dqv

Because it's a commonly remembered when someone says something like what Altman said. The comments in question were posted within 33 seconds of each other, which isn't enough time for the later person to notice it was already posted. It's also pretty common for a bunch of people to parrot variations of "we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" when someone who investigated themselves found no wrongdoing.

Abstaining from something you use for 11 months out of the year doesn't strike me as "bitter old engineer that is unable to learn and adapt as things change".

If the money is taken out of your checking account and you can't pay a bill or rent, you are in the same exact situation of having your credit/rental history ruined. The time horizon for that happening is just sooner. The credit card still wins.

This would also solve a major annoyance I have with card payments, which is no way to link a particular purchase back to a transaction.

With checks, you write a check and can write down the check number with a note about what the payment was for. When the payment posts, the check number is part of the transaction. With a card payment, they charge your card and, sometimes days later, there's a pre-authorization with some obscure transaction description. So many scary transaction descriptions that make me think "wait is this fraud".

With this method, the approval flow would also allow people to add a blurb for what the transaction is for.

> Practically, Reg E is essentially as strong as Reg Z.

Not even practically, but that's beside the point. The point is that with regulation E, I am potentially put in a position where I have to work to get my money back; I have to file a lawsuit against the bank if I think their determination is wrong (and that's assuming there isn't an arbitration provision, but many people don't realize they agreed to binding arbitration).

With regulation Z, the bank has to work to get their money back. They have to file the lawsuit against me if they really want the money. And it's $0 liability under many circumstances mandated through the regulation, not just a revocable promise from the bank.

> likely

> will

Which is why the credit card is still the better option. Especially given that the max liability on a credit card is always $50 if caught within the first 60 days, while the max liability on a debit card is $50 only if caught within the first two days, then up to $500 if reported after up to 60 days.

They may post a provisional credit when I report the fraud on the debit card or they can wait up to 10 days to do so. With a credit card, no money has left my account and I get the final say on whether I want to part ways with my real money. If the bank really wants to fuck me over by saying it's not fraud, I get to make it as unprofitable as possible for them, which includes forcing them to sue me if they really want the money.

I will take the ding to my credit report and a lawsuit over actual money taken directly out of my account any day.

Idk, it's more like "your writing is cliché and I don't feel like reading it because I've already read something that sounded similar countless times and it wasn't worth the read". The source of the clichés being an LLM. And maybe now humans are writing the same way as LLM output, I still am not going to read all that, sorry. If I see a sea of clichés, I'm going the other way.

I'm also not reading pumpkin spice murder mysteries for a similar reason. I'm also not reading stories where everybody clapped. Actually, I'm already familiar with petrichor, so unless someone has surrounded the word "petrichor" with non-cliché prose, I'm also not going to read all that.

That's why the "but it's illegal" propaganda is so unconvincing for me. It's really "but it's illegal (and we want to keep it that way)".

The other thing they could be doing is using some of that lobbying money to try to reform copyright law to allow them to release the scans that are still covered.

It would likewise earn goodwill from a lot of people.

> It’s really refreshing to see their excitement about new technologies and the future

What new technologies are they excited about?

Yes and doing regenerative practices all the way to the end would naturally force this reduction in consumption. It would be really good, because the land used to grow feed could be redirected to other more efficient uses.

No, we slaughter that many each year.

And maximize how they're fed in the last months of their lives in feedlots.

They were certainly not killing 30 million bison each year.

The only answer here is less meat production, especially feedlot-finished, no matter how people try to twist it.