JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
20hr ago
I think I know what's going on here. This quote - and the data - comes from paper dating from 2013. And indeed, if you look at Figure 3b in my link, that was the case up to about 2017. When it changed, and rewards expenses started to exceed transaction income, and have exceeded it since. This also matches my own experience - a while ago, 2%+ no fee cashback cards either did not exist or were a rarity that required a lot of hoops to jump through. Now they are commonplace. As you can see in the graph, the rewards expenses went from ~3.4% in 2013 to about 4.5% in 2022, while the transaction margins decreased.
The article discusses (and refutes) the idea that rewards beneficiaries are "rich" and interest payers are "poor", but neither I nor thread-starter made such claim (it's not the fault of the article, obviously). In fact, both categories may be rich, or poor, it's irrelevant - the discussion about whether tx margins or interest is the main source of revenue does not require any specific income distribution among either category.
The article says:
I'll say, as an aside, this paper dates back to 2014, but it's the best available in field, in my personal humble opinion, and I don't believe the conclusions of it have materially changed.
Given what I have seen in my link, I must question this opinion and claim that while the conclusions of the article may have been warranted given the data from 2013-2014, the situation did materially change. At least a claim from the Fed to that effect strongly indicates it did, and one needs much more than an offhand "I believe" to counter that. Maybe the conclusions of the article - which differ from the initial claim - are still warranted, but I do not think that the old data in the article supports what you purport it to support anymore.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
If ICE was only deporting illegals, that would be true. But it doesn't seem to be the case. They are seen terrorizing not only legal immigrants but also US citizens.
No US citizens had been deported by ICE. As for "terrorizing", this is not a factual statement. It could of course happen that ICE briefly detained a citizen - since it is impossible to recognize the citizen by just looking at them, it could take time to establish the citizenship, but I don't think you can name an example of ICE purposely targeting US citizen for deportation.
The rest of your statements are even less factual - what exactly is "terrorizing" that supposedly costs a lot of money? Of course, the reality is much simpler - to deport even a small part of 20 million of illegals, all over the US, while facing violent opposition and total obstruction to any law enforcement from the side of local authorities - takes significant time and human resources. Humans insist on being paid for spending time working, especially when their work is hard and involves significant risk of being violently attacked. That costs money. Processing the illegals targeted for deportation in accordance with the procedure costs money. Leftist activists ensure it costs as much as possible and takes as long as possible. Mystery solved.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
What kind of intervention would work? Like, if US strikes major IRGC headquarters would it be enough? Government buildings? Something else?
I am kind of ignorant on the relative forces alignment there - like, is there some organized movement that can take over? Do they have some Schelling points to gather around? I mean, coming out to the streets is nice but that alone does not lead to the change of government - there should be some kind of competing structure to displace the existing one? I mean there's the previous Shah's dynasty, but how popular they are? How much resources would they be able to control if they decided to take over? Who will be fighting in the streets and who will be commanding them on the ground?
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Yes, you are correct that this a-priory does not imply so. But The Fed seems to think so: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/credit-card-profitability-20220909.html
First, we find that, on average, the credit function makes up approximately 80 percent of the credit card profitability, whereas the contribution of the transaction function is slightly negative, as rewards and other expenses on credit card transactions outpace banks' interchange revenues. In addition, fees—in particular late fees—comprise approximately 15 percent of credit card profitability.
Of course, they are talking about profit and not revenue here, but I think one implies the other, and I think it is reasonable to say that if 80% of the profit comes from credit function, then the credit function is the one that "pays for" the enticement features - like rewards, is it not? It looks like if not for the interest, the rewards would outpace the transaction fees, and the whole business model would have been infeasible. The credit revenues, however, make it feasible. The original claim has been:
Except for all the people who get into massive credit card debt who these programs are actually trying to target and where the credit card companies make all their profit.
And according to the link I quoted, this sounds 95% correct at least. Of course, the link dates from 2022 so if you have more fresh data that amends the picture, please provide it.
That's why they have credit checks and you need a good credit score for premium cards, because bad debtors are a real pain in the ass for higher-market-segment banks
Well, yes, but... The ideal debtor for the CC company is one that keeps the balance, for quite a long time, but pays most of it at the end. That's why you don't have to have 800+ score to get most of the cards, and in fact pretty much anyone with a pulse can get one (unlike, for example, bank loans which would ask you for many more documents to give you a loan at half the APR). They are even fine with occasional discharge - as long as you paid enough in interest over the life of the loan to cover it (or you neighbor did). And yes, they charge interchange fees too, but:
First, we find that, on average, the credit function makes up approximately 80 percent of the credit card profitability, whereas the contribution of the transaction function is slightly negative, as rewards and other expenses on credit card transactions outpace banks' interchange revenues. In addition, fees—in particular late fees—comprise approximately 15 percent of credit card profitability.
(https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/credit-card-profitability-20220909.html)
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Writing mvn files used to be pretty annoying, but LLMs are now pretty decent at doing this kind of boring work. Unless you're trying to do something very tricky, any LLM now would probably produce a workable mvn/gradle file for most common use cases. Same for stuff like manifests - Google, actually, pretty much tells you to use gemini now to generate all that (they actively promote trainings on how to generate all cloud configs with gemini). I am happy about it, never enjoyed this part of work and always tried to automate it away as much as possible.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
In fact, growing tasty tomatoes is not a huge task. It's entirely possible to do this on one's own backyard. Maybe not the best tomatoes on the planet, but great ones that beat anything you buy in the grocery store so much there's not even any comparison. And tomato is one of those plants which once it starts producing, there's no stopping it. Which may be why the store ones are not as good - they are optimized for mass production, preservation and remote delivery - making a fruit that survives this journey is much different business than making a fruit that is going to be picked up and consumed within hours.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I haven't read this one (and I intend to) but I noticed that when Trump called for 10% APR cap, the stocks of major credit card issuers dropped instantly and several of them that are heavily dependent on consumer credit cards pretty much said it is not a sustainable business in that way. From which I derive that substantial part of their income is in interest over balance, which means it is how it works, at least for many companies.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Sure, if you pay enough, you can find a CPA which would work as your family relationship consultant. Heck, I can see a sum where I would agree to do the same (it'd be a lot of money, but still a finite sum). But that's not a typical financial advisor/CPA and not one that I have ever seen. Maybe I am just too poor to see any really good ones. But so are likely 90% of other people then.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
So you really think that cowering in your home
No, you can walk around anywhere without impeding ICE operations. You can even get a poster printed by a union or a Soros NGO and go scream whole day under Trump tower, and absolutely nothing would happen to you. You can even harass ICE and still absolutely nothing will happen to you as longs as you do not actively resist arrest and try to run people over with a car. Worst you are facing is a brief arrest followed by quick release and Gofundme fundraiser. There are plenty of opportunities to hashtag-resist the literally fascist dictatorship of literally Hitler in thousands of ways, some of which, as rumor has it, can provide one with a decent living. But some ways - like violently attacking the police - are not a free ride. It was once a widely understood banality, but the reality of Trump's literally fascist regime, together with complete detachment of luxury liberal class from reality and some thorough education helping to erase any trace of the said reality from one's consciousness somehow made some people think that violently fighting the police on the streets is a safe and fun activity. At least antifa, with all my disgust with them, understands who they are - when they are LARPing the revolutionaries, they go all the way and they expect to be treated accordingly. Chardonnay liberals don't even have this much of connection to the reality.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
That's the point of having rules, to use them!
Except one small detail - the Left does not believe in having rules. At least not in any rules they don't like, and that includes any rules that allow for any enforcement of the immigration laws, especially - any enforcement against the people already on US territory. They believe no enforcement should be happening at all, thus listening to any noises from their side about how exactly this enforcement should be happening is pointless - it is nothing but a tactics to lead to the ultimate goal, no enforcement happening at all, ever.
But only one of those sides is making a habit of claiming immunity, pardoning people left and right
You don't need to pardon if you don't convict. Michael Byrd had not been convicted. And, of course, for "pardoning left and right" one first needs to "prosecute left and right" (otherwise there's nobody to pardon) and I don't remember any examples of mass political prosecutions by the right (giving the left the chance for mass pardons) anytime in 21st century. With all the hate directed at the last two Presidents from the Left, I do not remember any effort to frame them for treason, prosecute them criminally and all the security apparatus working against them while they are being nominally in power. Democrats are the party of lawyers, and the are much more successful in lawfare than Republicans had ever been. The only two weapons on Republican side are pardons and SCOTUS (the latter is more a matter of luck, and so far Republicans have been lucky).
And, of course, Biden's blanket pardons should put the topic of "pardoning people left and right" to rest for good.
As for immunity, all the law enforcement has immunity, so the claim only one side claims it is transparently false. If you want to get rid of qualified immunity, I am all for it, but somehow the left only remembers such a thing exists when it's convenient to use it to claim Republicans are fascists, but completely forget about it the moment it becomes inconvenient for them. Again, one can't help but conclude there's nothing but angling for power here.
I mean for fuck's sake, I read an article recently that the pipe bomb guy who they caught might get off scot-free because Trump's J6 pardon, being so broad, probably applies to him too!
And I read an article that aliens built Egyptian pyramids and stole Atlantis. There are a lot of articles on the internet, so what?
More broadly, we're starting a slow society-wide slide into cheering for death
Maybe, but this slide does not look like you're implying it looks. The left has slid to the bottom and gleefully and openly celebrates any political murder for years now. Charlie Kirk is just one of many examples, and we see many people on the left openly agitating for the same treatment for other political enemies. So if the right is "starting" to slide into it - which is doubtful, I haven't seen any celebration and cheering - as opposed to somber justification, which is not the same thing - on the right - the "starting" here would be only on one side, the other side is deep down the slide already. There is no implied symmetry here - the right says "if you attack a cop with a deadly weapon, the cop has the right to kill you", the left says "if you say words we do not like or think thoughts we do not like, anybody of use has the right and the duty to kill you". Very different thing.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Shit is hard as fuck.
Sigh, tell me about it. Next to impossible, unfortunately I have some experience. Same goes for most of professionals, unfortunately, but at least some have reviews and portfolios (not a guarantee but at least something...) Good thing at least I don't need that one, it would frustrate me to no end.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I don't think CPA is going to do that. A CPA would say "talk between yourselves and decide what you want, then tell me and I'll tell you how to do it". So would any professional. If I hire a painter and I tell him I want the wall in teal and my wife wants it in beige then the painter won't mediate between us, he'll say "well, figure out between yourselves which color you want and call me when you have it".
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Started Theft of Fire. The setup is futuristic but the underlying sentiment feels extremely US-current red-tribe. Which is not a problem for me except it feels a bit like porn (not in a sexual sense but more in a socio-political sense, if you get my drift). Which I guess isn't a problem for me too, just not exactly what I expected. Will definitely continue.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Neither of those would go any further into the family relationships than "discuss important stuff with your SO". All of those are pure technical roles that help dealing with outside world, not your relationship.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
I don't think I need a therapist but I am curious - how would one find the right movie? I mean, actual movies have re views, trailers, etc. What do the therapists have? I never even seen an ad for a therapist ever - are they even allowed?
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Renee did not because she was protesting for a good cause (stopping the feds from kidnapping us).
That's not true. The feds were not "kidnapping" anybody - kidnapping is, by definition, illegal imprisonment, while ICE has legal rights to arrest illegal immigrants. Judging from your use of the pronoun "us", you are an illegal immigrant too, in which case I would recommend you to contact a lawyer to arrange a proper departure with the least bad consequences for you. And, of course, I don't think it is smart to advertise this fact in public, even if anonymously. Also, I would like to remind you that lying is bad.
they used up one of our most potent civil disobedience options on something so meaningless.
Meaningless for you, maybe. As an illegal immigrant, you probably do not see much meaning in having honest elections in a country where you can not even legally vote, but many citizens of this country do.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
If you think one was an innocent martyr and the other got what she deserved, I would really like to hear the arguments for that.
I can not deliver on that, but I can deliver on something that may be close to it.
Ashley Babbit was not exactly innocent, but she did not pose any immediate danger that could not be averted by any other means. She was a tiny unarmed woman which could be easily subdued by any of the male policemen (and a bunch of armed police entered the same place within minutes, maybe even less, after the shooting, so it was unlikely it would be even necessary to subdue her). While "innocent' is not exactly the appropriate description, since she did commit crimes (namely, destruction of property, trespassing and probably refusing to follow a legal order of law enforcement officer), she still was a victim of a cowardly and poorly trained policeman who decided to use deadly force without any necessity for it.
On the case of Good, she and her partner in crime actively taunted the police, telling them things like "come at me" and other words, while impeding police work, and then drove the vehicle towards the police. This is an extremely dangerous situation - a vehicle driven like that can severely injure or kill a person. While it is hard to say she "deserved" that, her being shot is a direct consequence of her actions putting a law enforcement officer into a mortal danger and him having to defend himself from a lethal threat. One can not easily subdue and stop a huge SUV, and in fact, one has no chance to outrun one, so if she were determined to murder one of the officers, the only way for them to prevent if would be to shoot her. It is important to understand that the difference here is not in the poor choices she made per se, when she decided to impede police work. If she stopped there - if she blocked the police, refused to move, and refused to obey police commands, even if she continued to taunt the police - still, there would not be any justification for shooting, as the police was not in any danger then. The danger appeared when she decided to move the vehicle with the police standing around. That's when the situation changed, and while the word "deserved" sounds too emotionally charged for me, the word "justified" is certainly appropriate.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
Then why was he so afraid for his life that he shot and killed her?
Are you being purposely obtuse here? You know why - because she tried to run him over with her car. It's on video. It's had been mentioned in this discussion dosens of times. How anybody engaging in good faith in this discussion could not know that?
The police cannot kill you for disobeying them.
No, it can not. It can kill you for trying to kill them. And that's what happened. You are being purposely obtuse again by making it sound like only one second of the whole event happened and other events, immediately preceding and following it, did not, while you perfectly know they did.
It's possible for the police to encounter someone who is doing something unjustifiable and still not have the right to kill them.
It is possible, in theory. In this case, however, trying to kill a police officer with her car does justify the response. We are discussing a specific event, and you keep purposely ignoring the actual circumstances of the event, while making theoretical statements.
If the police encountered someone speeding on the highway, do you think they'd be justified in shooting the driver just beause they had "initiated violence" by endangering others?
I think by this point it is clear you are not interested in discussing the particular event, but interested in extracting something like "since there could be a theoretical situation where police shooting would be wrong, the police can be wrong, therefore you just admitted the shooting is not justified!". I do not have any interest in this kind of discussion. When you are interested to discuss facts you may continue with somebody else.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
So, yes, they do prosecute illegal immigration, but they highly prioritize people who are also breaking the law in other ways
Gasp! So they are doing exactly what they promised to do - prioritize enforcement over the most violent lawbreakers? And that's somehow a bad thing?
I mean, my position is - if you are here illegally, you must get out, voluntarily or involuntarily. I can be persuaded otherwise in the case of minors who had no choice when they were brought in, but for adults every single illegal should be, ideally, deported. The reality is, of course, it is not possible to deport 15 million people in any reasonable time with any reasonable procedure. Priorities should be made. You are describing the case where ICE is prioritizing violent gang members. That's not ICE "expanding" their role, it's ICE contracting their role - from deporting every single illegal - which is theoretically their role, but practically is not possible - to deporting only the most dangerous ones. The fact that people are complaining about it only supports my assumption that the goal of those complaints is nothing but prevent any law enforcement from happening altogether - it does not matter what and how happens, there always will be something that is wrong and must be stopped, the only acceptable solution for the complainers is to not have ICE do anything at all. Sorry, I did not vote for that.
Instead they choose to show up in force, in very prominent ICE gear,
If they show up without gear, the left would scream "oh, they were not clearly marked, we thought they were just bandits, and that's why we tried to ram them with cars and attack them!". If they show up with clear markings and gear, the left would scream "how dare they to intimidate us with their uniforms and their gear, clearly they are at fault when we tried to ram them with cars and attack them!". Heads I win, tails you lose.
In reality, sometimes the police needs to be clandestine - when there is a risk that the criminals may hide or run away otherwise. Sometimes, there is a case for undercover work. But in most cases, when the arrest is made, the police does clearly identify itself and must do so. Law enforcement is not something that should be hidden and happen in shadows - it is the right thing to do, and must be done publicly and openly.
My point is simply that they have powers that go beyond simply deporting people for breaking immigration laws.
Powers like what?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
It does nothing of the sort. And after this one: https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-new-video-shows-moment-ice-agent-was-rammed-by-renee-good-from-officers-pov it is pretty clear they were intent on confronting ICE officers - they clearly said so - and were not fleeing anything. You do not tell people "come at us!" when you are fleeing.
JarJarJedi
5d ago
face recognition for check-in and boarding is a thing in some airports, the whole country uses pretty much only payment apps, etc, but the AQI can be bad, the public toilets are dirty, taxis and some train stations smell like cigarette smoke, nobody speaks anything but Mandarin (or some other Sinitic language), there are touts who will try to sell you shit
So basically the standard Hollywood future dystopia?
JarJarJedi
5d ago
I already see here leftists comparing Good to the American revolutionaries attacking the redcoats, so it looks like they do not see themselves bound by any social contract or agreements when they are on the losing site. If they win the elections, then it's "remember our democracy, you should submit to the will of people!" but if they lose, it's "we do not have to follow a bunch of Hitlers, we are the resistance!".
a) created the dangerous situation by walking in front of her car
No he did not. Walking in front of you car does not represent any danger to you. And she should not be driving anywhere while the police instructs her to stop. You are fishing for excuses to justify the situation which she entered voluntarily, with clear intent to impede police work, and escalated voluntarily, operating heavy vehicle in immediate vicinity of people - while her "wife" is filming, so that was clearly intended to stir up some shit and get some propaganda pictures maybe. OK, she got what she wanted. And it's entirely, absolutely, 100% her fault - at any moment of it, starting from 12:01am that day and ending the moment she was shot, she could stop and exit the situation, and she would be alive and well. She constantly made the choices that drove her towards the ending that happened.
And you can't claim self-defence if you're unnecessarily walking in front of moving vehicles in the middle of the road.
Do you really expect somebody to buy this? It's such a low-effort BS it's embarrassing. No, it wasn't a situation of a policeman just jumping into traffic on a random street. She knew why the officers were there, there were no "moving vehicles" except her and she drove there specifically and purposely to engage the officers. The police does not owe her - a criminal - the duty to run away from her. And in the situation she was in - vehicle stopped with people surrounding it - while she was in no immediate danger - moving the vehicle in a way that endangers the people is initiation of violence, thus justifying the response. That would be true even if she was not a criminal, intentionally confronting the police officers on duty, which she was.
That happened to us with some things too. One year we lost almost all the cherries to fruit flies, another year squashes were all eaten... But somehow in our quarters, nobody is eating the tomatoes so far.
More options
Context Copy link