experbia

yes. it is not everyone else's responsibility to reshape reality to accommodate me. if the restaurant I'm meeting a friend at is full when we both get there, and it looks like the wait will be too long for us, we go to a backup location. sometimes that happens. it's life. at no point do we assume a position of superiority and arrogance and start accosting already-seated patrons issuing orders to vacate to make room for us. that would make me and my friends pieces of shit.

At the end of the day, if you know the restaurant is so busy and table seating is a huge problem...

... why not make plans with a backup restaurant in mind if you're meeting up with friends, just in case it's full already like it often is?

What if every other table was already occupied by people meeting friends. They're all entitled to be there. This lady only bullied OP and told him to hurry up because he was there alone. And what you're saying is that if you're alone, you're not really entitled to use shared resources beyond the absolute minimum necessary?

You're calling for mutual understanding while supporting the position of someone who demonstrably has none as she goes around ordering people to leave public spaces becauss they think they're more important. 'Mutual understanding' is revoked when it's clear the other party only wants to abuse it.

assuming if it's been asked nicely

It was not. That's the problem, and it's the reason for OP's reaction.

She was asking for a favor.

She was not. She was ordering OP to finish and leave, because she viewed herself as more valuable and more entitled to the shared resource than OP is, and therefore expected them to comply.

If she had merely asked for a favor instead of issuing an order, it could have been different.

yep. aka a plausible way to jam Russian money into his pockets in return for future favors without leaving an obvious trail

precisely. there was no need for her to stress out OP by telling him he had to hurry. she could have moved the meet to a less busy restaurant, or waited for a table to open like the rest of us, or possibly even politely asked instead of dictating rudely.

you misunderstand the function of the score. it's not a score that tracks how reliably you pay back your debts, it's a score that tracks how profitable you are as a debtor. someone who pays it all back before masses of interest can accumulate is not profitable. someone who doesn't pay it back and drowns in the interest is also not profitable. the best scores are for the people in between, who make the creditors lots and lots of money consistently.

It's for this reason that "building credit" over time is ridiculously easy if you game it properly - it's basically pay to win. the more consistently you pay interest but without looking like you're drowning, the happier they are. it's why having some utilization gets you better scores than paying everything off completely and having 0 utilization every month.

i agree it's very stupid in terms of incentivization and think it's probably the worst measure of social value we could have arrived at.

some folks gave up and ended up with an Xbox or PC. I helped a few friends build a gaming rig and get onto Steam after they got fed up getting sniped by bots on friggin best buy lol

a person in his care and custody

hahaha

they would be showing this video at the academy as a demonstration of a failure to kill the guy in the back seat, therefore allowing all this to look ridiculous. to other cops, this is a grim tale of not sufficiently escalating the reality of the situation to match their internal narrative, and with this cop's public humiliation, a demonstration of how vital it is that there be a corpse if you ever act rashly for some reason.

say what you will about the rest of the show but this is a loss if just because of Lee Pace as Empire, and Demerzel and her interactions with him.

Retirement funds have millions of people's retirement

and they exist within a continuum of risk profiles. there are safer (and less potentially profitable) options, and there are riskier (and more potentially profitable) options. they have made this decision.

you cannot pick the riskiest options for your retirement fund and then get mad there was more risk than the safest options and that you lost some of it. you cannot pick the safest options and then get mad it's not performing as well as the riskiest. if you cannot afford to lose your retirement money, do not put it into any fund or mechanism that will gamble with it beyond what you are comfortable with. it is YOUR responsibility. alone.

as a result of your mentality, we will see less and less innovation. people who can improve the world see you and your opinions and decide, well, it's not worth it. what intelligent person would ever work with organizations that you claim are justifiably ethically bound to stab them in the back and reward them the bare minimum possible?

and why, because grandpa ticked the "minimum risk" button in his sofi 401k and is mad he's not getting explosive vc-tech-company-tier returns? or because your uncle ticked the "maximum risk" button and is mad he lost some money? you're catering to the lowest common denominator of uninformed, entitled gamblers and are poisoning the well and breaking the whole system down as a result.

let me guess, you have an MBA?

that spent their retirement money to purchase shares

don't invest (or gamble) what you can't afford to lose.

using some people's poor money management skills as an excuse to justify exploitation of the source of your windfall is exceptionally stupid.

a receding tide beaches all boats. every time something like this happens, another genius with another big idea sees it and decides it's not worth it if they're just going to get the result stripped away from them by parasitic suits.