3 ms·

I would like to bet $1,000 that the payment ends up being $1 or more per claimant. You in?

by harryh 7y ago

hcurtiss 7y ago
LOL - no. I did not mean it literally. Did you have a point on the substance?
- harryh 7y ago
  My point is that your prediction is very likely wrong. I was hoping to make $1,000 while making this point, but alas. Next time maybe don't make a prediction you aren't willing to stand behind.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    Oh, please. I'm merely emphasizing the point that the promised $125 (and I saw nothing in the way of a qualification when I made my claim), was fantasy from the beginning and likely to be a very small fraction of that amount. That fact is objectionable. Your focus on a turn of phrase is unhelpful and does not contribute to the conversation at hand. HN is better than that.
    - harryh 7y ago
      I am glad that my offer to take you up on your bet has lead you to clarify your position into something less hyperbolic. Precision is important.
      - danShumway 7y ago
        Precision is important, but understanding context, common cultural idioms, and responding substantively to them is more important. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. On the odds of the payout literally dropping below $1, that would require roughly 21% of eligible people to sign up - 31 million. The FTC has claimed that "millions" have already signed up, but hasn't given more exact numbers. We can assume that the rate of sign ups will slow down as time goes on, but people also have until January 2020 to file a claim. If 4 million people file, that will drop the payout to $7.75. I doubt the payout will drop below $1, but if I were a betting person I'd be willing to bet a moderate amount that the (initial) amount will drop below $10. Depending on the odds given, I don't think it would unreasonable for someone to bet that it will drop below $5. Note that this is assuming that the FTC doesn't literally turn off the option and prevent people from claiming the money. In either of those scenarios, the original commenter's point is still basically the same, which is that this is an absurdly low amount to pay for a breach of this size. I'd also also potentially support the government dismantling Equifax, which was the actual point of the parents post. I'll even add to that point that Equifax's free credit monitoring comes with its own arbitration agreement, which is so egregious and tone-deaf that it makes me furious. The government should not allow a company to put an arbitration agreement into a service it's being forced to provide as a result of a class action settlement.

I would like to bet $1,000 that the payment ends up being $1 or more per claimant. You in?

by harryh 7y ago

I would like to bet $1,000 that the payment ends up being $1 or more per claimant. You in?

hcurtiss 7y ago

LOL - no. I did not mean it literally. Did you have a point on the substance?

harryh 7y ago
My point is that your prediction is very likely wrong. I was hoping to make $1,000 while making this point, but alas. Next time maybe don't make a prediction you aren't willing to stand behind.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  Oh, please. I'm merely emphasizing the point that the promised $125 (and I saw nothing in the way of a qualification when I made my claim), was fantasy from the beginning and likely to be a very small fraction of that amount. That fact is objectionable. Your focus on a turn of phrase is unhelpful and does not contribute to the conversation at hand. HN is better than that.
  - harryh 7y ago
    I am glad that my offer to take you up on your bet has lead you to clarify your position into something less hyperbolic. Precision is important.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      Precision is important, but understanding context, common cultural idioms, and responding substantively to them is more important. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. On the odds of the payout literally dropping below $1, that would require roughly 21% of eligible people to sign up - 31 million. The FTC has claimed that "millions" have already signed up, but hasn't given more exact numbers. We can assume that the rate of sign ups will slow down as time goes on, but people also have until January 2020 to file a claim. If 4 million people file, that will drop the payout to $7.75. I doubt the payout will drop below $1, but if I were a betting person I'd be willing to bet a moderate amount that the (initial) amount will drop below $10. Depending on the odds given, I don't think it would unreasonable for someone to bet that it will drop below $5. Note that this is assuming that the FTC doesn't literally turn off the option and prevent people from claiming the money. In either of those scenarios, the original commenter's point is still basically the same, which is that this is an absurdly low amount to pay for a breach of this size. I'd also also potentially support the government dismantling Equifax, which was the actual point of the parents post. I'll even add to that point that Equifax's free credit monitoring comes with its own arbitration agreement, which is so egregious and tone-deaf that it makes me furious. The government should not allow a company to put an arbitration agreement into a service it's being forced to provide as a result of a class action settlement.