Strangely, signing-up for a credit card can lower your credit score at first because of the credit inquiry (hard pull). But then cancelling it later can also lower your credit score because it lowers the amount of credit available to you and increases your credit utilization rate.

Apple's card is fine, and the 0% (with monthly payment), and 3% cash back (on Apple store purchases), along with no fee international transactions, are the main benefits. It is also pretty easy to manage in the built-in wallet app, and you can set your cash back to automatically deposit into Goldman's associated savings account. However, there are plenty of other cards with larger sign-up incentives and bigger cash-back offers if you shop around a bit.

I'm not asking you to negotiate my grievance. I shipped nearly unbreakable cast iron oven components (matched with the OEM numbers stamped on them, so no lack of clarity about what was being sold), double-wrapped in bubble wrap, in a heavy box, all wrapped in tape. And the buyer claims the cast iron components were broken, snapped into bits. I suppose it is possible it could have been broken during the shipping, but the amount of force that would take is quite considerable and unlikely given that the box itself still appeared to be in good condition (in the photos from the buyer).

The problem is that there is no legitimate way to negotiate the disagreement. The buyer can easily send doctored photos (by simply putting their broken item in my box, taking pictures, then claiming that is what they bought), and I have no way to counter their claim. What, am I supposed to have them send me their broken pieces to me as a "return"?

I'm simply pointing out the larger problem with eBay - that disagreements quickly become impossible to negotiate and the power is one-sided. And those who figure out how to wield the power win, and everyone else loses.

I'm glad you still enjoy eBay. Its buyer base is down 25% since 2018. So I'm clearly not in the minority.

It was cast iron components (such as griddle, pot holders, etc.) from a gas stove that we shipped off. The parts were still worth good money and were in used but perfectly workable condition.

I'm out the money for the sale, the shipping, and the eBay fees. It cost me more than just throwing those items in the trash. I don't get why dispute resolution would be of any use. I have pictures of the working cast iron items, they have pictures of broken ones they claim broke during shipping. Really? Cast iron, triple wrapped in bubble wrap, in a box, was broken during shipping? How hard to you have to hit cast iron to break it? But it's just their word against mine, and they have 'photo proof' (even though it could easily have been photos of their broken items they wanted to replace), so dispute was no help.

Yes, I'm out as a buyer and seller. Then repeat that negative experience with other buyers and sellers, over and over again, and who is left?

If you can't sell it, then its value is $0.

Well, my personal experience, in 2025 100% of my buyers were abusive buyers. I don't sell very often, but 0 for 3 in 2025...I won't sell again with eBay. And if I close my account, I'm less likely to buy from them, too. Repeat that over and over again, and suddenly eBay has a much smaller market. For big $$ items, it's Facebook marketplace and I meet the buyer in person. For other items, many of which could have value at a place like eBay, it's Goodwill or the trash, because it's too much trouble and getting ripped off too many times just isn't worth it.

Combining eBay's scale with some brick-and-mortar places, where you could see some items and verify the authenticity, and talk to an actual human to resolve those disputes, could go a long way to addressing the trust issues.

Now, am I willing to gamble $36 billion on this? No, but I'm generally a risk-adverse person, which is probably why I'll never be a billionaire (well, and I'm also not a psychopath).

That's what eBay is...except sometimes with auctions...and sometimes the items are new...and sometimes the items are stolen (I guess this last one is true of both consignment shops and eBay).

I find this claim to be complete nonsense. There are lots of well-employed people living in southern CA who can't afford a home; yet a non-profit or donors are supposed to be able to buy places and just give them to the unhoused?

And while housing is a good start to addressing the needs of the unhoused, it isn't the only problem most unhoused people face, so it isn't like simply giving people a home will be the only resources needed that will magically solve mental illness, addiction, disability, etc.

And I would appreciate it as a seller. Twice in the past year I've had buyers claim the item was broken when they got it. These were solid metal, rock hard items that were wrapped in bubble wrap and a box. I believe it is impossible that it was broken during shipping. I assume they just sent photos of their old, broken item and used eBay to get me to send them a replacement for free (including shipping). But I have no way of verifying or proving this, because even if I asked for the broken item back, they just send their broken one and keep the one I sent.

If I could instead take it to an eBay store front, maybe someone will buy it locally, but if not, they can handle packaging and shipping off to someone else and take a cut of the profits. Might make me consider eBay again.

Final Cut Pro is really good at generating transcriptions, and you can easily export them for import into YouTube (or you can burn-in the subtitles if you want them on all the time for everyone).

YouTube is really bad at auto-generation, and in particular gets punctuation wrong much of the time. There are better solutions out there than YouTube, and it should be something every creator does by default rather than leaving it to YouTube.

What's wrong with mega churches? If people want to get together and listen to a concert and have someone preach at them ever week, so what?

What laws are they breaking?

Yeah, because mimicking and copying never happens in pop music, or art, or movies, or TV shows, etc. etc. etc. All artists take their inspiration from other artists, and build upon musical ideas created by others (some more than others). There are very few truly original artists out there, and many of the true originals die penniless. Much of the AI generated music is genre copying, rather than copying specific riffs or melodies from other artists, or used to fill-out or expand a musical idea that the artist had. It opens the door to the masses, letting a thing that was once the domain of a few people become available to anyone with a computer. Sure, much of the money that was once in music is gone, but if you were only doing it for the money...then surely you can find something else to do to make a buck?

What do you want the police to do? Wait around until they observe someone taking a dump, then write them a ticket? Which they'll never pay? Or arrest them and take them to jail, so they can be asked to go to a court date they'll never attend, or be thrown into a jail that doesn't have room for them?

There is a much simpler solution, which is public toilets in areas that have large number of unhoused persons.

Why would it be immoral to create music using AI? I get that it would be immoral to say that your work was 100% created without AI, when you used AI at 1% of the time or more...(although by that standard it would be hard to be "verified," as I would bet nearly all digital music includes some kind of AI activity or input).

But why would using AI as part of your creative process itself be immoral?

My office is not too far from a minor highway. Your basic diesel truck is pretty loud going by at highway speeds, and about every 10th diesel truck seems to have no muffler at all and is louder than an airplane taking off. Don't know if it is intentional or accidental, but either way, extremely annoying.

I am really excited for the noise reduction that these electric trucks will offer over diesel!

I shouldn't be surprised, but it is an example of the astonishing amount of control the managers or owners of OpenAI have over what the world sees in their communications with AI. Sure, maybe erasing goblins from conversations isn't a big deal...but it could easily be applied to world events, politicians, crime, corruption, etc.