Live data from Hacker News

FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

axios.com

611–620 of 690 posts

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#611
post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a rule that just happenes to not work in any of the large metros of the country in question. Large... metro? What? Where did you see me say "large metros as a rule..."? Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule". You even literally quoted that exact bit in your response! How do you have absolutely no awareness of what is going on now? > I've linked mine You certainly did for s…

When your rule fails to accurately describe reality over and over, it's pretty worthless as a rule. > Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule" Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. So comparing and talking about metro areas is absolutely relevant here. And the metro areas I've been talking about include a mix of rural and urban areas. Metro doesn't mean urban…

> Metro doesn't mean urban.

While that is absolutely true, rural areas within metropolitan areas are not the rule. What do you find notable about exceptional rural areas to offer relevance when discussing typical rural areas?

> Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule.

At one point such comparison was made, but we also moved on from that long ago and narrowed our focus to rural areas alone. There was no reasonable sequitur that brought us back to comparison with urban areas. If you want to talk about some random thing outside of our discussion, why not start a new thread?

> Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head.

Exactly. If I want to know more about the height of US males (male what? you'd better link to something to clarify!!) and how many legs dogs have, I can consult the records. There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information. I am logically, given that this is a discussion forum, not a data collection agency, here to understand that what isn't documented and only revealed through discussion — things like your inner workings.

Which, granted, is still being revealed through this diatribe. And the inner working are quite unusual, indeed. I know we're really starting to go off-topic here and I understand I am being "that guy" in perpetuating it, so I won't continue to push the issue like that curious case above any further if there isn't mutual participation, but I would love to dig into this deeper if you are game. Do you understand HN to be simply a place where you can find free secretarial labor rather than as a place for discussion?

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#612
post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your rule fails to accurately describe reality over and over, it's pretty worthless as a rule. > Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule" Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. So comparing and talking about metro areas is absolutely relevant here. And the metro areas I've been talking about include a mix of rural and urban areas. Metro doesn't mean urban…

> Metro doesn't mean urban. While that is absolutely true, rural areas within metropolitan areas are not the rule. What do you find notable about exceptional rural areas to offer relevance when discussing typical rural areas? > Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. At one point such comparison was made, but we also moved on from that long ago and narrowed our focus to rural areas alone. There was…

> There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information.

If we're trying to understand and discuss reality, we should absolutely be referencing real data and information and build our conjectures from there. Not just making some statement that reality is a certain way, refusing to engage in any data that points otherwise, and berating people who bring evidence contrary to the conjecture. Otherwise, we're just discussing fantasy and being rude to each other. Personally, I'm wanting to talk about reality, not some urban/rural areas 9rx is envisioning in his mind entirely divorced from any real places and data in the United States.

You say things like "as a rule", give arguments of a drive from a rural area into an urban area should take the same time as just transiting around within the urban area, and offer zero actual real examples, data sets, or proof to your conjectures and berate those who show real data pointing opposite to your statements.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The median household income is 80k which is plenty to afford groceries and rent. How did you come to believe that half the people in the richest country in the world can't afford to eat or have a roof over their head?

Because it is a lived experience. I will say the exact same thing for me and 90% of the people around me.

I know a few people that are really struggling on 20k a year where they can barely afford groceries and roof. But based on all the data that isn't the norm.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#614
post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Metro doesn't mean urban. While that is absolutely true, rural areas within metropolitan areas are not the rule. What do you find notable about exceptional rural areas to offer relevance when discussing typical rural areas? > Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. At one point such comparison was made, but we also moved on from that long ago and narrowed our focus to rural areas alone. There was…

> There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information. If we're trying to understand and discuss reality, we should absolutely be referencing real data and information and build our conjectures from there. Not just making some statement that reality is a certain way, refusing to engage in any data that points otherwise, and berating people who bring evidence contrary to the conjecture. Otherwise,…

> If we're trying to understand and discuss reality

Science is for understanding reality. Discussion is for understanding what someone is thinking.

> we should absolutely be referencing real data

If that's all that your limited thought is able to offer, I guess, but what, then, do you understand as the value you are bringing to the table? Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had the minds capable of coming up with that data in the first place if I want to know more about the thinking behind the data. Your involvement would be absolutely pointless.

As you are actually defying your own premise here right now by sharing what you are thinking, not regurgitating someone else's thoughts and data, you remain a valuable contributor. But if you were to devolve into what you suggest you want to be, how could the discussion go anywhere?

> Otherwise, we're just discussing fantasy

If fantasy is what someone is thinking about in the moment, I suppose that is what you are going to get. But that's exactly what discussion seeks to learn. If that's not what you are actually looking for, consider that discussion isn't what you need. As hinted at earlier, there are other ways to explore the world around you. Use the right tool for the job.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#615
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do people see in these strange middle places? Not sharing a wall or ceiling with other people is great actually I am constantly told that dense housing "built right" is quiet and peaceful and you never hear your neighbors through the walls, but my experience in apartments in my 20s was not like that I constantly had neighbours that would play loud music at all hours, or get into fights with their partners or o…

You've made a great case for living in the country, but not for the weird middle places.

Well the weird middle places are just a compromise between "having more space and more distance from neighbours" and "being far from amenities and city life"

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#616
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've made a great case for living in the country, but not for the weird middle places.

Well the weird middle places are just a compromise between "having more space and more distance from neighbours" and "being far from amenities and city life"

> and "being far from amenities and city life"

They close the distance gap, but thanks to poor civil design often (yes, there are exceptions, always) they don't close the time gap. I don't suppose it is being able to see a mostly occluded, hazy silhouette of the downtown skyscrapers is the appeal there. Surely this is about minimizing travel time?

A family member once lived in the suburbs of a large city. I live 50 miles clear of that city. It was always fun to razz them about the fact that I could be to the amenities in the city faster than they could. Many cities (not all, there are exceptions, always) develop as economic hubs, needing to get things in and out of the city as fast as possible, often at the cost of intercity movement. This leaves it more advantageous, if not in the heart of the action, to live outside of the city with respect to the matter of time.

Perhaps people just end up in the suburbs out of happenstance (e.g. they were born there) and never give it any more thought? It would be fascinating to hear from those who gave all three types of places a fair shake and still settled on the suburbs in the end.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#617
post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information. If we're trying to understand and discuss reality, we should absolutely be referencing real data and information and build our conjectures from there. Not just making some statement that reality is a certain way, refusing to engage in any data that points otherwise, and berating people who bring evidence contrary to the conjecture. Otherwise,…

> If we're trying to understand and discuss reality Science is for understanding reality. Discussion is for understanding what someone is thinking. > we should absolutely be referencing real data If that's all that your limited thought is able to offer, I guess, but what, then, do you understand as the value you are bringing to the table? Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had…

But if your discussions aren't even based in reality, what are we even really talking about?

For example:

> As a result, people are much more likely to be without work in cities, as seen in the data.

This is a demonstrably untrue statement. In the US, labor participation rates are lower in rural areas. Unemployment is generally higher in rural areas. Poverty rates are generally higher in rural areas. I'd link the data, but it's not like you'd bother actually reading it from what I gather.

> Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had the minds capable of coming up with that data in the first place if I want to know more about the thinking behind the data. Your involvement would be absolutely pointless.

Seeing as how you're making statements not grounded in reality and data, I'd say my involvement would have a point of actually directing you to the real statistics and data. I'd hope that one would change their preconceptions when given actual data showing their statements are incorrect. If I continued to push the point that generally dogs have eight legs and you managed to provide me with sources that showcased dogs actually usually only have four, I wouldn't just say your involvement of showing real data is pointless. But pointing out your fantasies aren't based in reality and aren't backed by actual data just results in you berating me.

I agree, we're also wanting to delve into the "whys" of how the world works, which isn't always just directly looking at what the numbers say. But when our base facts we start from aren't actually grounded in reality, the whys we come up with are largely meaningless. The "general rules" we concoct from our fantasies become pretty useless if we take those rules to actually then measure reality and find reality doesn't line up with those rules.

> As hinted at earlier, there are other ways to explore the world around you.

Yes, we can look at data or we can base our ideas of the world off delusions and assumptions. But I take it you'd rather continue to live in your delusions and berate those pointing out when those statements aren't grounded in truth.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#618
post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the weird middle places are just a compromise between "having more space and more distance from neighbours" and "being far from amenities and city life"

> and "being far from amenities and city life" They close the distance gap, but thanks to poor civil design often (yes, there are exceptions, always) they don't close the time gap. I don't suppose it is being able to see a mostly occluded, hazy silhouette of the downtown skyscrapers is the appeal there. Surely this is about minimizing travel time? A family member once lived in the suburbs of a large city. I live 50 m…

> they don't close the time gap

During peak hours maybe, or in very poorly designed or overcrowded cities, but ultimately if everyone is using the same roads then you will eventually sit in the same traffic if you're trying to get to the same places? Travel time might not be that much longer but it will be longer

> It would be fascinating to hear from those who gave all three types of places a fair shake and still settled on the suburbs in the end

I am one of those people. I grew up in suburbs, my family moved to the countryside in my teens, and I spent my 20s in dense urban areas, settled in the suburbs now

When I lived in the country I did often joke with my friends that I could be anywhere in the city in 20 minutes faster than they could, because I could get far north or far south faster than going through the city

But the tradeoff was that 20 minutes was a hard minimum. I could not get anywhere faster than that really

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#619
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do people see in these strange middle places? Not sharing a wall or ceiling with other people is great actually I am constantly told that dense housing "built right" is quiet and peaceful and you never hear your neighbors through the walls, but my experience in apartments in my 20s was not like that I constantly had neighbours that would play loud music at all hours, or get into fights with their partners or o…

You've made a great case for living in the country, but not for the weird middle places.

How? I live in about the most typical suburb imaginable: ~2500 sq ft house on ~8500 sq ft lot. I never hear or am bothered by neighbors (other than early morning landscapers). I have 3 grocery stores that are around a 10 minute walk along with just about every other type business. Don’t understand what is undesirable about that to you.

Re: FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

#620
post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we're trying to understand and discuss reality Science is for understanding reality. Discussion is for understanding what someone is thinking. > we should absolutely be referencing real data If that's all that your limited thought is able to offer, I guess, but what, then, do you understand as the value you are bringing to the table? Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had…

But if your discussions aren't even based in reality, what are we even really talking about? For example: > As a result, people are much more likely to be without work in cities, as seen in the data. This is a demonstrably untrue statement. In the US, labor participation rates are lower in rural areas. Unemployment is generally higher in rural areas. Poverty rates are generally higher in rural areas. I'd link the dat…

> what are we even really talking about?

Our thoughts, ideas.

> This is a demonstrably untrue statement.

My thoughts disagree, but that was said with respect to my country, not the US, so whether or not you are right, the US data is not indicative of that. While I do understand I wasn't fully clear in expressing my thoughts there, what is fascinating is that you jumped into assuming that I meant the US instead of asking "Are you sure you are talking about the US?" or something to that effect.

That is the kind of cool thing you learn in discussion. Who gives a rat's ass about data? I mean, there is good reason to care about data, but the data is right there to look at directly if you really are more interested in the data. Use the right tool for the job.

> I'd say my involvement would have a point of actually directing you to the real statistics and data.

So can I take from this that you aren't looking for discussion, but rather you want to be a teacher? While there is definitely a place for teachers in this world, a place of discussion isn't it. Colloquially, what we call the place you are looking for is "school".

Post reply on HN