Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#231

Post by brightball »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #188
brightball wrote: post #120

That reminds me, did anybody win the Coinbase money from the Super Bowl ad?

"Coinbase reportedly spent $14 million on a commercial with a flashing QR code that encouraged viewers to sign up for an account; new users will receive $15 in BTC until February 15. The strategy was so successful, in fact, that it caused the app to briefly crash during the Super Bowl broadcast." - https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22925225/super-bowl-ads-money-...

I thought there was supposed to be $3 million in BTC split between 3 winners too?

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#232

Post by chiph »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #198
chiph wrote: post #64

> There are other types of car giveaways run by more legitimate parties (charity raffles, event promotions) that do deliver the goods — but if you win, you’re liable to pay a hefty gift tax. I don't think it's a gift tax, but ordinary income tax. A coworker won a living room sofa set on a game show, and the staff were waiting with a 1099 for her as soon as she stepped off the stage. The IRS says you need to pay tax b…

> I don't think it's a gift tax, but ordinary income tax. Is it simply counted on top of (added to) your existing income, and therefore progressive? If I'm unemployed, with no income at all, would I pay very little to no tax on such a gift? Or gifts are a special case with a separate rate?

Yes, the normal progressive tax brackets apply. So if Oprah gives you a car worth $40k, and you have no other income that year, you will take the standard deduction and pay 12% on what's left. Don't forget to pay your state income tax and also the DMV to title & register the car. Getting free stuff isn't cheap!

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#233

Post by jacquesm »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #230
jacquesm wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Relevant if and only if all entities involved fall within a given legal jurisdiction This is not correct. For instance: https://blog.netwrix.com/2020/03/27/gdpr-in-the-us/

I am quite sure it is not valid in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Brazil, China and Russia? Again, one is incorrectly assuming scammers care about your local laws in the first place, and present informal fallacy as an argument with little contextual relevance. Given our uniquely crafted developer contact data was often injected into the data sets as a logic test, it was common practice to climb back up the delivery pipeli…

Yes, the number of Pakistanian, Indian, Nigerian and so on websites EU people visit is off the scale. Oh, wait, it isn't. And even then: technically they do fall under the GDPR.

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#234

Post by theotherplanb »

yayitswei wrote: post #160

I have a friend who's actually won a car in a mall sweepstakes.

Me too! My friend's daughter had just turned 18, just got her driver's license, and was at the mall with a younger buddy. She entered and then cajoled her friend, who was ready to go, to wait for the drawing. She won a four-year lease on an Audi A4 and she loved every minute of driving it until the end of the term.

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#235

Post by SilasX »

Chris2048 wrote: post #204
SilasX wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda funny how that comment is flag-killed, but an equally unverifiable anecdote is the top comment on the previous discussion, and it claims the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17400832

Perhaps because one provides no further detail, or context to add relevance?

But since it’s all unverifiable anyway, it’s really just fluff that it ads. Maybe if the poster had personal information in their profile…

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#236

Post by Joel_Mckay »

jacquesm wrote: post #233
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am quite sure it is not valid in Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Brazil, China and Russia? Again, one is incorrectly assuming scammers care about your local laws in the first place, and present informal fallacy as an argument with little contextual relevance. Given our uniquely crafted developer contact data was often injected into the data sets as a logic test, it was common practice to climb back up the delivery pipeli…

Yes, the number of Pakistanian, Indian, Nigerian and so on websites EU people visit is off the scale. Oh, wait, it isn't. And even then: technically they do fall under the GDPR.

Wasn't the GDPR deployed in late 2018? By then I was well into a whole different career path. Again, an irrelevant informal fallacy orthogonal to the conversation (Autism spectrum perhaps?)

Besides, most of Netherlands IP blocks are already blacklisted on my routes for various theft-of-service scams including SIP hijacking attempts. i.e. your country rates in the top 5 nuisance traffic origins... congratulations.. I guess... ;-)

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#237

Post by HWR_14 »

dsr_ wrote: post #205
HWR_14 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are you supposed to achieve with a bachelors in physics Start an internet payment, space exploration, electronic vehicle, tunnel boring, or direct brain-computer interface company. The mean ROI on a bachelors in physics is probably the highest in STEM. Apparently, they're also popular on Wall Street

Ah, "mean ROI". What's the median ROI? What does the distribution look like?

I have no clue.

It was supposed to be a joke, which maybe people missed, about how Elon Musk was a physics major and how mean values on power law distributions are distorted greatly by the outliers.

So I have n clue what the median is, but I assume, like all income and wealth distributions it follows a power law distribution.

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#238

Post by Railsify »

saghm wrote: post #145
Railsify wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't people over 28 be more likely to have money for a timeshare?

Yes, and that's why I asked if the intention of limiting the scam to people 28 and above was about filtering people unlikely to be able to pay for them

I read your post again, that makes sense!

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#239

Post by Railsify »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #119
fancy_hammer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha, what did you do right or wrong to end up with declining income?

Really hope that they meant disposable income and they're just maxing out 401k contributions and have kids and the like!

I'm hoping the same. Regarding 401k please remember that employer matches do not count towards the contribution limit, always calculate your deduction so that you max it out without the employer match. The employer match is the cherry on top.

Re: Why nobody ever wins the car at the mall (2018)

#240

Post by Chris2048 »

SilasX wrote: post #235
Chris2048 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because one provides no further detail, or context to add relevance?

But since it’s all unverifiable anyway, it’s really just fluff that it ads. Maybe if the poster had personal information in their profile…

a lot of things are, I don't think it matters if it's verifiable true, it's a single n=1 anecdote anyway. The meaning comes from the reason it was mentioned, which I don't think is fluff.
Post reply on HN