6 ms·

There is a strange human phenomenon, particularly visible online. Some folk see a title like that and it triggers a "How can I blame the author?" urge within be

by Jenk 4y ago

There is a strange human phenomenon, particularly visible online. Some folk see a title like that and it triggers a "How can I blame the author?" urge within before they even open the link.

ianai 4y ago
That’s definitely a thing too often. The “middlebrow rejection” or something like that. But in this case the OP got a message saying they had exceeded the limit and would get a refund. Then they repeated the transaction at the limit for a total of 20k. From reading comments here it sounds like the author both misinterpreted things and also compulsively over deposited to test the governments software. Testing government systems as an outsider is a really bad idea.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  Maybe I was primed by the author because I was reading their article, but I understood it the same way they did - the entire $10k was rejected because it put them over the limit. I probably would have tried the same $9975 transaction they did.
  - ianai 4y ago
    Didn’t they see at that point they were already down 10k? That’s what I thought they meant, from reading it.
  - MarcoZavala 4y ago
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    Maybe I still don't understand but why didn't he get any I-bonds for either the $10k or the $9975 if they're only refunding the excess? What are you supposed to do if you over-pay? Wait for your refund before buying again?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      According to their system yes. It’s a bad case of eventual consistency.
- Jenk 4y ago
  I like to think of it as an extension of Cunningham's Law[0] > Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." That is "post anything online and someone will point out you are doing it wrong" [0]: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
ssnistfajen 4y ago
[flagged]
cortesoft 4y ago
This happens whenever something bad happens to someone else, be it a car accident or a major illness or being the victim of a crime. People want to think it wouldn’t happen to them, so they go through all the reasons they would have been able to avoid the situation so that they don’t have to fear it happening to them. People really don’t want to admit to themselves that there are a lot of things outside our control that can happen to us.
- tectonic 4y ago
  I think this is exactly right.
- enumjorge 4y ago
  > People want to think it wouldn’t happen to them I’ve often wondered why some people can be so harsh towards those who’ve had something unfortunate happen to them. This makes a lot of sense.
  - MikeDelta 4y ago
    See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  That's mostly because people in good circumstances are usually reluctant to attribute much of it to luck. It's so much more fun to pretend that everything good that's happened to you, you earned and deserved, rather than a lot of it just being random noise that compounded in the fortunate direction.
  - bckr 4y ago
    When taken together, your observation and GP's form a phenomenon called the "fundamental attribution error": https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution...
  - deleted 4y ago
pc86 4y ago
Because blaming the author means it's their fault, because they're stupid/didn't pay attention/whatever. The alternative is that they just made a mistake that anyone could make, which means the keyboard warriors would need to reconcile the fact that they might have made this mistake. And since we're all Very Smart People, we wouldn't make such a silly mistake. So clearly the author much be a bumbling idiot. It's the only possible explanation.
laurent123456 4y ago
Another strange human phenomenon is that comments that criticise other comments are guaranteed to be on top in HN. It's boring, not even about the article, and barely accurate (only very few comments actually criticise the article's author), yet that's the first thing you read here.
dcposch 4y ago
Speaking of blaming the author. This post is a fantastic example of the poverty trap. We design laws that, on paper, help the poor; and then we blame them for not taking advantage. When in reality, they are poorly implemented, poorly advertised, and confusing. With a $10k cap, this program is clearly intended to help people with low assets. How many people with a net worth under, say, $20k in the US? Tens of millions! How many of those would've really loved the extra $850 to offset this year's record inflation? Basically all of them! How many of them found this obscure website with awful UX and received the money? Approximately none!

by Jenk 4y ago

There is a strange human phenomenon, particularly visible online. Some folk see a title like that and it triggers a "How can I blame the author?" urge within before they even open the link.

ianai 4y ago

That’s definitely a thing too often. The “middlebrow rejection” or something like that. But in this case the OP got a message saying they had exceeded the limit and would get a refund. Then they repeated the transaction at the limit for a total of 20k. From reading comments here it sounds like the author both misinterpreted things and also compulsively over deposited to test the governments software. Testing government systems as an outsider is a really bad idea.

cmeacham98 4y ago
Maybe I was primed by the author because I was reading their article, but I understood it the same way they did - the entire $10k was rejected because it put them over the limit. I probably would have tried the same $9975 transaction they did.
- ianai 4y ago
  Didn’t they see at that point they were already down 10k? That’s what I thought they meant, from reading it.
- MarcoZavala 4y ago
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  Maybe I still don't understand but why didn't he get any I-bonds for either the $10k or the $9975 if they're only refunding the excess? What are you supposed to do if you over-pay? Wait for your refund before buying again?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    According to their system yes. It’s a bad case of eventual consistency.
Jenk 4y ago
I like to think of it as an extension of Cunningham's Law[0] > Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." That is "post anything online and someone will point out you are doing it wrong" [0]: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

ssnistfajen 4y ago

[flagged]

cortesoft 4y ago

This happens whenever something bad happens to someone else, be it a car accident or a major illness or being the victim of a crime. People want to think it wouldn’t happen to them, so they go through all the reasons they would have been able to avoid the situation so that they don’t have to fear it happening to them. People really don’t want to admit to themselves that there are a lot of things outside our control that can happen to us.

tectonic 4y ago
I think this is exactly right.
enumjorge 4y ago
> People want to think it wouldn’t happen to them I’ve often wondered why some people can be so harsh towards those who’ve had something unfortunate happen to them. This makes a lot of sense.
- MikeDelta 4y ago
  See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
That's mostly because people in good circumstances are usually reluctant to attribute much of it to luck. It's so much more fun to pretend that everything good that's happened to you, you earned and deserved, rather than a lot of it just being random noise that compounded in the fortunate direction.
- bckr 4y ago
  When taken together, your observation and GP's form a phenomenon called the "fundamental attribution error": https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution...
- deleted 4y ago

pc86 4y ago

Because blaming the author means it's their fault, because they're stupid/didn't pay attention/whatever. The alternative is that they just made a mistake that anyone could make, which means the keyboard warriors would need to reconcile the fact that they might have made this mistake. And since we're all Very Smart People, we wouldn't make such a silly mistake. So clearly the author much be a bumbling idiot. It's the only possible explanation.

laurent123456 4y ago

Another strange human phenomenon is that comments that criticise other comments are guaranteed to be on top in HN. It's boring, not even about the article, and barely accurate (only very few comments actually criticise the article's author), yet that's the first thing you read here.

dcposch 4y ago

Speaking of blaming the author. This post is a fantastic example of the poverty trap. We design laws that, on paper, help the poor; and then we blame them for not taking advantage. When in reality, they are poorly implemented, poorly advertised, and confusing. With a $10k cap, this program is clearly intended to help people with low assets. How many people with a net worth under, say, $20k in the US? Tens of millions! How many of those would've really loved the extra $850 to offset this year's record inflation? Basically all of them! How many of them found this obscure website with awful UX and received the money? Approximately none!