Snark is a normal interaction in civilized society and academia and has been throughout recorded history. It has nothing to do with the internet. Feel free to delete my account from your bubble of ignorance.
You don’t ask a scammer “are you a scammer”. And there is no “Quantum Computing Industry” yet outside some scams and hype. We remain nowhere near real quantum viability. And Musk hired people with experience. I can’t find anyone with experience connected to this company. Nobody talks about it publicly except the founder and hyped up press releases, and their documented staff are mostly dedicated to “intellectual property”. This is a scam and/or patent troll. End of story.
Pffft. The WEF is a celebrity getaway in the Swiss alps for the same people who caused the 2008 crisis and got away with it. If they’re making that prediction in good faith, it’d be a preemptive confession of guilt. If not, it’s just a distraction from their routine crimes.
If the customer is using it as an excuse, yes I would. They’re trying to weasel out of their responsibilities, responsibilities they almost certainly incurred voluntarily.
If you don’t make payments as agreed, your credit score goes down. If you do, it goes up, and will soon recover from the perfectly reasonable dip it took from your mistake. It’s pretty simple.
But you're putting nonsense in the creditor's mouth. You don't know what the conversation was like, you only have the summary of one person who feels wronged.
"You" have statistics attached to you. Default rates, lifespan, cancer risk. Given people A and B in similar life and financial situations, A or B might defy the statistics that say they'll both pay or default, but they probably won't. The only way a bank or anyone can predict this is statistically.
If it's not, they're wasting money for no reason, and someone will come along and do the same thing without giving the credit bureaus any money. They're not actually legally obliged to use credit bureau data. They could just throw money at people in the street and hope they get confused and throw back more.
Ah, you may be right, but even that still makes the report valid.
Let me tell you what I hear as a business person if you tell me my letter to you was misdelivered: "My mail delivery is unreliable so it's your problem."
Well, no, you didn't tell me it was unreliable, so I couldn't adjust my risk perception or take special precautions. And if you ever want to do business with me again, you're going to come in and execute the transaction on site and not leave with the goods until the bank confirms it's cleared.
On top of which, most billing contracts specify that payment is due whether or not you were notified. You are supposed to keep track, too.
And yes, this is okay, because until we have a proper socialist system, it is, in fact, our responsibility to pay our debts. Don't like it? Don't incur debts.
Committed or were complicit in the fraud and got in too deep to recover from the inevitable crash. This has all been widely and loudly reported on for a decade. There's a reason people are pissed that the executives who ran these institutions into the ground and fucked up the economy were barely prosecuted.
This isn't complicated. You incur a debt, you pay it. If you can't, people aren't going to want to do business with you, and will quite reasonably refuse.
You are trying to make everyone else responsible for my finances and I'd damn well thank you to stop, since they're mine.
Ah, but there is no indication they didn't. What happened is that the check was sent, but did not arrive. In other words, the customer and his agent (the postal service, probably) in the exchange did not fulfill their job of getting the money to the business. That is not something the business can control, and if you try to make it their responsibility, they will simply start refusing payment by mail, since it would be a constant and high level source of fraud.
They didn't. Pension plans and individual investors are not sophisticated financial organizations. They rely on those that are to do their job in a non-fraudulent manner. They didn't.
If Osama bin Laden's ghost appears to you and says "There will not be a terrorist attack in New York tomorrow.", and then there is, and this repeats a few times, the fact that his statement is, facially, a lie, and the fact that he can't even exist doesn't matter. You have an input that correlates with a certain output. The intent of the person who provided you the input, or even how nonsensical you think the input is, doesn't change its statistical usefulness.
The contract you agree to for credit cards or other forms of debt you choose to take on will specify things like late fees and that it's up to the company's discretion whether they report you a late payment to the agencies. If they didn't have this clause, you'd just be complaining that they report everyone indiscriminately rather than giving people a break when it seems appropriate.
It's not that weird. If your score is, say, 750, 50 points is about a 7 percent change. My finances very easily vary 7% from month to month!
50 points also isn't likely to make much difference, especially if your score is already good. Loans basically go off tables. Essentially if you're between A and B, you get this rate for this losan, C and D gets this rate, etc.
Once you're past 700, you're already getting good interest rates and banks will fall over themselves to loan you money if your income supports the loan size. When I was at 780, the loan officer couldn't give me a lower rate on a mortgage - I was already getting a fraction of a percent over prime.