ImPostingOnHN

745 ms·

3061.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
The current solution obviates the additional work requirement of changing credit limits before purchase, so IMHO it's a better solution for that problem. If you're protected from your credit card being used on a $5,000 purchase, w
3062.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
They aren't being punished by not using credit cards, they're just choosing not to avail themselves of the benefits of using credit cards. If you pay your bill every month, then a credit card is like a debit card plus benefits lik
3063.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
I think he's trying to say that rights abuses are justified by success (the "gorilla" sized companies patronizing them). No, it doesn't make much sense to me, either.
3064.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
1. Mandate that each accused has the right to view the evidence against them - this means no bans without specific evidence that the user can view and defend against. 2. Mandate that each accused has the right to face their accuser - this m
3065.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
That question, and it's answer, have no bearing on the post it is replying to.
3066.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
The issue is that it's better for society that a thousand guilty people go unpunished than that a single innocent one is. "The end justifies the means" is how atrocities are justified.
3067.
by ImPostingOnHN 6y ago
The defendant (Google) was asked to defend their actions, on multiple occasions, and could not. That amounts to a default judgement against then in our eyes, is all. It'd be pretty silly to withhold judgement until the defendant admits