kiplkipl

Mine was also a Toyota in the UK, so consistent with your experience.

>And I know exactly how they would respond to me: What do you mean by "these people" you *ist!

You're inventing a stance to get angry about.

I recently bought a new car for the first time and the level of poor customer service, anti-consumer acts and outright trickery were appalling. Do they not depend on repeat customers?

At least if the dealership model disappears, it's the manufacturer's own reputation at stake, not whoever owns the franchise.

There is a common pattern where a startup is named after their main product, grows to the point of needing diversification, and starts being limited by their name.

On the other hand, Amazon worked around it.

Marvel Studios writing it as a baddie is not a very compelling reason to avoid automation. As of today, the vast majority of autonomous devices and robots are factory devices that have minimal input from humans.

Any time Facebook's UI is insulted, it's common to see the defence that it's a feature, not a bug, because clearly it works or a competitor would replace them. That time spent improving it is time wasted, because it doesn't make money. I see this as proof that a highly-scalable market doesn't optimise for good, it optimises for good-enough, and there's a lot of potential revenue lost between good and good-enough.

>If its free, your the product.

Like my bank account?

You don't need to sell order flow to make money when people are letting you hold their billions. Trading 212 already offer commission-free trading in the UK.

The only unconditional offers I've ever heard of have been for less prestigious courses.

That passes the buck on to the university addmissions teams. Then it's the same story with Oxbridge as the antagonists.

Fundamentally it's a hard problem: the admissions require more information than is available. But...

> All this fiasco does is demonstrate how unnecessarily reductive the whole concept is.

...there never really was enough information. This is an important factor IMO. The system has always been unfair, now it's less fair and in a colder, more obvious , more systematic way that resonates with the current political climate around technology. Politically it's hard for this government to get away with standing by a policy that adversely affects poor students in the same way it would have been hard for a left-wing government to institute the current fiscal policy.

>kids

Nit: almost all of them are now legally adults. At university they can look forward to this twilight age where they are treated as an adult when it's about financial obligations and treated as a child when it's their institutions forcing policy upon them.

I find the elected fascist to be an interesting thought experiment. If someone was fairly elected on a platform of genocide, would you comply? If someone doesn't, does that mean democracy is second to morality? And, if they don't, do they think that person should be allowed to stand on that plaform?

> If "they" are doing it, where's the issue? Markets may not be perfect, but they're not that bad, especially when huge profits are waiting to be collected with little risk.

See C

>Is your point that the majority of those may be white and therefore they should've let them crash?

If you truly think that's what I'm saying, we're on very different pages. The pensions have greater political power than the people in black areas. Both of them have the same problem - an unfair pressure that drives costs of lending up - but when it affects the majority rich and white investors, spending money to fix it is much more palatable.

I know what the article says. A person who can't get a mortgage on 8 won't be able to get a mortgage on 4 at the same rate as another person who can get a mortgage on 8.

>I suggested that if you can't get a loan you should tune down your ambitions a bit.

This is not about the ambitions of the individial in the link, it's an issue of structurally unequal differences that make it harder for black areas to see investment.

>tune it down with the racist us vs them thinking. It's not like all white people gain from that one person getting more leverage.

>I was talking about doing this to remove the statistics that cause the apparent racism, while you want to keep perpetuating the same mentality. Wake up or keep wondering why you are still losing.

Please stop telling me what I'm thinking.

A) They are doing it

B) Markets aren't perfect

C) You have to fight against, or change the influence of (through, say, commentary in the media), the government's funding and regulation.

>Are the shareholders mostly white? It's my understanding that most large investors are pension funds, insurance companies and the like, not individuals.

Who owns and benefits from the funds?

That's not a quote.

Maybe YCombinator companies should have tried bootstrapping.

Meanwhile the buyer in the white-majority area continues to buy 8, enjoys a higher leverage for the same interest, and makes a higher profit. And so it repeats. Leverage is forgiven when the faceless metaphorical person does it but, when it's given a black face, suddenly the black community as a whole has to answer to you?

Why didn't GM simply not go bankrupt?

You've put "banks are racist" in speech marks, but I can't find where you're quoting it from.

The question is begging an easy answer to a structural problem. But note that, when a pandemic unfairly makes it expensive for businesses with disproportionately white shareholders to lend, the taxpayer spends trillions to make it cheaper.

Edit: Isn't that exactly what JP Morgan Chase are talking about doing about in the link?

>The question is, was the policy created with the intent of racism.

That's convenient for the people it doesn't affect. Not only do you not have to worry about the policies: by choosing not to be racist, you absolve yourself of blame or privilege for benefiting from them.

It also depends on you being able to infer another person's intentions. Intentional racists have always been in favour of covert racism in the form palatable policies that indirectly harm the groups they dislike and have always benefited from the unintentional bias of others.

Models are models, not a representation of reality. As long as the model is close enough to the local maximum that the providers keep making money, it keeps existing. And history suggests lenders are not perfect at calculating diversified risk.

The only assumption that OP made is that cheap credit makes it easier to make money, and that makes it easier to get cheap credit. That's not especially controversial.

His recent blogs (i.e. July's) suggest actual progress!

H1B Covid policy is anti-immigration.

All those companies have the single point of failure in the policies of the US government.

Look at the Nikkei until 1990

This attitude continues into job interviews: the thought that, if you work hard enough and have enough talent, you should get the job you want. In reality, you might just not be a match.

Then what is the meaning behind the expensive, power-hungry hardware used to host his videos? Fun is a meaning!

This should go for almost everything written in a newspaper. We all know about the the intentional spin and unintentional failure to understand technical topics but, when written in a newspaper, hearsay is treated as factual secondary source.

Sure, but he didn't say those, he said S&P 500. It seems like weird American exceptionalism that the internet repeatedly recommends only investing in one nation's index when that would be laughable if you heard a Japanese, Chinese, or German person saying to do the same with their national index.

500 companies in one country isn't diversified.

Or that what is done for entertainment purposes is not useful.

I've heard the following theory:

Most trading volume is algorithmic, so it only takes a small number of real humans doing unusual trading activity for markets to move.

I've phrased it like this because I don't have expertise.

I find the CNN examples tenuous. If the same logic was applied to today's relics in the future, historians might say that 8 foot tall anime women were idealised beauty, in the same way newly discovered buildings tend to be called temples. In reality (from the male perspective) preferences vary massively between individuals.

If Rubens' women are an ideal, why aren't Picasso's?