It’s not a social credit system because it doesn’t weight your social involvement in the society (political party, school credentials, race) but rather payment history, amount of debt, types of credit
Not at all. It is simply a score based on your ability to manage credit, it is scored differently based on the company making the assessment.
In reality that means "have you paid off what you owe in the manner that was agreed" and does the person have any red flags e.g. County Court Judgements against their name or residence.
There are people I know that manage it properly and those that don't. It has nothing to do with wealth or class.
It doesn’t inherently have to do with wealth and class, however, all of these things are so tightly correlated that it loses barely any fidelity and just saves you a little bit of time to assume that someone with an 815 credit score is law-abiding, upper-middle or high social class, and has a medium to high net worth, and that somebody with a 550 credit score is at least one of the following: poor, criminal history, and a low social class.
None of this should be that surprising: it’s hard to make all of your debt payment payments on time if you’re either broke or in jail.
No having a high credit score has nothing do with your wealth or social class. I have worked in this industry briefly. It looks at your ability to manage credit, and whether you have any flags.
e.g. I had a 995 credit score on Experian back in the late 2000s. The highest was 999. I earned £18,000 at the time, and was in my mid-20s and didn't really own anything at the time. I did have a credit card at the time where I made the payments, and I lived at a household which had no debt, and I was on the electoral roll.
That is why when you are making larger purchases they do a "means test" e.g. see if you earn enough to pay a mortgage.
Your case is a great example of why credit scores are not reliable indicators. You were living on the ropes then. One job loss and you probably have very little saved and will be forced to incur debt and and start defaulting on payments potentially. You were very much the risky bet. And yet, you were able to game the system to look like a reliable bet.
Gaming the system like you were able to do in order to improve your credit score is very much correlated to financial literacy which is correlated to socioeconomic class which is correlated to race. This is how we arrive at credit scores being race and class indicators, but not bound by laws that prohibit using race and class as indicators.
Your comment is a great example of "If you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me".
Everything about this reply is completely incorrect.
> Your case is a great example of why credit scores are not reliable indicators. You were living on the ropes then. One job loss and you probably have very little saved and will be forced to incur debt and and start defaulting on payments potentially. You were very much the risky bet. And yet, you were able to game the system to look like a reliable bet.
So you made a bunch of assumptions about my personal circumstances. Let me correct you:
- I didn't "Game the system". I had absolutely no idea at the time such a thing as a credit score existed. I cannot game a system when I have no idea that it exists. The only reason I checked is that other people at work were checking theirs and I did so sheerly out of curiosity. Many years later I happened to work a contract where they wrote software that did the credit checks.
- I was not "living on the ropes". I lived within my means.
- I had 2-3 months of savings. My strategy for saving this money was to save it on payday. So I forgot I had the money and couldn't spend it. I do exactly the same thing now.
- The debt I had on my credit card was paid off in full monthly. I only used it for online purchases (many online sites didn't take debit cards still).
> Gaming the system like you were able to do in order to improve your credit score is very much correlated to financial literacy which is correlated to socioeconomic class which is correlated to race.
Again I did not game the system. I was completely financially illiterate at the time. My only financial literacy, I had at time was that I shouldn't spend all my money after payday and I shouldn't spend more money than I had. I found that out in the first month of living on my own. My family actually earn a lot less than I do now.
None of this has anything to do with race. From reading your comments replying to me and your posting history, I am pretty sure you are from the US. You are applying your US centric view of the world onto the UK. The UK is not the US.
> This is how we arrive at credit scores being race and class indicators, but not bound by laws that prohibit using race and class as indicators.
What you are trying to do is to erroneously shoehorn in your brand of US politics into a discussion about the UK. As a result of this you have got everything about my personal circumstances (at the time) and the circumstances of family and wider community completely incorrect, in an attempt to score some political points (it obvious btw from the language you are using).
I suggest in future you shouldn't make assumptions.
Because there is already a barrier to prevent that. Defaulting on the home loan or not paying rent and facing eviction. Having a barrier based on past behavior is stupid. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Funny how that works for investment banks to cover their ass but they can't see how it might also apply to individuals.
I realize that you responded to a specific statement, not necessarily the entire context of the thread. However:
Saying that a person’s credit score is entirely due to their own financial decisions is incorrect because it’s overly simplistic, that’s true, although the main factor is that person’s behavior (whether that behavior is their fault or not is a different story). It can also depend on circumstances specific to the person but not directly related to their own actions (e.g. their credit provider revises credit limits across the board due to external factors, so their credit utilization changes too, without them having used any more or less of it).
In addition, and what you’re alluding to, is that these models are continuously revised. A set of behaviors and circumstances that lead to a higher score in one economic environment may not do the same in another.
Credit scores as implemented in for instance the US are not a direct reflection of a person’s moral character or intended as a reward for good behavior. They’re uncaring algorithms optimized solely for determining how risky it is to lend you money, so that financial institutions can more accurately spread that risk across their customers and maximize their profits. This also enables credit providers to give out more credit overall, based on less biased criteria (not unbiased, because models are never perfect and financial circumstances can be proxies for other attributes).
One can feel however one wants about whether this system is good or not. But it’s definitely different in kind to ”social credit” systems like the one China has implemented, which directly takes into account far more non-financial factors and determines far more non-financial outcomes, effectively exerting much more control over many facets of people’s lives.
> although the main factor is that person’s behavior (whether that behavior is their fault or not is a different story).
This is the whole crux of the situation so buying it in a disclaimer misses the point.
Every lender and background investigator I’ve ever interacted with have treated credit score as a social credit marker, but sure, your mileage might vary.
> They’re uncaring algorithms optimized solely for determining how risky it is to lend you money, so that financial institutions can more accurately spread that risk across their customers and maximize their profits.
This is a fallacy; algorithms are “uncaring” in an anthropomorphic sense, yes, they lack a psychological capacity to care, but their designers are very much not, as you admit in the very next sentence.
> But it’s definitely different in kind to ”social credit” systems like the one China has implemented, which directly takes into account far more non-financial factors and determines far more non-financial outcomes, effectively exerting much more control over many facets of people’s lives.
We entirely disagree on this point. Probably because we have different definitions of “non-financial factors” and “non-financial outcomes.”
> This is the whole crux of the situation so buying it in a disclaimer misses the point.
It maybe doesn’t adress the point you’re interested in, but it doesn’t miss the point I was making, that the goals and mechanisms revolves around how well a person manages credit. For the credit provider everything else is secondary or irrelevant, including whether it’s because you’ve made poor decisions or external factors have screwed you over.
> Every lender and background investigator I’ve ever interacted with have treated credit score as a social credit marker, but sure, your mileage might vary.
This is probably the crux of why we’re not on the same page, because I don’t understand what this means. I’m genuinely asking, what do you mean when you say that they treated it as a social credit score marker? What business did you have with them (or they with you) that didn’t involve whether or not to extend credit? What does the term “social credit score marker” mean to you?
> This is a fallacy; algorithms are “uncaring” in an anthropomorphic sense, yes, they lack a psychological capacity to care, but their designers are very much not, as you admit in the very next sentence.
I don’t see how you explain that it’s a fallacy, and I don’t think it is, but I concede that it’s a confusing word choice - I should probably have just omitted the word “uncaring”. My point was once again that their sole goal is determining the risk of extending a person credit - whether that would be a nice or moral thing to do or not doesn’t factor into it.
> We entirely disagree on this point. Probably because we have different definitions of “non-financial factors” and “non-financial outcomes.”
I assume here that you mean that people’s financial status, including their access to credit, determines a lot of aspects of their lives, too (correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t think any reasonable person disagrees with that. I do however think that you underestimate how constraining it can be when additional variables are factored in to more directly control what you are and aren’t allowed to do, and how.
How long did you spend trying to adjust? it takes some time. I consistently made typos for about 2 months and then it quickly became very natural to type. My only advice here is to slog through the typos for a couple months. Our brains are flexible enough to adapt.
Lot's of internet porn is either real or simulated abuse. I'm not an expert but based on anecdotal experience abuse kinks are largely related to some history of abuse or trauma experienced by the individual. I think it's fine for adults to have these kinks and explore their sexuality but exposing it to children can normalize sexual abuse among youths, which again I am close with someone who's had a personal experience with this.
Children are exposed to liars, to fools, to the stupid, to the unwise, to the corrupted in malice, to the weak in will... Since a very young age.
«Exposing» such frequent faults to children does not «normalize» it. It may, if the child is in a generally bad environment - but then, the target is the core environment, not the outer experience.
Yes there are "bad" things children can be exposed to. But the difference is the lifelong real trauma caused by sexual abuse. Yes kids can learn lying from the internet, or see people smoking, etc. But if you are a pre-teen that sexually abuses another pre-teen (which happens _very_ common surprisingly) it has an enormous capacity for harm compared to other "bad" things. With this and that it's much easier to regulate, I think it is worth the trade-offs.
If you mean barring general access, than your evaluation is debatable.
But especially:
if the concern is with some forms of possibly "certified traumatic" depictions (and I believe this would raise a hell of a needed research and nuances revelation),
why not just attacking the "certified traumatic" depictions?
These files also generally work in a nested fashion, like .gitignore and the like. So you want something that can be injected into the namespace of any directory in your project with relatively low likelihood of conflicts.
I feel bad that you're getting downvotes. The reason is that pretty much every modern web stack decouples the URL routing from the source code directory structure these days. It was a nice hack back in the day, but there are so many problems with it no one really does it any more.
Some frameworks (Laravel, NextJS, etc) map from the directory structure to routes, but that's just a mapping rather than actually exposing the directories on the server. You can have /src/agents accessible as /agents. Or you could have /alice/bob/agents accessible through /agents. It's all just build tooling and web server config at the end of the day.
That's my point. Having your code in `/src` doesn't mean some of that code doesn't still have routing at `example.com/agents`. It doesn't have to be a real directory.
A `.agents` directory (or routing pretending to be one) is nice because you are fairly unlikely to ever have user-facing `example.com/.agents` as a URL.
Or accept the fact that we're in 2025 and not follow Unix conventions from when paper and printer ink were expensive and they were printing out listings, and just name the thing "source".
I've gotten used to it, obviously - as someone with a career in IT for 20 years - but /etc & co. annoy me to no end. I know it will never change, I know why it won't change, I know GoboLinux will be just an interesting experiment, but it's still annoying.
Have you considered that there are other metrics people are optimizing for nowadays? Perhaps typeability, screen real estate, familiarity/convention, etc.? Do you really want /User Files/Bob's Files/Coding Projects/Python Projects/Bob's Cool Python Library/Source Code/Model Files/SomeObject.py?
Depends on the WinAPI used... I still use C:/src instead of C:/Users/MyUser/src for that reason when working in windows all the same though. Too many unixy utils don't leverage the apis with the longer path, not to mention not supporting the internal certificate store and proxy config.
Anything with a capital letter requires hitting two keys: Shift and then the desired letter. Thus /Programs requires 10 keystrokes rather than 9. Even worse, since the capital letter is at the beginning of the directory name, I have to type it and am unable to rely on tab-completion.
/Programs with its ten keystrokes is over twice the keystrokes of /bin and its four. Short names are quicker to type and require less effort. Given that to a first approximation I spend my entire life typing on a keyboard, I very much wish to optimise that experience.
That's really more the fault of the tab completion. There's no reason why it couldn't complete `prog` to `Programs`. It's just Unix tradition that they don't. I would prefer if they did.
Great tip! Apparently that's readline's config file, so this will affect a lot of things. That's great news for me; after switching to zsh I got used to case-insensitive tab completion, and now it annoys me when other tools don't work that way. This should help a lot.
The first shell listing starts with `cd` and `ls`, the former being run in `~`. What does that weird `~` mean? Very strange.
More seriously, their file system is still case-sensitive, and inside /Programs they have `Iptables` and `Fontconfig`, naively capitalized, but also `OpenOffice` and `HTTPD`.
Not to mention that inside each program folder are `man` and `bin` as usual. I'm going to suggest the point of that article is structure and organization, not naming.
Nobody reasonable complains about a three-letter abbreviation you can type with one hand. For a path you're either accessing a lot or never at all, it makes complete sense.
/usr -> Program Files (hello spaces my old friends, you've come to break my apps again)
/var -> ProgramData (but no spaces here)
/home -> Documents and Settings
/etc -> Control Panel
Spaces are avoided on base Linux systems because they're clunky for terminals more than fear of outright breaking things. To the extent spaces there do break things, that also happens on Mac and Windows for the same reasons (hence ProgramData being conspicuously space-less).
The abbreviations I wrote are unambiguous. When I first learned about Unix, I basically guessed - I assume as most first timers do - that the folder is basically the location of miscellaneous files ("et caetera").
Oh, let alone the fact that a bunch of the abbreviations are utterly non-intuitive to first timers.
/bin - binaries - nobody born after circa 1980 calls them that anymore. Executables, applications, apps, etc.
/boot - from a lame Baron Munchausen joke from 1970. Should probably be /startup.
/dev - dev is SUPER commonly used for "development". Easy enough to solve as /devices.
/home - okish, probably one of the best named that are actually in there. I'm shocked it's not /ho or /hm.
/lib - reasonable. Though these days in the US it might trigger political feelings :-p
> The abbreviations I wrote are unambiguous. When I first learned about Unix, I basically guessed
They're completely ambiguous to someone who doesn't speak English.
> /mnt - the whole metaphor of "mounting" is... debatable
What? Have you never heard of mounting a picture on a wall? Mounting an engine? That's the metaphor.
> Anyway, a lot of people have done this criticism better than me and it's boring at this point.
Your original complaint was about "src", suggesting calling it "source", which is still ambiguous by your own standard. Source of what? How is someone going to know what "source" means if they've never heard of booting a computer? Who is the audience for this change?
Some of your suggestions aren't meritless, but your jumping-off point certainly was.
Call it whatever you like. I don't care and that clearly wasn't the point of my comment.
One thing I've learnt, though, is unless you have a very good reason to try to change language you should just talk the same language as everyone else. I don't like the American short billion. It makes no sense and it's less useful. But that's what I use because I speak English and that's what we use now. If I see a src/ directory I know exactly what it is. If I see source/ it will give me pause. Get over it IMO.
While the meaning of "source" may be intuitively obvious, it's still relatively unfamiliar as "src" is far more prevalent than "source" when referring to source files. While "id est" may be equivalent to "i.e.", you'd still naturally pause when reading text using the former instead of the latter, because the latter is far more prevalent in usage than the former.
> If someone is in a group that is heading towards dysfunctionality, try to maintain your relationship with them; don’t attack them or make them defend the group. Let them have normal conversations with you.
This is such an important skill we should all have. I learned this best from watching the documentary Behind the Curve, about flat earthers, and have applied it to my best friend diving into the Tartarian conspiracy theory.
I will point out that in capitalist systems, the money saved by the efficiencies can be put towards more environmentally positive products and technologies. Electric cars for example were very expensive, and it was the wealthy that were able to demand them, drive the market, push prices down so more middle class families can afford them. This is happening again with compostable plastics, B-corps that are more circular, efficient/recyclable packaging solutions, and other parts of our industry.
I watched an interview with both the authors. They read as both left leaning but self critical of the regulations the left has put in place. It seemed like this leftist identity is part of the story so maybe that is why it is mentioned so much.
