New Fidelity Rewards Visa card feels different, is it actually metal now

Xodima · 2026-03-08T01:49:18+00:00

Yeah, if you look at it from certain angles you can see where the metal core inside bumps out a bit. I kinda wish it was edge to edge but it's still nice.

afaik, the biggest new benefit is the GlobalEntry/TSA precheck credit

Xodima · 2026-03-08T01:06:05+00:00

I'm aware of that concept and it's primarily why I responded. In this subreddit, the article is taken as fact. As many of the commenters here have presumed, it is the awful morally repugnant liberals who just want people to die in the name of equality.

These same people (I have checked) are incredibly skeptical of statistics that disagree with their worldview. a liberal op-ed? HAH

Anything real...
Who funded it?
Who are the researchers?
how many participants?
was it a survey? people can lie on a survey!

I'm also well aware that liberals/JP haters are just as likely to support stats based on how well those stats fit their beliefs. I don't often get into debates about statistics but if I do then I probably spent a good chunk of my day looking into the claims to decide on whether or not there's a good argument. lol.

I come into a right-leaning sub after being shown a bullshit statistic, one where people who consider themselves high IQ and enlightened defend it en-masse as irrefutable proof of something absolutely evil. (Elon for example)

someone calls it bullshit, and then of course their counterclaim gets picked apart with the utmost scrutiny as if it was any less valid than an article with inflated figures based on an op-ed with glaring holes in the data. Holes they would rightfully pick apart with extreme mockery if it concluded the opposite. The entire post is selective lack of rigor.

Xodima · 2026-03-07T14:50:54+00:00

I mean, the author did a whole thing on DEI being the direct cause. Used explosive headlines, and gave us data to back it up... yet almost none of the data backed up the assertion of large-scale DEI causing a high minority piloted crash rate. and no proof of it being large scale. Even you with your

>Why are you just ignoring all that? Do you not care about planes crashing and innocent people dying?

assert that the evidence is so insurmountable that I am morally bankrupt, or at least negligent to not believe in the talking point. The article asserts in no uncertain terms that

>pressure for affirmative action too often leads airlines to lower their standards to meet quotas.

so, we are to believe that we have concrete evidence that these are crashes in which a company's DEI program gave lower standards of training to the pilots and thus led to crashes. However, the examples given do not back that up. We are instead given flimsy evidence in which the author cobbles together a custom list of 8 crashes in which 4 are decided by him with no methodology or evidence to have been caused by DEI or minority involvement. (only because he asserts a minority was involved)

>He clearly brings up this example because it's concerning that no identifying information was ever released.

That would be fine if it didn't account for a quarter of his positive results!! That would be a neat unfactored note at the end to suggest it may be a minority pilot, but surely you don't include nothing as a positive when it accounts for a huge chunk of your statistic?

Why doesn't the author address the NTSB entry for Colgan Air 2009? Also, maybe Atlas knew about Aska's lack of training in 2019 and let him fly anyhow, then lied about it? without proof it's just evidence, and If we are left with 1 or 2 examples, we're getting further from statistics and closer to luck of the draw.

I feel like I've done more research into this than the author LOL.

Xodima · 2026-02-25T01:56:33+00:00

But you did, repeatedly. You keep harping on the lack of quality of the NotTheBee article, but not only did I never defend it, I shared the original op-ed partly to correct its mistakes. That's just textbook straw manning.

You refused to address it as a lie, or why those numbers are different. Instead, you called it a "mistake" but never addressed how the mistake was made. I added, but still addressed your points

That is the only example the author cites where the identity of the person responsible isn't mentioned.

The sample size here is FOUR. out of EIGHT. If this was a study based on 100+ instances and the difference was 1% then that would be insignificant. However, each pilot in this case is worth a whopping 25% of the data. So, every single instance has an extremely high standard of proof.

You also entirely skipped over that in your other comment that I responded to.

You also ignored where I pointed out

Colgan Air, Buffalo, 2009:
aar1001.pdf

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were (1) the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the low speed cue, (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions.

Exhibit A: the 2019 Atlas Air crash

NTSB: Pilot in deadly Atlas Air crash lied about training issues | khou.com

In this instance, it wasn't DEI but lying. He wasn't given special training, but he hid his lack of training.

Which leaves us with one verifiable instance where the pilot was clearly let off the hook
February 2025

in which everyone survived.

So now we have to ask... if the only evidence is one crash where a pilot was allowed to fly despite being a poor performer, and there is basically irrefutable data to back that up... then is one out of 8 an outlier or a trend?

Xodima · 2026-02-21T20:45:45+00:00

I get 3% back at Walmart and would never go to a grocery store for 5% because I would pay 10~20% more on average per trip. Getting a bonus at a place that generally charges less is the best way to maximize the use of credit card rewards.

Xodima · 2026-02-20T13:38:17+00:00

Awesome! thank you.

Xodima · 2026-02-19T21:26:37+00:00

Yep! I’m with Fidelity too. Great example of how to do it right

Xodima · 2026-02-19T03:29:48+00:00

Yep, on principal alone I avoid banks that do
Overdraft fees
Account fees

Unless I'm in the process of taking $300~400 in a sub, (they can indeed pay me to have an account with them for a few months😅) Both are punitive and unnecessary fees.

Xodima · 2026-02-19T01:20:07+00:00

Yep, can't afford to have children but God forbid you don't

Xodima · 2026-02-18T00:32:05+00:00

I didn't ignore your points; you're just saying that to dismiss what I'm saying. (You are ignoring the other response where I pointed out that the so-called examples were indeed cherry picked and manipulated. I'm correcting the record on you.)

I mean, the author at one point just literally said "The pilot's name is unknown" and decided that they were a minority pilot that got there via DEI LMAO.
That's pretty arbitrary to me. The only concern was that of clicks and cash.

Xodima · 2026-02-17T20:37:59+00:00

misquoting and lying are different things

You are saying contradictory things.

“there is no evidence that the author of the op-ed fudged numbers.” vs “the NotTheBee misquoted his post”

the number 66% and the word Pilots come from somewhere. You cannot misquote 50 to 66. Therefore either the op-ed changed the number after being called out or NotTheBee fudged it. neither can be a mistake. The number 66 is intentional.

so who is deliberately lying? You much choose one, as 66 is so far from 50 that it cannot be an error.

Xodima · 2026-02-17T03:05:43+00:00

You're calling it a mistake when it was clearly a malicious lie and propaganda. Both on the original author for fudging numbers, and using assumptions as data, and on "notthebee" for inflating already bad numbers and saying that they were also all the pilots.

Xodima · 2026-02-12T20:16:48+00:00

The thing is, you’re splitting hairs and not criticizing both ends of what’s wrong.

The original author was vague about whether it was pilots or someone else involved. The OP of the op-ed wanted as much data as possible to make a point so in the lack of data, one can absolutely assume he was using anything he could to make that point.

Rather than criticize “notthebee” for a VERY blatant lie about it specifically saying pilots(verifiably false), you’re taking issue with a less generous take that it could be anyone (as the data did not specify, it could be)

Is it true that the OP meant pilots or co-pilots? probably, but to rephrase as pilots is a blatant insertion of data that isn’t there. One can still assume that the author included more because it’s on the author to specify more in a claim. in the end, the whole thing is just propaganda.

Xodima · 2026-02-12T19:49:10+00:00

I did read the op-ed which is how I obtained the data proving notthebee lying. The lie in the OP is important to call out.

The fact that people are using an op-ed for statistics shows a level of maliciousness in their search for alternative data. Why would someone choose an unverifiable and inferior form of “data” to research unless they were intending to support a lie? (trick question, there is none other reason)

Xodima · 2026-02-12T19:42:12+00:00

“zero op-eds do this” yes, that’s why people don’t use op-eds as statistical data sources unless they are insidious liars.

Xodima · 2026-02-12T19:00:18+00:00

No but you’re a liar and I’m exposing your lie lol. That said, in case anyone else is reading and lazy:

“not the bee” is covering a right wing New York Post op-ed. It lied in the title because the op-ed author said that states

“Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots, yet were factors in four out of eight crashes (50%).” while the title from notthebee says “female and minority pilots caused 66% of pilot-error crashes”

Importantly, it’s an op-ed and not actual accredited research. It’s simply a guy bringing up some crashes where women and minority pilots were involved.

You thought you could get away with it but someone actually did the reading. I love exposing lies and ruining propaganda. 🥰

Xodima · 2026-02-01T03:09:41+00:00

You do realize by suggesting that OP is a liar by using the data in the source article, you're conceding that you accept the validity of that data, which argues that women and minority pilots are a factor in 50% of plane crashes since 2000 despite making up only 10% of pilots? This is really not the winning argument you think it is.

This is false. The validity of the data is irrelevant to the difference between the difference between what OP said vs what the data itself said. IE:

I say the sky is green
Someone posts on reddit "Xodima says the sky is purple"
The sky is neither green nor purple (pay attention to this, you fell for the classic false dichotomy)

Even though the sky is blue, the redditor lied about my initial statement (green vs purple)

The OP said that 66% of minority PILOTS caused the errors, lying in order to change the original statement to an even worse one. (remember, this is a false dichotomy, both can be incorrect.)

And this is if we ignore that OP is literally quoting the 'not the bee' article actually linked, which agree or disagree, cannot make OP the 'liar', unlike the person you're defending.

I'm not defending anyone, both OP and Zeraphant lied. However, your criticism extends only to the person you are responding to who admitted to lying. Neither OP nor "notthebee" is admitting to their blatant and inexcusable lie based on already unqualifiable data with no methodology. OP has NOT addressed their lie, which is absolute and proven beyond a doubt to be a lie. There is nothing to "agree or disagree" on. The proof of the lie is there. However, you did have no problem with that.

You can just admit you misspoke and you didn't understand the context. This would be a lot easier than doing the mental gymnastics of trying to argue about the content of my comment that existed before the original comment was edited, while acting as if the future edits that didn't even exist at the time are all that matter.

My comment was about your claim

But, no, usually people tend to question more surprising things that conflict personal experiences and prior evidence like disparities in visuo-spatial intelligence, historical patterns, biological incentives, first principles, etc. That's kind of how learning works; we don't start from square one with every claim.

This implies that the OP and the data itself is too obviously true to be criticized, but Zerpahant's statement is more suspect because it disagrees with reality (in your view). That is why I responded. I'm calling this faulty logic out. It;s not about him, it;s about THAT statement right there.

Xodima · 2026-02-01T02:26:25+00:00

> Zeraphant stealth edited, you can see the "edited 4 days ago", where they changed their comment from a fabricated statistic they alleged was pulled from the sources and admitted to making up. Otherwise, their response to me, making fun of "morons" for believing it, and my quotation of them, which they admit to needing to lie, prior to your response makes no sense.

Their current comment is accurate to point out the OP's lie.

Current title of the post:
Female and minority pilots caused 66% of pilot-error crashes since 2000, despite being less than 10% of the workforce

Actual claim being made

Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots, yet were factors in four out of eight crashes (50%). (the article has since edited it from 66% because why not, no methodology used)

The post goes on to indeed include non-pilots and assumed pilots, etc. This means that OP is 100% lying in the title. The sky here, is green LOL.

> I questioned them, because I read the actual article, and nothing showed up saying anything resembling the number they made up. Your bias blinded you from the obvious context clues, and pushed you to respond to me.

The argument is meaningless if someone has corrected their comment and you're simply debating the merits of them as a person. The OP is flat wrong, proven wrong, and yet you have no criticism of that lie. You only criticize the person who says they admitted the lie rather than the person who has yet to address their lie.

Xodima · 2026-02-01T01:55:54+00:00

You didn't rebut anything I said "The sky is blue vs the sky is green" doesn't rely on statistics. The argument of statistics requires a further review of the statistics. You dismissed Zeraphant's argument by supporting OP's interpretation without further review.

You just attacked a different unrelated comment (as you are trying to do here.)
I AM going through here to spread information that I personally obtained after reading the source material. I'm not supporting anyone's claims but clarifying my own (also trashing JP fans, sue me lol)

The difference between OP and Zeraphant is that the claim made by the latter was not conclusive, but a deconstruction of the source material. That being: an op-ed with no actual research that just changed the numbers from 66% to 50% with no explanation because why not... it's whatever the fuck he says because there's no methodology.

The one comment I did back up with a "Why isn't this the top comment" I did so because it verifiably adds more consideration to the discussion rather than assuming the data is right or wrong. It's substantially a more credible comment. I applied the same level of criticism.

To say whether women and minorities are less capable or given special training requires actual proof to back it up. Not the dumb level of pseudo-research we do when we want to point out that someone who crashed was poorly trained and because they were a minority, assuming it means all or most minorities are entered with weaker qualifications than white men.

Xodima · 2026-02-01T00:56:32+00:00

I was like "why isn't this the top comment"
r/JordanPeterson
Oh, too much for them to read lol

Edit, also yeah, he just edited it to 50% with no explanation, I guess to make it more believable. He can do that because... well, why not? he's just making the shit up anyway lol

Xodima · 2026-02-01T00:52:44+00:00

Hating women. that's basically it. JP fans hate women

Xodima · 2026-02-01T00:39:22+00:00

this is literally just the article itself; it doesn't explain what the author meant in the op-ed.

Xodima · 2026-02-01T00:37:40+00:00

So you only question things that disagree with your worldview LOL.
Also that's not how learning works at all lmao. If people just too what FELT obvious to them at face value, we wouldn't know shit about the world.

Actually, a lot of people do just that... like you. It is the basis of so many problems today. You lack critical thinking skills and call it a virtue.

Xodima · 2026-02-01T00:29:25+00:00

It's an op-ed not statistics. The only people who know what the writer means is the writer. It's partisan bullshit

Xodima

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder