Credit scores include credit history and more. Credit scores are used by many lending industries. Credit history is one of the two major factors in determining a credit score. There are two less than major ones and two minor ones. But to reduce credit scores to just history is wrong.
These are strangers asking for money. They have no objective evidence that they are a good bet. Why would the bank give them a large loan for a long time?
I wouldn’t give that person money and you wouldn’t either. Hell, I wouldn’t give a lot of people I know that loan. Less about them and more about me.
Stop trying to max your credit score. You don’t win any extra prizes for having an 850.
Having a good credit score (>670) isn’t difficult. Have a couple of cards, keep your balance under 1/3 of the limit, and pay it on time. That’s it. You’ll have a 700 in short order. Getting it above 750 is just more of the same.
I get that there are perfectly responsible people who don’t leverage credit to gain their needs and then are rejected by the banks when they go looking for a 200k loan. But that’s not the world we live in. Bill the Banker isn’t the guy whose lived in your community for twenty years and goes to your church. That world is gone and had problems too.
This impersonal world sorta sucks, but I’m not close friends with my neighbors and some of them seem like people I wouldn’t get along with anyways.
The real rub of it, in my opinion, is we are subject to these standards without being consulted or, really, considered.
But honestly, don’t worry about maxing your credit score.
Its a shower thought. No one’s drowning in depth here.
I don’t believe that “be[ing] at peace with suffering” is core to Buddhism. The ending of suffering is.
I get upset because of upsets me first and foremost. If others get upset and I don’t, it doesn’t change my feelings. If they share their reasoning, I can see their point of view. If it makes sense, I can empathize with them because I see how it has upset them. It still may not upset me. Sometimes they will present a view that is compelling that will then make me upset.
That’s how it was designed. That’s how everyone uses it.
I was curious about the studies. The only thing I came across about outcomes was this BMJ review that says:
Bullies were more likely to have trouble keeping a job and honouring financial obligations. They were more likely to be unemployed.
I’d like to try Linux with minimal commitment and no setup. Give it real test drive with some of my most important tools.
If and when I decide to make the switch, I want to have access to my normal windows machine. I’d keep it around if I need it. But prefer if it went away slowly. I want to work with and communicate with windows users with neither of us having to jump through weird hoops.
I want my printer to work.
Problems will come up, but I don’t want it to dominate my time.
I’m sure most of you will say not to worry, but until I’ve logged some real hours, I will.
Here’s Simon Willison’s write up of how he uses AI. He’s been using it for a couple of years and distilled his methods in this article. He also discussed when and how he vibe codes.
Unschooling and by extension, the democratically run Free Schools come to mind.
US manufacturing was dominant through the thirties and forties. It really shone in the 40s under a war time economy. It was a sleeping giant and the world knew it. Pennsylvania outputted more steel than Japan and Germany combined. Audacious goals set by President Roosevelt were mocked by Hitler as audacious Hollywood goals. The US easily surpassed these goals.
It was an amazing display of competence. The only other countries to match the intensity of growth would the USSR during the five year plan and the PRC during the eighties. But both of them were starting from an agricultural economy. The USSR never reached the American manufacturing peak and China has surpassed.
The unprecendent dominance is due in no small part because the rivals needed to rebuild. But under representing America’s position with regards to labor, capital, resources and state coordinated mobilization would be a serious error.
I’m gonna answer from the perspective of someone who believes the world is a better place when it is led by America without reverting to a thin jingoist ideology. These aren’t my views, but a steel man of someone I would disagree with.
Why does America feel the need to control the world?
In the wake of the world wars, we realized that the world is best off with one power to lead the world. No powers and multiple powers will result in another world war. We were the best position to take that role after WW2 and resist the Soviet union’s attempt to gaining that position.
Do what they say?
Many of these countries don’t do what America says because America says it. Heck, many go against what we say. But they believe in a better world and when they remember that, they undtand that America is putting themselves in the most danger by clearing that path for the rest of the free world.
Instead of taking care of their own problems at home?
The problems we have at home are pretty limited. Most of these problems are born out of laziness. But we keep the criminals in check both at home and abroad.
When did the US become police officer of the world and enforcer?
If we didn’t step up after ww2, the world would have slipped into another world war or deem communism run rampant.
I guess my question is who gave the Americans the right?
The civilized world at the end of WW2. And under our leadership, the world is safer and healthier for it.
I say this as an American. But would not the world be a better place if we just minded our own business and quit nation building and stoking non existant fires?
From communism to extreme religious views, we are the only ones who are capable and willing to step up and protect the world against that. It’s a difficult and thankless job.
Sadly it’s been a week. I’ve read this several times as closely as I could and tried to understand where my apprehension lies. I spent some time with the wiki link to counterfactuals and wanted to really dedicate more time doing so, but wasn’t able to dedicate the time to it.
So, again, to restart the conversation, I wonder if, I have two separate confusions. The first, if consciousness is a property that is weakly emergent in brains, what is a brain?
I think I have a hard time buying that consciousness is a property of a brain and not mind. And I get that you are not trying to prove that it does. I’m far more interested in why, in the face of minimal support, we would align ourselves with weak emergence over strong emergence.
I have a lingering second problem. What is a model? In that wiki link, it has a three layer model: association, intervention, and counterfactuals. I would be hard pressed to consider the first two layers as sufficient for bing considered a model. But I think the three layer model doesn’t, as far as I’ve read, address intention, causal connection, or first order simulation. I think I’m hard pressed to see a collection of cells, neuron or otherwise, doing more than creating a response to a condition.
Do you not get the meme… It’s funny because it’s true.
The rest of the comments, on the other hand.