spice-boy

About

Username
spice-boy
Joined
Visits
184
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,117
Badges
2
Posts
1,456
  • Goldman Sachs rankles at Apple Card's 'created by Apple, not a bank' line

    spice-boy said:
    spice-boy said:
    macgui said:
    The company's policies for determining credit limits has come under attack from politicians.
    That bit makes me laugh and disgusted at the same time. A guy screams sexism and without any information or substantiation other than a differing lines of credit issued, out come the torches and pitchforks. Based on an unverified claim of 'they found out my wife was a woman and based on her gender, gave her a lower limit'. That's all it took.

    Nobody checks its merit and Apple gets the blame. G-S didn't help when they immediately boosted the guy's wife's credit limit. People called that an admission of guilt.

    Gov't officials, here to help, couldn't resist the rush to hitch their teams to the MeToo bandwagon and call for an 'immediate' investigation of Apple and G-S.

    I'd like to have seen G-S reply with 'We've examined the credit history of both Mr. and Mrs. Important Developer and are ready and willing to go on record for the as to why she got a lower credit limit. Just give us the word, Mr. Important Dev. Hint: nothing in our code and algorithms says reduce females' credit limit by 40%' and 'Ignore Woz's blathering'. The Govt has yet to tell us that Apple and G-S were caught lowering the glass sealing.
    My Chase credit card has a limit of $17,000, I was offered a credit limit of $2,500 from the Apple Card-Goldman Sachs. My first name is non-gender and when I correspond with strangers 9 out of 10 assume I am female. 

    I doubt you would believe that big institutions have bias in regards to gender or race because it has never happened to you therefore it does not exist and those that claim it does are liars. 

    I have similar allowances between my Chase card and my Apple Card.   But my first name is George.   I doubt it was gender.
    So are you not curious to why? 
    You just moved the goalposts. Being curious why != “sexism!” There are lots of reasons why, and 0 of them are the illegal practice of gender discrimination. Trust me, you’re just a number. They really don’t give a shit. 
    StrangeDays, you and I must be speaking or reading different forms of the English language. Asking someone if they are curious to know why some people experience something while other don't is somehow "sexism"? Since you state there are lots of reasons why not inform the rest of us rather than insulting people. Big thanks for telling me I am just a number, talk about de-humanizing someone for no damn reason. Shame on you. 
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguyradarthekat
  • Tile to testify against Apple in House Judiciary Committee antitrust hearing [updated with...

    mwhite said:
    spice-boy said:
    Concentration of wealth means concentration of all industries. High end fashion brands are now all owned by 3 international conglomerates. Designers, visionaries within those original brands are gone and its all about profit and keeping cost down to please investors. Does this sound familiar to any of you? 

    Companies like Apple are another example of profits over foresight. Jobs was replaced by a production chain expert, Jon Ive left and it is "design by committee" in his place, expect the same old, dulled down industrial design going forward. 

    I think some of you feel this in your gut but are not willing to admit it. Apple is not that exciting as it use to be, it's products and services are not that distinctive. An Apple diehard customer since 1994. 

    B.S......
    Thank you for your eloquent and well thought-out response. Could you sum up your views on the earth not being round with similar brevity? 
    Anilu_777gatorguy
  • Goldman Sachs rankles at Apple Card's 'created by Apple, not a bank' line

    macgui said:
    The company's policies for determining credit limits has come under attack from politicians.
    That bit makes me laugh and disgusted at the same time. A guy screams sexism and without any information or substantiation other than a differing lines of credit issued, out come the torches and pitchforks. Based on an unverified claim of 'they found out my wife was a woman and based on her gender, gave her a lower limit'. That's all it took.

    Nobody checks its merit and Apple gets the blame. G-S didn't help when they immediately boosted the guy's wife's credit limit. People called that an admission of guilt.

    Gov't officials, here to help, couldn't resist the rush to hitch their teams to the MeToo bandwagon and call for an 'immediate' investigation of Apple and G-S.

    I'd like to have seen G-S reply with 'We've examined the credit history of both Mr. and Mrs. Important Developer and are ready and willing to go on record for the as to why she got a lower credit limit. Just give us the word, Mr. Important Dev. Hint: nothing in our code and algorithms says reduce females' credit limit by 40%' and 'Ignore Woz's blathering'. The Govt has yet to tell us that Apple and G-S were caught lowering the glass sealing.
    My Chase credit card has a limit of $17,000, I was offered a credit limit of $2,500 from the Apple Card-Goldman Sachs. My first name is non-gender and when I correspond with strangers 9 out of 10 assume I am female. 

    I doubt you would believe that big institutions have bias in regards to gender or race because it has never happened to you therefore it does not exist and those that claim it does are liars. 
    muthuk_vanalingamOferdysamoria
  • US Attorney General William Barr's push against encryption concerns some FBI officials

    Rules don't matter anymore didn't you hear?
    baconstangviclauyycminicoffee
  • Apple TV+ exclusives 'Beastie Boys Story,' 'Central Park,' 'Home,' to debut at SXSW

    I can't wait to watch the Beastie Boys documentary, huge fan and neighbor. 
    ciachasm