charles_kaw

Thrift seems to have a really nice solution of providing only types that eventually break down into scalars. And only for exchanging data - it doesn't dare prescribe the rest of that. I liked working with it.

> Anybody else experiencing an attitude change?

I had serious anxiety a few years ago about this, and ended up in Acceptance. I'm not happy ending up here, but I figure I got about 30 years left. That's pretty good, I'll take it.

It doesn't change that this is basic logic. One yields less information than the other, and you didn't grasp that. Sorry if I came off as condescending. I don't really see a point in continuing this conversation.

Secret societies have an air of mystique around them, but often they're just social clubs with extra steps. People are social creatures, and having something to belong to is healthy for most!

I uninstalled most apps from my phone, and turned notifications off on the rest. If it's not a DM, I don't want to see it. My quality of life has improved.

I worked with the fraud team implementing the security for a real time data ingestion pipeline at a major bank partner. I am a bit more informed on this than the average hn poster :)

It's literally less information versus directly letting them know. One message lets them know you know, and the other doesn't.

> Forcing the fraudster to call if they want more information - excellent.

But there's something else you're not taking into account, which is innocent people who trigger your fraud detection.

>Cussing - doesn’t make a difference either way from an information perspective.

Well it certainly lets the fraudster know you know. A legitimate customer receiving that kind of abuse would be pretty unusual, don't you think?

A bland, useless message is less information than cussing someone out and calling them a fraudster.

Credit Karma has a platform for running models against their dataset, and appears to buy everyone's daily data from Equifax.

Also, Intuit is much more than a tax company now.

I read it more as "using uncertainty" is a dark pattern and to stop it even if it's accurate. 10% of users a company with that many is a pretty significant impact to people.

I reread the article again, and it seems to me it was "pre-approved" that was the issue.

Regardless, it's good the behavior was noticed and stopped.

>The FTC alleges that the company used claims that consumers were pre-approved and had ’90 per cent odds’ to entice them to apply for offers that, in many instances, they ultimately did not qualify for.

I believe CK has inside views to the models^ these companies use, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that 90% is actually very close to reality. However, I can also see why someone taking a hard credit pull would be very annoyed to be declined.

Also, Credit Karma gets paid for successful conversions, and maybe ad placement? It doesn't seem like misleading someone got them any profit.

This all around seems like a really weird thing to slap this company with - Credit Karma doesn't really directly profit^^ from getting this wrong, nor do their partners. Yes, Credit Karma screwed up, but to frame it as "misleading consumers" makes it sound a lot worse than it is.

I wonder if there is missing subtext or inside baseball that makes this all make a lot more sense. Regardless, that language does seem misleading, and I'm glad to see it be turned into something more accurate and informative.

^ they seem to have some sort of b2b platform ("lightbox"?) for letting their vendors import their models into credit karma. It's probably pretty powerful for a lender to change and simulate new model changes for targeting offers.

^^ pissing off your users while not making money is always a bad look

They have something like 2000 employees now.

> they posted a Ruby on Rails directory structure as proof of hacking them but the company does not have Ruby code

I think it's extremely suspicious, but often times breaches like this aren't through the core platform itself. For example, Equifax was a support site that was hosted and built separately from their main platform.

This whole thing does smell like BS to me, though as well.

> There might be fewer use cases for it now

There are massive use cases for it, but not at the people level. Low latency tasks such as edge AI classification, IOT interaction, and game streaming are all currently limited to WiFi only.

> Once that infrastructure is built people will use it.

This is a fallacy.