Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Dicey from start to finish (Score 3, Informative) 176

I am pretty sure that none of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Elon Musk could get a 900

850 is the max for the scale people generally refer to when talking about credit scores. Googling around, some banks seem to use internally a different score scale, but let's set that aside for a sec.

People can, and in fact do get perfect score. If you understand exactly how it works, its' not that difficult. It has very little to do with how much money you make, and is a pretty artificial metric.

When you get a report and it says things like "too many accounts with balances open", it doesn't mean "you have too many accounts with balances open". It just means you don't have -precisely- the amount of accounts the algorithm uses for a perfect score, so you lost a non-zero amount of points for it, and since you said you have a mortgage, it's probably what it's referring to.

To get a perfect score, you need a bunch of accounts open, that were opened several years ago (none recently), that are used but have 0 balance at the moment they were audited. Your available credit across those account has to be very high, and you need multiple accounts from different credit providers. There are a few other factors, but if you do it just right its pretty simple, given enough time, to manipulate your credit to get a perfect score.

In fact, some people make a game out of it. The only gotcha is you have to use those accounts sometimes but they have to be at 0 or nearly 0 the moment they're reported, and you never know when that will be (since it can change). So often you'll hover between 845 and 850 (or whatever other scale you're looking at, though those may have slightly different criterias)

Comment Re:You can only quit so many times (Score 1) 235

If you quit every 6 months, yeah. Every 1.5 to 2 years? No one cares (depends on the industry, obviously, but in tech and related? Nope). Even the occasional "Well, that didn't work out" 2 month sting or the couple of "Meh, I wanted better" 10-12 months won't have anyone bat their eyes at you.

Comment Re:This Is Stupid (Score 1) 186

As long as we find ways for "the people who sell them their food" to live there SOMEHOW, this will just keep happening. As long as you have those lottery equivalent affordable housings. As long as you let people live in illegal apartments. As long as you subsidize it.

Make it impossible, and sooner or later the food prices will go up (and food prices fluctuate very quickly). People will either pay the marked up price (which will allow people selling the food to live there), or will no longer want to live there, reducing demand.

I'm not a big believer in the "free market fixes everything!", but here we clearly have a situation where a situation is made artificially possible.

Comment Re:This Is Stupid (Score 1) 186

but short sighted voters wanted to maintain their property values

I'm not sure downplaying that will solve any problems. It's people's homes. They presumably picked their homes because of various criterias that fit their life styles. They liked the location, the neighborhood. They potentially spent years looking.

And then you come in and tell them they have to give it up, essentially for only the benefit of others (at least directly. Indirectly it could benefit them, but that's harder to measure).

This isn't like asking someone to make a small donation to a local charity, or even raising taxes. You're asking people to allow things to happen that could drastically reduce their quality of life every hour of every day, including when they're trying to sleep. That's not something to be taken as lightly and dismissed as "LOL NIMBY WILL BE NIMBY",

Sure, from a society's point of view, it's for the best. But you can't blame people for pushing back.

Comment Re:Entitlement at its best (Score 1) 130

While its stupid to think everyone who pirates a game would have bought it, its pretty much equally as stupid to think no one would have.

I'm surrounded by engineers that make 130-200k and who torrent everything day in day out. Sure, they most likely would not buy EVERYTHING They torrent, but that silly episode of Game of Thrones they just HAD to watch? You could charge 500 bucks for it and they would have bought it.

Comment Re:Guess you won't need those subsidies anymore (Score 1) 375

Yeah I wouldn't rent them. That's easy but not really worth it. We're looking at buying and paying for the install. Some of our neighboring buildings are doing the same thing, so I'm using their numbers to do the math, and my building has better exposure and more roof space, so it will work quite nicely~

Comment Re:Guess you won't need those subsidies anymore (Score 1) 375

This is actually pretty interesting to me, because we've been looking at solar. I dunno about solar at scale to replace plants, but residential setups are pretty damn cool. Even without any tax benefits or subsidies, a setup at my place that would cover most of my energy needs (even in winter, selling the extra in summer to pay for the cost of conventional power in the winter and nights)) would pay for itself in about 6 years, and they can last for 30 or something. That's not half bad.

Comment Re:disagree (Score 1) 274

I'm not sure that's the full story. A lot of the well known companies that are accused of ageism will happily pay you 500k/year if you're worth it. The main issue is what "worth it" means.

As I'm getting older (I'm in my mid thirties, so not old at all by non-tech standards, but in tech all these articles say its the end of the road), I'm getting more cynical, more conservative, I value foresight over doing things quick and having them blow up in my face later. I've seen countless of projects fail, and I know why they failed. I see these things happening over and over and can't help but going "Gah! I told you so!".

The college kids think I'm just a cranky old man and don't listen, and usually jump to the next company before the shit they did explode, and I clean up after them.

Many companies don't value that (often because they think someone like me is just misguided or flat out wrong). The value in someone who "goes fast and break shit to ship an MVP blazingly fast" is very high in their eyes. They'll pay for that. If as you get older, you use your experience to just implement shit faster and faster, those companies will pay you a premium. Most people don't go that route as they get older though.

But there are companies that value things other than shipping shit fast, and those will happily pay good engineers in their 40s, 50s or more several hundred thousands no problem.

Of course, you have the issue of people who get older, don't keep up to date, let their experience go to waste, and then bitch no one wants to hire them.

Comment Re:Easily Thwarted (Score 1) 270

It really won't change much. As you said, a chunk of people will simply lie or jump the border.

The rest will be able to simply skip the requirement. Eg: Because of my line of work and the country I came from, even though I half assed my green card application and didn't submit half of the crap they asked for, I got approved super quickly anyway. They have a huge amount of discretion in what they can overlook.

It would be way better if they didn't. Some people from certain countries will get overlooked on purpose, some people won't even try to apply when we'd love to have them...but a lot of people will go through just fine without handing over any extra info, too.

Comment Re:From the Perspective of a Colleague (Score 1) 359

Those associations predate the "everyone is a snowflake in their own special way" movement though. Most software communities are growing into ecochambers where everyone is telling everyone else that they're all right and that we should embrace every opinion as equally valid.

That makes it impossible to set any kind of standards anymore.

The chance to do this was 15 years ago.

Comment Re:"Odd..no one is buying it" (Score 1) 141

Not everyone would buy it, for sure. But the amount who would is absolutely non-zero.

I remember when I was in school, before piracy was huge. When a new big console game would come out, a bunch of my friends who go crazy distributing newspapers and mowing lawns or other ways to make small amounts of money just to be able to afford the game. You could rent it, but for big games you want to play a lot, that got expensive too. Pirate copies existed, but they were not free and often didn't work well.

These days? No one would ever do that. They'd just pirate it instead.

If all mainstream movies were impossible to pirate, what would happen? Some people would just go read a book instead. Some would borrow them. Some would buy them used. Maybe the indie industry would grow bigger.

But you can bet your butt that a non-trivial amount of people would find a way to buy it that don't right now. Heck, most people I know who pirate stuff are software engineers with 6 figure salaries who are just used to it from when they were poor college students and don't feel the need to change how they do things. But man do they NEED to see THAT movie.

Comment Re:*Basic* income (Score 1) 747

For sure, there's way too many factors and there's always going to be inequality. The problem is that unless our moral values change to "round up the "lessers" and gas them all" (which most people seem to not be okay with), we have to do something, otherwise the people who got the short end get unhappy and when they're unhappy in large enough numbers it causes issues.

Right now, the solution is to have hundreds of programs that don't really work. Foodstamp, "affordable housing" (lol, more like yet another inequality generating lottery scam), tax deductions, and all around a shitload of complexity to try to steer people on the track we want and usually fail. People who quality or not bend the rules, etc.

It's a hell of a lot easier to just say "Everyone qualities if they want to, you get the bare minimum if you feel like it, if you want more than that you'll have to get up and do something for it". There's still some edge cases (eg: people with mental disorder) that will need stronger nets than that, but for the common case, that would work better than what we have now.

The remaining issue though is that then we just raise what people consider the minimum from "begging in the street" to "living on just enough for a tiny apartment and basic food", and then given a generation or two, they'll be unhappy with -that- and we'll be screwed again.

Humans are hard.

Comment Re:Just Hit (Score 1) 60

We got hit really hard at work by this. 2 of these emails went around, and they appeared to be sent from 2 of our engineers who routinely DO send google docs. The app was setup reasonably convincingly, and because oauth and so called "single sign-on" are really more like "a million sign on" because they never work quite right or ask you for credentials way too often, people are just used to having to approve everything all the time.

So hundreds of people clicked the damn thing. Including a lot of pretty accomplished engineers. I probably would have to, except my teammate got hit first and warned me before I saw the email.

Slashdot Top Deals

My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner

Working...