of touch with the average American consumer. Average savings balance under the age of 64 is below $73k.[1] Median savings is below $9k. Most people will, outside of their retirement savings, never have access to an account that has over $100,000 in it.
Never.
Not one day in their life.
Median household income is $80k/yr.[2] Personal savings rate is under 5%.[3] As is noted in the title of the article, there are two Americas.
Yes, generally the only people who would be able to withdraw $50k from a savings account are people who are well-off enough to have $50k in a non-retirement savings account. Doesn't it follow, then, that such a person would be seen by the bank as a "well-off customer" and thus enjoy higher withdrawal thresholds?
I don't think the OP ever purported to be doing something the 'average American consumer' would be doing, just relating their experiences to the linked article.
They don't have access to an account with 100k in it because that would generally be pointless for a normal person. A great deal of people have 100k in clear real estate or stocks. Only a moron leaves 100k sitting doing nothing but wait for it to get inflated to oblivion.
Haha, a bit snide but not inaccurate. Over the year I had that money in there gaining nothing, I lost thousands of dollars of value. Even just putting it into a HYSA would have been better.
Everything else aside, I find it very unusual from an amateur journalist's perspective that his intuition led him to doubt the veracity of this story, yet, his biggest clue he went on was supplied by the writer themselves, who he was doubting. Seems like a good way to waste a lot of time or come to a completely wrong conclusion.
> yet, his biggest clue he went on was supplied by the writer themselves, who he was doubting
I mean arguably it was such a weird detail that one would not have made it up (and, also, if, as you'd kind of expect, there were no branches at all with upstairs tellers, that would obviously invalidate the whole thing).
Encyclopedia Brown and the Case He Created for Himself Based on His Own Misguided Skepticism Where Everyone Turned Out to Be Honest and Accurate and There Was No Actual Mystery at All
Thoroughly enjoyed the writing style and the process of solving the mystery withdrawal, even though the outcome wasn’t what I expected. Consumed through an email client so the AI image didn’t bother me either.
tl;dr author was skeptical of a famous story about a writer who got scammed out of $50k cash she withdrew from her bank, because it's actually very hard to get any bank to just hand you $50k of your own money in cash. After months of diligent investigation, author established that writer was well off and was treated differently from regular people because her bank branch is in an upscale neighborhood with a lot of rich clients.
That's because the point of this article isn't really investigative journalism about this one case and whether or not it actually happened (or at least, it's not only that). It's using that as a jumping off point to inform someone about some of the ways banks operate. If you are not interested in that, then the article isn't for you, but it's not "overwritten".
But that's what's infuriating about this article: it doesn't really inform us about the ways bank actually operates, because it seems clear Patrick had made some massively misinformed assumptions about how banks actually operate. He goes into many words about how $50k is such an unwieldly amount for the average bank to have on hand. So is that assumption about the average bank wrong? Or did he wrongly assume that a New York branch of America's 2nd-largest bank operated similarly to any small-town independent bank, and if so, why would he do that?
My read on patrick's article is that he knows that banks operate differently for a select few, and his primary error was assuming the author was not in that elite class. And the Vox article sends a mixed message that encourages the error.
For Patrick's part, he does preface this entire article with a "file drawer effect" caveat. It's more of a Twitter corrections column than an HN worthy post:
> It no longer looks like a surprising lapse in procedure, when someone attempted to empty their entire savings account and wasn’t even half-heartedly counseled about caution. It looks like trivial cash management of a well-off, presumptively sophisticated client, whose household, resources, and probable financial future were thoroughly known to the bank.
For sure, good on Patrick for going in-depth on "well my hot take was wrong". But his accusation was more than a twitter hot take; he accused the NYMag writer (and basically, everyone who worked with her) as brazenly committing the most unforgivable crime in journalism. If I were to shoot off my mouth and say "Based on what I know about software engineering, Patio11's [insert one of his ventures here] is almost certainly the Theranos of code" — I would most certainly give a thorough reflection on how my priors and knowledge about software engineering seem to be deeply flawed. Not just "I read 1000 of his blog posts and published articles, and turns out Patrick is a more experienced engineer than I assumed he was. Guess I could've googled more before going off on him."
I seem to have set you off somehow, and I do not understand precisely how, but I feel this is important: I did not publicly accuse the writer of anything. (I did heavily imply publicly that I thought that the publication had no real fact checking; when they told me otherwise, after I requested a statement, I swiftly corrected that publicly.)
I had some doubts that the story, as presented, was true. I did what I hear journalists do, and went out and reported the story. Some people apparently believe this was an aggressive action, and some people believe that the original story was strictly true, and I can understand either of those beliefs separately but holding both at the same time seems tricky.
I did not believe that New York Magazine was complicit. I harbored the suspicion that they might be incompetent. This suspicion was exacerbated by unambiguous evidence of them being incompetent, in failing to detect that a 17 year old claiming to have made $72 million trading stocks, and then doubling down on that story because their fact-checker had passed it.
You have made, in this thread, several claims that I am wildly miscalibrated with respect to banking procedure. I do not believe I am. For example, I seem to be able to make confident predictions like "Oh, if the teller window is on the second floor, that narrows the selection of bank branches sufficiently to be probably uniquely identifying given any other piece of information" and be proven retrospectively right on those predictions.
If you would like to take issue with my other claims about banking procedure, pick the one that looks fishiest to you, and then propose odds.
> I did not publicly accuse the writer of anything
C'mon, what scenario do you have in mind where New York magazine "materially disavows the article" [0] but the writer, Cowles, is not guilty of fabulism (presenting a creative writing exercise as non-fiction would count as that level of deception)?
> You have made, in this thread, several claims that I am wildly miscalibrated with respect to banking procedure.
I am very confident that you know far more about banking policy and conventions than I do. So when you assert that the facts of NYMag do not seem reconcilable with the reality of American banking, I'm happy to take your word for it. Now that you've essentially retracted that doubt, a doubt so strong that you were willing to spend thousands of dollars to investigate it over a year, I'm very confused about your priors. Was Cowles being richer than you had thought possible your only flawed assumption? Like if she had only written "btw I'm from a rich family and I live in an owner-occupied home in Brooklyn", that alone would have been enough to resolve the many issues you raise about the unlikeliness of a $50k cash withdrawal? What's the threshold of wealth in which that $50k transfer is given cursory approval? Is the $50k easy because she's a one-percenter? Would it be easy if she is/were merely in the top 5% or 10% of household wealth
One of my main frustrations about your writeup is that it sets up these questions and then fails to answer them, as if the fact of Cowles' unspecified wealth is alone the self-evident answer? Speaking as a layperson, I assume that being a 30-something living in New York who had $80,000 in savings and checkings alone -- which she explicitly states in her article -- would be enough to qualify for a no-hold-up same day $50k withdrawal from a New York bank. Is that not the case?
> I had some doubts that the story, as presented, was true. I did what I hear journalists do, and went out and reported the story
And genuine kudos to you, the world would be a better place if "trust, but verify" were our default modes of operation. I guess what bugs me is that your article opens with a detailed examination of how NYMag fumbled that 2014 profile of a teenage millionaire, but you end your own investigation after being apparently satisfied with a fact-check that seems almost as facile as the one purportedly done for their retracted 2014 profile.
Presume a universe in which Cowles did indeed publish a fabrication; it would require an extreme motivation for her to risk torching her career and in such a highly public and scrutinized fashion. Such a motivated person could easily put in the work to make sure that the bank they allude to vaguely fits the description they choose to publish (tbh, we should ask ourselves why would an ostensible fabricator would even choose to publish that "upstairs" detail, when they can easily formulate a description that vaguely applies to a dozen New York banks?). The fact that it's in a police report is, as you say, not a big deal given the light consequences of a false police report (and not a big deal, especially compared to the consequences of career suicide).
> This would be a very different piece if that police report, or any other documentation at a trusted institution, named e.g. 266 Broadway instead.
Why exactly would it be different? What if she had named 266 Broadway to the police, and omitted literally just a single word from her published article ("upstairs"); how would that change the thrust of your dogged investigation, which seems so premised on your knowledge and assumptions of the banking system? So many words and so much effort (again, kudos to putting in the infuriating work needed to get the NYPD to respond) are devoted to this one detail that one can't help but think it was a significant factor in quelling your doubt. Ironically, it reminds me of the strategy that Cowles' alleged scammers used: provide her with seemingly hard-to-know real world information (her SSN, her physical address, that her "2-year-old son was playing in [her] living room") to lull her into believing something much more significant (that the scammer is a CIA agent about to arrest her husband).
You aren't scamming us of course (hey it's not your fault for us choosing to read your article). But asserting that this second-story bank detail is worth attention, implying that a fabulising Cowles wouldn't have put that much thought into her lie, feels like a disservice to the rigorous investigation that your article promises. And without an equally significant number of words dedicated to how you may or may not have had miscalibrated assumptions wrt banking procedure, this is why your article feels incredibly frustrating.
> Speaking as a layperson, I assume that being a 30-something living in New York who had $80,000 in savings and checking alone -- which she explicitly states in her article -- would be enough to qualify for a no-hold-up same day $50k withdrawal from a New York bank. Is that not the case?
I'm no banking expert, but I'm pretty sure no-hold same day withdrawals of that size need much more than that. I wouldn't be surprised if her family has contracted with Bank of America for private banking and family office services, which is usually economical around the $10M assets under management mark (wikipedia says 50M[1] but I've seen lower numbers cited in FatFIRE). In which case the savings and checking figure is essentially nominal, as the wealth is there, but tied up for estate planning (read: tax minimization) purposes; if someone needs money, family offices can set up credit lines. I imagine in that scenario they're basically paying themselves interest.
In any case I doubt any bank is willing to publicly state what the thresholds are in a way anyone could cite, for fear of scammers using that info against them or their clients.
That's one of the things I thought Patrick's article would shed more specific light on, e.g. is it necessary to be in that kind of rarified group (e.g. someone rich enough to have special services with the bank)? Or is being rich enough to own a $3M+ home enough?
The reason why I think the threshold may be much lower than what Patrick insinuates it to be, is because similar big cash scams have been reported by people seemingly much poorer than the NYMag columnist:
> What happened next is tragic for Colleen as she went to her bank. “I told him how much I had in there and he told me to withdraw everything but the $700. I told the lady I need to withdraw $19,000. I said I needed it cash.” Colleen said.
$19,000 is of course less than $50k, but it's still well above the $10k anti-laundering reporting threshold, and it involves a victim in Knoxville for whom that $19k represented her "life savings", yet it seems the bank didn't stop her from a same-day total withdrawal.
(note: this Knoxville incident happened in Dec. 2024, so it's of course possible the victim is perpetrating a copycat fabrication after reading the NYMag article)
I felt like I was giving it a second and third chance, and then I realized it was only a third of the way in. Thank you for confirming my suspicion here.
When I heard about this story I had assumed she kept the money in her home. How did she get all the way through withdrawing the money without at any point thinking something about the story didn't add up? Mystifying.
> As I walked back to my apartment, something jolted me out of my trance, and I became furious. No government agency would establish this as “protocol.” It was preposterous.
Unfortunately, the doubts apparently didn't win.
I guess there's a sort of Anna Karenina principle of scams: A successful scam takes a long list of things going exactly right for the scammers, and the unsuccessful ones are much less likely to be widely publicized.
Coming from a fan of the blog/newsletter, and with all due respect for publishing negative results and long-form writing about money as an aesthetic as much as a journalistic/educational endeavor:
This would have really benefited from a "tl;dr: I was wrong; that one bank branch really has a teller window on the second floor".
Still a worthwhile read if you enjoy the genre, but a small part of me wants my lunch break back that I spent reading this…
The point was that the mention of the 2nd floor teller window was an inconsequential detail that was enough to identify the branch in question, and a gateway to show off his obsessiveness for researching minutiae. But definitely a "genre" article more than his other, more informative ones.
What's not clear to me is: why the confirmation that the NYMag writer's bank has a 2nd floor teller window is enough to mollify Patrick's intense skepticism that her $50k transaction happened like she asserts. If she was already going to torch her own reputation and journalism career to fabricate this scam story, why wouldn't she have the intrepidness to research what various Brooklyn banks look like? Or actually, why would a purported fabricator even bother to give that specific detail at all, which would make it easier for anyone (as Patrick attempted) to narrow down where the fakery did/didn't happen?
I mean the NYMag story was incredibly dumb and far-fetched, even compared to most scam stories. But the fact that she didn't write it pseudonymously, and gave the specific date that it happened, and also claimed to have called the police, that felt enough for me to give her the benefit of the doubt her story was more or less rooted in reality.
It wasn't; the key part of the piece is the revelation that $50K was not in fact a huge sum of money for someone in her socio-economic class. The thing that caught Patrick's eye originally, if I'm reading correctly, was that she didn't get the usual "come back in a day so we can get the funds together" message.
I suspect although I can't be sure that this is one reason why he's elliptical in this piece. The core piece of information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the original article. Personally if I'd just been scammed I would also want to minimize myself as a target, so I can't blame her, but it's the discrepancy that caught his eye.
> The core piece of information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the original article.
She does not misrepresent her wealth in her article. At no point does she claim to be scraping by. She states upfront that she has a gainfully-employed husband and a child and they live in Brooklyn, that she has $50k stowed away in an emergency savings account, and that she's been a financial columnist for the NYT and NYMag for around a decade.
Is it possible that such a New Yorker could have all those things while barely making in the middle-class? Sure, but an easy assumption in New York, and even Chicago, is that such a person is provided for means beyond their job income, e.g. maybe she or her husband worked at Goldman Sachs before their current careers, or come from rich families.
I too assumed that $50k was too big of a cash draw for any non-business account, but it didn't seem like a stretch to imagine that she fit the bank's profile of a wealthy customer (esp. at her young age). Patrick knows far more about the financial system than I do, so I have to assume his skepticism was founded in what he thought were widely applicable hard-coded rules and policy. I wish he would have spent a fraction of his word count telling us the assumptions/knowledge about bank rules that he had been misinformed on. Because this year-long multi-thousand dollar fraud investigation of his couldn't have just been because he didn't imagine a NYMag financial columnist might be wealthy?
She does not misrepresent her wealth in her article. At no point does she claim to be scraping by.
A direct quote:
> Initially, I was afraid that I wouldn’t be able to afford my taxes this year, but then my accountant told me I could write off losses due to theft. So from a financial standpoint, I’ll survive, as long as I don’t have another emergency — a real one — anytime soon.
I quote several more bits from the piece verbatim.
And how is that a misrepresentation? How people feel about their own financial situations and risk exposure is very famously and firmly in the realm of "that's just your opinion". There's no clear or correct interpretation of what "from a financial standpoint, I'll survive, as long as I don't have another emergency", unless you know her personally and know what she considers to be an "emergency".
A much better signal is that when she reflects on how the stolen $50k could have been used, she imagines: "I could have paid for over a year’s worth of child care up front. I could have put it toward the master’s degree I’ve always wanted. I could have housed multiple families for months." Sure, just because she didn't say "I could have paid off my mortgage/student/car loans" doesn't mean she doesn't have those. But it's a far stretch to assert that her written viewpoint sounds like a typical middle-class/upper-middle-class American, nevermind definitively excludes her from being rich (or at least belonging to one of the hundreds of thousands of millionaire households in New York).
> Sure, but an easy assumption in New York, and even Chicago, is that such a person is provided for means beyond their job income
Probably the biggest giveaway in the article was the $50,000 inheritance from a grandparent. When my grandparents died, they left the grandchildren a small amount ($500 each, IIRC), and the vast majority to their direct children. This seems standard to me, and if the ratios hold then she presumably stands to inherit far, far more in the future.
I find it hard to fault anyone for assuming people are like themselves in most ways. But maybe don't follow his twitter hot takes. Or twitter in general?
> The core piece of information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the original article
From the article:
> When recounted these same statements, my friend Byrne Hobart, who has actually lived among this social milieu before, laughed knowingly and said “Ah, family money.”
It wasn't a misrepresentation; it was just vague, and the author read it wrong.
Well, the phrase "I now doubt that account less" didn't evoke "this article outlines the non-refutation of a null hypothesis" for me when I initially read it.
After reading the article, sure, I can see that that's what was implied, but I can only say that it wasn't clear enough for me. I still enjoyed it for what it is, but I think I could have enjoyed it more if primed differently.
It's not just withdrawing money. Walk into a bank and try to deposit a check for $200,000 into your checking account that typically never has more than $2,000 in it and you will likely get some attention.
For very different reasons, though: If the check bounces, the bank potentially takes the loss if the depositor has already withdrawn/spent the funds.
In other words, this is a direct credit risk to the bank, not the more indirect reputational or relationship risk of potentially unwittingly or negligently facilitating a scam described in TFA.
Isn't "clear the ACH" actually something like 90 days? Even if that check is drawn on a reputable bank that has those funds (ie doesn't promptly reply with the ACH equivalent of NACK), that balance could just be another link in a chain of fraudulent transactions.
From what I can tell banks generally don't rely on airtight logical guarantees. Rather they have some kind of exposure on every transaction, which they work to reduce. This isn't the most efficient system, but they deal with more types of fraud than just fake checks.
That's usually the problem of the bank that did not decline a check/ACH debit for insufficient balance in time, though.
In other words, "at the time we paid/did not reverse this, we thought the payer account was good for it, but as it turns out it was funded via transactions that ended up being reversed, and now the account is in the red" is not a valid reason to claw back money.
And that makes intuitive sense as well: Only the paying bank has a complete picture of all account activities (including out-of-character/potentially suspicious ones), so it makes sense to primarily hold them accountable.
What is that timeframe though? I had the impression that it's longer than a week, which is the maximum time I've seen banks show newly deposited funds as not available.
This is why banks limit funds availability after deposits, especially for paper checks. Most banks will only allow you to immediately withdraw a small amount and hold the rest until the check clears so their exposure is very limited.
Jesus CHRIST — this article should be taught in writing classes everywhere, specifically, on why editing is absolutely important. I'd about how this article could be vastly improved if you cut out x% of its 6,500 words, but I can't even make that estimate b/c by the time I reached the end, I was no longer sure what the point of the article was.
> A style magazine published an account of a large cash withdrawal that didn't match my understanding of banking reality. I burned several thousand dollars and a year investigating. I now doubt that account less, because I understand the context better.
I'm truly at a loss at understanding how the author spent so much time and money to arrive at basically the same conclusion made by anyone who had closely read The Cut's essay [0] and the next-day NYT followup [1]. The Cut writer's family wealth [2] was already tweeted about during the viral discussion. The police report that apparently satisfies the author's skepticism was something that could have been pursued as soon as he finished reading the article, which clearly asserts that she made a police report.
Kudos I guess for detailing this laborious process. But if it took author this long to find a police report, then maybe he could trim the roughly 2,000 words devoted to exploring how dumb the media can be.
edit: one example of how tendentious this article is:
> The writer’s positive home equity, trivially available to the bank which wrote their mortgage, is well in excess of ten years of the median household income for New York City. The writer is the president of the family charitable foundation, which per its annual filings with the IRS has in the recent past held approximately $2 million in marketable securities. And the family estate in Connecticut (which the writer’s parents live at) was featured in the local paper, highlighting two hundred years of history.
> Discovering these facts radically changed my impression of why, per the writer’s written communication with me, she was not asked for the purpose of a $50,000 withdrawal by any bank staff. It no longer looks like a surprising lapse in procedure, when someone attempted to empty their entire savings account and wasn’t even half-heartedly counseled about caution.
So the author links to U.S. Census [3], which says the median household income is $79k. But it also says the median value of an owner-occupied home is $751k. I suppose having $800k in positive home equity is different than owning a $750k home...but she's a New York City-based writer at a prestigious magazine. Even if you didn't look up her address, it should have been obvious that she was obviously a different kind of bank customer than the ones that fit Bank of America's profile for scam victim.
Patrick's audience (for BAM especially) is 1) people who enjoy or are professionally interested in nitty gritty details of financial regulation, and 2) people who enjoy Patrick's personality and writing style. It's ok to not belong to either group.
And the point of the article is basically: Patrick can get obsessive about details, and here is an example of how that plays out in real life.
It's not word-count or details that I'm averse to, but purposeless word count. Patrick spends a huge amount of words alluding to why he thinks The Cut's story is total horseshit — and let's be clear, it was a comically bewildering story by any standards. But all of those details are pointless when the story abruptly concludes with "Well, she said it to the police so I guess it's likely not bullshit". If anything, I wanted more words of reflection by Patrick, explaining what made him so willing to bet an extravagant amount of time and money in investigating something so trivially affirmed? AFAICT, his skepticism starts from the assertion of "Banks just don't let an average person take out $50k in cash in a day". How is that assertion addressed by the fact that the victim gave the police a brief report of events? As if it wasn't possible that someone who fabricated this massive story in NYMag wouldn't also fib to the police?
1. The discovery of new facts that explain why a bank that won't let the average person take out $50k in cash would still plausibly let this person take out $50k in cash
2. The story having (verifiable) details that would be unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it, unless they went through a massive effort to fabricate a perfect story. While it is possible to fabricate a story that would pass thorough scrutiny, most fabricated stories would show inconsistencies or otherwise fall apart if looked at this closely.
Here's the graf that most resembles a thesis statement:
> Then, I read the article, with a particular attention to the paragraph quoted above. I felt that several elements of this paragraph were inconsistent with the standard practice of banking.
The quoted paragraph that he refers to:
> When I reached the bank, I told the guard I needed to make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs. Michael [a member of the scamming team] was on speakerphone in my pocket. I asked the teller for $50,000. The woman behind the thick glass window raised her eyebrows, disappeared into a back room, came back with a large metal box of $100 bills, and counted them out with a machine. Then she pushed the stacks of bills through the slot along with a sheet of paper warning me against scams. I thanked her and left.
How does "The Bank of America branch that she named by address (in the police report) has a second-floor teller window" a meaningful verification of the NYMag's problematic paragraph? Unless you think that literally the main problem with the NYMag graf is the first sentence: I told the guard I needed to make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs
> The story having (verifiable) details that would be unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it
She knows there's a Bank of America on 1 Flatbush Avenue. You really think that someone who spent months writing and working with an editor to publish a massive fabrication is too lazy to actually visit that actual location, especially when it's a short subway stop from her home?
> > The writer’s positive home equity, trivially available to the bank which wrote their mortgage, is well in excess of ten years of the median household income for New York City. The writer is the president of the family charitable foundation, which per its annual filings with the IRS has in the recent past held approximately $2 million in marketable securities. And the family estate in Connecticut (which the writer’s parents live at) was featured in the local paper, highlighting two hundred years of history.
Agreed. The author could have written, "it turns out the writer was from a wealthy family, grew up in a 200 year old home, and is president of the family's $2 million charity."
I generally hate long form articles. Something about this one was sufficiently different that I enjoyed reading it from start to end.
I think a big part of it is that there isn't any actual bullshit filler, and a lot of interesting information (even though it may not be critical for the TL;DR of the story). Most long form articles end up describing irrelevant details like the weather on the day of the interview, or the interior decoration of someone's house. Here, it's immediately clear why every piece of information is included, the article shares a lot of background information but tells something interesting with every paragraph.
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
idk, i think it’s as worth mentioning as the writing style, which a lot of the comments are about. and i think they’re fair — don’t mind the style myself
I’m beginning to think the lumpy intelligence theory is true… that if someone is way above average in some area they must also be below average in some other area(s).
Seriously, I quit any post that begins with a shitty irrelevant AI image. I really wonder what reasoning could possibly lead to one thinking "yeah, this will definitely improve my article".
In the end I only needed $15k. There’s some stuff you have to fill out explaining why but it’s not something that requires too much work.
In my case, I was paying a wedding vendor and they only took Zelle or cash. I only needed $15k but I wanted to keep more in case other vendors were going to be like this too.
They asked me why, I told them, and then asked them if they’d make me 100 accounts so I could get around the Zelle limit. They said it wouldn’t work but that they wouldn’t do that anyway.