Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | one-note's commentslogin

You don’t want to spend money you don’t have? Congrats, your credit score is trash and now you can’t rent a house (let alone buy).


You're not forced to use credit cards irresponsibility to benefit from the credit score boost they provide.


Sure, but you have to play the Visa/MasterCard game. We allow them to rule the country so much that if you’re not an active customer of theirs you can’t get a roof over your head. I don’t think any other company in the world has that much power.


Do you mean via credit cards, or on the whole, including a mortgage? We have a mortgage, but have made all but 1 or 2 credit card payments in 20+ years - we forgot to pay a $50 bill once, IIRC. Outside of the mortgage, we've never spent money that wasn't already in our bank account - not even "it's coming in our next paycheck". Our credit scores are fine.


I mean just credit cards generally. You have to play the MasterCard/Visa game or else lenders won’t rent to you. I’ve been denied many rental properties I could very easily afford because “oh someone else applied and their credit score was over 800”


Only in the US, building Credit isn't as important in other countries AFAIK.


You can pretty trivially set credit cards to auto-pay and use them as debit cards, with the only difference being a delay in any overdraft penalty.

Sure, if you overspend you get heavily penalized, and that's not great, but you don't have to spend a dime of interest to build a respectable credit score.


Again, you’re being forced into playing the Visa/MC game.


There are other ways to build credit, credit cards are just the easiest and most convenient.


That's only in the US. The few other countries that have credit scoring mostly have negative scores (basically, a lender can check if a prospective borrower has failed to pay loans/taxes/etc. previously). And it is only restricted to lenders.

It's a much better system than the dystopian American one where prospective employers and renters check your score, which is built based on a ton of relatively private information, to determine if you're worthy of renting or working. And people have to game the system by minmaxing credit cards to be able to have the chance of renting or even working. It's utter nonsense that doesn't serve anyone other than the credit card companies and credit score bureaus.


Cut the BS please. I do not have to use CC when I do not have money and still have perfect credit score. Personally I do use my CC only when there is no other option and I pay it off immediately after making a purchase. My credit score is perfect and I've never spent using CC more than I have on my account.


You’ve been playing the Visa/MC game for 20+ years to achieve a perfect score? You might then agree they have an overly large amount of influence in life?


I did not play game to achieve a score. came naturally. As already said I only use CC when there is no other option.

But yes I do agree that Visa/MC are an abomination and I would prefer them to die. Along with the idea of credit score.


React is and has always been javascript…


Not what the author of React says:

> Yes, the first prototype of React was written in SML; we then moved onto OCaml.

> Jordan transcribed the prototype into JS for adoption; the SML version of React, however great it might be, would have died in obscurity. The Reason project's biggest goal is to show that OCaml is actually a viable, incremental and familiar-looking choice. We've been promoting this a lot but I guess one blog post and testimonial helps way more.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15209814


Sure, a prototype of an idea that would eventually become React was rewritten into JS to create the initial seed of the software that would eventually be called React.


> Using our approach, power plants can generate five thousand kilograms of gold per year, per gigawatt of electricity generation (~2.5 GWth), without any compromise to fuel self-sufficiency or power output.


Quite a lot. The #1 right, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

Curious why this is downvoted?


Because the "fire" excuse is a favorite of those who like the 1A when it protects them.


I've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.


I've been pretty consistent in terms of supporting people saying things and even expressing views I find abhorrent.

I don't consider throwing rocks/bricks at people "free speech". I also don't consider launching fireworks into crowded buildings "free speech" either.


You're of course correct, but it's a complex issue. See my other comment for details.


>I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.

You attacked the idea of free speech for the other side in the same comment where you said this. I would assume based on reference to government infringements that you're referring to the first amendment as "free speech" if you hadn't specifically emphasized "idea"; conservatives have no real first amendment case, but they do get censored and suppressed by people with power. The idea of free speech is very much still in play when university admin cancels a guest speaker or a forum moderator only allows left-wing or non-political posts. What am I missing here?


No? I would defend the first example too, which is why I specified the idea rather than the letter (the 1A). Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me? That I think they're an asshole is irrelevant.


Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. If someone is being an asshole on a mailing list, I don't think it's a free speech issue to remove them, and I took that example in context to mean you were saying all conservative gripes were non-issues like that.

>Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me?

Yes, absolutely. I can name maybe 8, including the both of us.


Then you should read the article.


I did. I believe this sort of stuff to be, at least morally, a violation of the 4A. It's no secret that the anti-Israel protests have gotten an inordinate amount of attention from the law relative to any harm caused, and overstepping bounds like this even to catch actual criminals (as happened here) isn't worth the price paid in liberty.

My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.


Everybody feels the need to defend government overreach when it’s in their favour. The most famous example is any non-libertarian political leaning with free speech, but it was the same deal with the “left” complaining about Chevron v. USA being overturned when their guy was in power.


Yeah. It's not cool to be principled anymore, I guess...


> Curious why this is downvoted?

Probably people reading the article title without reading the headline, not realizing that that it's not only literally about shouting in movie theaters.

But tbh most commenters/voters on this site are reflexively imperialist, which is not surprising for a forum run by (and for!) capitalists in the imperial core. That's doubtless a big factor as well.


Don’t forget Orange!


The only way to have global uncensored sharing of information is shortwave radio. Always has been, always will be.


Yeah, also a good source of getting information from the world in full internet shutdowns.


Couldn't someone just jam an active shortwave band?


Sure. You play cat and mouse with SNR. Not trivial, but easier than the same with cut cables.


Triangulation exists to locate such stations


Did I say untraceable?

You’ll be found on the internet too btw. But far more easily.


What is the meaning of the percentage inside the “Detainee Criminal Information” pie chat? I see 71.2% nominally, then 100% whenever filters are applied.


This may just be the wrong behavior from what people expect. The center percent is just the percent that are not convinced of the selected filters. So depending on what you select, that will change.


Sorry… what does “the percent that are not convinced of the selected filters” mean?

Could you specifically explain what that 71.2% figure is?

Edit: Ah, if you hold your phone rotated the label “Not Convicted” appears. That is… a very odd way of spinning this data.


We, in fact, do have a presumption of innocence in the US. So yes, other than those convicted of crimes, others are non-convicted detainees. These people may be detained for quite a long time, too. That is the point this dashboard is making


I understand the intended spin. The claim is that it’s implantation is heavy handed and half baked.


Neat! Reminds me of 8 out of 10 cats does countdown. Only note is it’d be nice if the prior “yellow” square would be auto-injected if you click an operator when there’s no number on the left cell.

And maybe if it had more “big” numbers, the expert mode is still pretty easy.


> Reminds me of 8 out of 10 cats does countdown.

... "8 out of 10 cats" is a comedy troupe. Countdown is the name of the game, and in particular the Numbers Round: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countdown_(game_show)#Numbers_...


Yep, the show is called “8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown”!


The ones you see on Youtube are the special episodes where the comedy troupe plays Countdown.



Listen, this is like seeing a quiz game and saying it's like Celebrity Jeopardy[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Jeopardy!_(Saturday_...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: