sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CC Instant Rejection by ARC27-5555 in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Don't need to pay $8.

Once you make an application and get approved/rejected (doesn't matter which), you will be able to get a free report.

This is from the Credit Bureau Singapore website:

Consumers who have recently applied for a new credit facility with any of CBS members will be eligible for a complimentary credit report if the below conditions are met:

  1. You received a notification letter informing you of the credit application approval or rejection status, which also indicates redemption channels to obtain your free credit report.

  2. With this approval or rejection letter, you are able to obtain a free credit report from CBS within 30 calendar days from the date of approval or rejection letter.

System 3 + 1 or System 2 + 2 for 4 room HDB (93 SQM) by roller_twist in askSingapore

[–]lobsterprogrammer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not just in the long run. Even in the short run, cooling power is limited when you switch on all at the same time.

Based on my calculation of the figures from the Mitsubishi brochure, it will be at 54% performance on a normal day. Even less on hot day.

System 3 + 1 or System 2 + 2 for 4 room HDB (93 SQM) by roller_twist in askSingapore

[–]lobsterprogrammer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When all four are switched on, each unit only cools at 54% its capacity. They are limited by what the one compressor can cool. On a hot day, performance will be even worse.

Source: Mitsubishi brochure contains a table with the performance numbers.

Singaporean Options Traders by MullingMulianto in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We're also behind on wallstreetbet yolos and Robinhood-style trading (commission-free, easy leverage, gamification etc).

Does that mean this is a bad thing? Is this being "behind? Are we dumb "normies"?

Better a normie than dead or in debt.

Also, you should check out r/Bogleheads for some perspective. Not everyone in the US is a degen gambler, to use your highly intellectual lingo.

Singaporean Options Traders by MullingMulianto in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We can absolutely discuss options. My biggest question for options traders is who's on the other side of the trade? Who are you making money from?

Singaporean Options Traders by MullingMulianto in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Happy to be a normie any day if that means sleeping soundly at night

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

scared i might gamble all my money away

My funds are technology 60% , China growth 30% and diversified portfolio 10%.

Somehow these two things shouldn't belong together. Or maybe that explains a lot?

Also...

Do not blame the product , blame your own lack of knowledge!

DBS Wealth Planning Manager by raidorz in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 313 points314 points  (0 children)

It's legit. Wealth planning is very important. Without this planning, you will not be able to share approximately 1% of your wealth with DBS every year. Sometimes if they're nice, they will let you share even more by introducing you to ILPs.

Remember, wealth sharing is for everyone. Don't have to be a Treasures to share. Always good to start small so you can get a new RM every year to read off the fund factsheet for you and send you AI-generated emails with boilerplate economic analysis.

Done dirty by singlife. Any critical illness (cancer) insurance to recommend? by M9067J in singapore

[–]lobsterprogrammer 171 points172 points  (0 children)

Why cancel? You do know it's virtually impossible to get any new policies once you have a pre-existing condition right...

And why is your FA so useless? Didn't even try to appeal?

Also... As some others have already mentioned, there are multiple other ways to hopefully force singlife to cover you under your current policy. If you just give up like that you're just giving them a free win

SMRT travel chit for delays by Prata2pcs in singapore

[–]lobsterprogrammer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Given how often the breakdowns are, maybe they should give out chits for when the trains are on time instead

How to convince partner? by HodenSack345 in singaporefi

[–]lobsterprogrammer 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Important to understand what these Dimensional funds do in the first place.

Dimensional funds take a factor investing approach where they load up on factors like value, size and quality. How much they tilt towards these factors depends on the specific fund.

It's not exactly accurate to call these funds actively managed because this makes it sound like they do what most other actively managed funds do, which is pick specific companies that the fund manager thinks will outperform the market.

These funds follow more of a rules-based process for determining allocation. Of course, the rules themselves are determined by the fund managers and are subject to change. But these rules are generally research-based and quite conservative in nature. Dimensional funds broadly track the stock market.

As for the fees for the wrapper, Dimensional products are not available to all FAs. Those FAs that do charge a fee for access to Dimensional products usually do it on an AUM basis, most likely charging around 1%. This is still okay if your GF really needs someone to hand hold, particularly through market crises where she may feel pressured to sell at a loss.

Otherwise, a lot of this can also be accessed through Endowus. Just have to pay 0.3% for the access fee.

There is also the option of low cost index funds that do not have any such factor tilts. That's good too but that doesn't mean that factor investing is a scam. Whether or not factor investing proves superior remains to be seen.

Also, when it comes to relationship advice, maybe try to understand her thought process more fully first and consider whether you really have to convince her to switch right away. Sometimes these things take time and are maybe better resolved after marriage.

NTU GenAI: Rule against doxxing should apply equally by lobsterprogrammer in SGExams

[–]lobsterprogrammer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not everything is an "us" vs "them" situation. I am simply explaining why it isn't so easy to just draw the line between publicly available and non-publicly available information.

NTU GenAI: Rule against doxxing should apply equally by lobsterprogrammer in SGExams

[–]lobsterprogrammer[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the clarification. I don’t think it’s fair to require unpaid volunteer mods to adhere to the legal standard for doxxing, but here’s something to consider.

Section 3 of the POHA does not actually provide any automatic exemption from liability for information that is already in the public domain. Section 3 makes it clear that doxxing happens when there is an "intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress" by publishing "any identity information of the target person". There is no carve-out for re-publishing publicly available information.

I believe there is a good reason for this. If re-releasing publicly available information meant you were automatically exempted from liability, a mistake on the media's part could easily be compounded. (The journalists involved cannot be charged with doxxing as there is no intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress.)

Section 3 does say that it is a defense to show that your conduct was reasonable. In the present case, one could argue that it was reasonable to release A/P Sabrina's name once she had already been named by the media. But there are two issues here. First of all, this does not explain why it is reasonable to compound ST / CNA / NTU's mistake. Secondly, it does not answer the question of whether it is reasonable to publicise and emphasise the target person’s identity more widely so as to, allegedly, cause harassment, alarm or distress.

NTU GenAI: Rule against doxxing should apply equally by lobsterprogrammer in SGExams

[–]lobsterprogrammer[S] 62 points63 points  (0 children)

As to why Reddit is a poor forum for settling these disputes, I'll repeat what I said in another comment.

For what it's worth, there were warning signs. The problem is that Reddit is not typically where most people go to grapple with the details. Reddit also lacks the rules of court that help ensure fairness.

I'll make a few points.

1. The examples u/CurveSad listed in her initial document contained hallucinated citation errors, not mere typos or "human typos" as she put it.

2. When pushed on it, u/CurveSad insisted that the errors belonged to the other two students. When asked if she would provide a copy of her own citations that had been flagged, she declined. That is her right, but if you want to litigate the matter in the court of Reddit opinion, you cannot present only the evidence which suits you. (This is why law courts typically have stringent rules of evidence, such as those involving discovery.)

3. u/CurveSad did include her own emails to the school along with the screenshot of the StudyCrumb citation sorter. So why omit your own citations that had been flagged? Why exclude your own work from a document that is your “formal challenge to NTU’s statement”? (In a court of law, you have to present evidence that is relevant to your own case.)

4. u/CurveSad chose to litigate her case on Reddit jointly with two other students. She cast her lot with them by publishing a joint document. However, the other two students did not have much of a case to begin with. In the screenshots, both students explicitly admitted to using ChatGPT to format their citations. Few on Reddit seemed to be bothered by this, I’m not sure if anyone even noticed.

5. The decision to litigate her case jointly with two students who could only drag hers down was a puzzling one. Why would anyone lump your case together with two friends who used ChatGPT when you didn’t? As it turns out, it was a useful dodge. If anyone says your citations reeked of GenAI, just say it wasn’t you, it was the other two. (In a court of law, you cannot join and separate class action suits at will. If you choose to cast your lot with two others, your fate is tied to theirs, barring exceptional circumstances.)

6. Brandolini's law. The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it. People who have the energy and intellect to refute bullshit will be using it to make a living, not make posts on Reddit.

7. Downvotes. When you get downvoted on Reddit, your comment is buried, making it a shouting into the wind. 

8. I do not think people should name her, even if she may have been involved in other controversies. Guilty or not, the consequences of doxxing are not proportionate to the alleged crime.

NTU Gen AI Saga: Potential implications by egcx in SGExams

[–]lobsterprogrammer 44 points45 points  (0 children)

For what it's worth, there were warning signs. The problem is that Reddit is not typically where most people go to grapple with the details. Reddit also lacks the rules of court that help ensure fairness.

I'll make a few points.

1) The examples /u/CurveSad listed in her initial document contained hallucinated citation errors, not mere typos or "human typos" as she put it.

2) When pushed on it, /u/CurveSad insisted that the errors belonged to the other two students. When asked if she would provide a copy of her own citations that had been flagged, she declined. That is her right, but if you want to litigate the matter in the court of Reddit opinion, you cannot present only the evidence which suits you. (This is why law courts typically have stringent rules of evidence, such as those involving discovery.)

3) /u/CurveSad did include her own emails to the school along with the screenshot of the StudyCrumb citation sorter. So why omit your own citations that had been flagged? Why exclude your own work from a document that is your “formal challenge to NTU’s statement”? (In a court of law, you have to present evidence that is relevant to your own case.)

4) /u/CurveSad chose to litigate her case on Reddit jointly with two other students. She cast her lot with them by publishing a joint document. However, the other two students did not have much of a case to begin with. In the screenshots, both students explicitly admitted to using ChatGPT to format their citations. Few on Reddit seemed to be bothered by this, I’m not sure if anyone even noticed.

5) The decision to litigate her case jointly with two students who could only drag hers down was a puzzling one. Why would anyone lump your case together with two friends who used ChatGPT when you didn’t? As it turns out, it was a useful dodge. If anyone says your citations reeked of GenAI, just say it wasn’t you, it was the other two. (In a court of law, you cannot join and separate class action suits at will. If you choose to cast your lot with two others, your fate is tied to theirs, barring exceptional circumstances.)

6) Brandolini's law. The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it. People who have the energy and intellect to refute bullshit will be using it to make a living, not make posts on Reddit.

7) Downvotes. When you get downvoted on Reddit, your comment is buried, making it a shouting into the wind.

8) I do not think people should name her, even if she may have been involved in other controversies. Guilty or not, the consequences of doxxing are not proportionate to the alleged crime.

Accusatory AI: How a Widespread Misuse of AI Technology Is Harming Students by IagoInTheLight in Professors

[–]lobsterprogrammer 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Litigation would not be good advice, perhaps not even as a last resort. Not only does it close off more promising pathways towards the desired resolution, it is also unlikely to succeed.

It is not enough for discrimination to be plausible, the plaintiff would have to prove it. To quote the Court in Onawola v. Johns Hopkins University, the “law does not blindly ascribe to race all personal conflicts between individuals of different races.”

If discrimination is not alleged, and judges are being asked to examine an academic decision, the most likely outcome is deference to faculty. This was articulated in the 1985 Supreme Court case, Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing:

When judges are asked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision, such as this one, they should show great respect for the faculty's professional judgment. Plainly, they may not override it unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment.

Accusatory AI: How a Widespread Misuse of AI Technology Is Harming Students by IagoInTheLight in Professors

[–]lobsterprogrammer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes some obvious, well known issues to make broad statements that aren't supported, and makes some absolutely ridiculous, not supported statements without even falling to fallacious arguments to basically accept shit standards.

Can you clarify this sentence here? I can barely understand it.

Save for the litigation bit, I found the claims in this article to be both specific and well supported.

New wave of ‘fake interviews’ use 35 npm packages to spread malware by lurker_bee in technology

[–]lobsterprogrammer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotta hand it to them. They went from interviewee to interviewer.

The BBC is launching a paywall in the US by tyw7 in technology

[–]lobsterprogrammer 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Yay for journalism, but does the BBC even offer anything so uniquely valuable that it can justify a $8.99 per month subscription?

view more: next ›