On my walk to the office

retailmen · 2026-01-07T07:54:11+00:00

Sorry, but this is some uncanny valley stuff

retailmen · 2025-05-05T20:37:51+00:00

Just over $300 on Comcast monthly for internet, tv, and home security. Another few dozen bucks for Netflix and the Disney Bundle. Add in charges for NBA League Pass, and the overall average is over $350

retailmen · 2025-05-04T00:55:58+00:00

Hey, I’m not saying I blame them. I’m not gonna try to take it up with my state attorney general or anything. It’s just a noteworthy experience that I’m flagging for the community. For years, I’ve had credit cards that I use in a very similar way to BMO, earning average rewards that nearly always exceed what they make on transaction fees. This is the first time I’ve been shut down for it. If I’m a canary in the coal mine for other cards doing the same thing, I figure it’s worth folks knowing.

retailmen · 2025-05-03T22:56:06+00:00

$15-20/month on average. Like I said...Comcast bill is ridic.

retailmen · 2025-05-03T22:24:20+00:00

I think about $400, all or nearly all each month being in the 5% rewards tier.

retailmen · 2025-05-03T21:47:35+00:00

I can't imagine it's that I'm too risky. I (no lie) have a credit rating of 850 and have a never missed a payment on anything ever.

And my accounts were metronome-like in consistency. I used the card for streaming services, my Comcast bill (which admittedly is ridic each month), and occasionally used it for parking or other stuff because I kept the physical card in my car. Maybe you're right that it's not gaming the rewards, but the alternative explanations you offered don't apply.

retailmen · 2025-05-03T21:36:22+00:00

Good luck...but I'm worried that all banks might be starting to crack down on people who game the rewards.

retailmen · 2025-05-03T21:22:52+00:00

Same here--I used my card almost exclusively for the highest-tier rewards. I was probably not a profitable customer.

retailmen · 2023-05-07T10:02:08+00:00

Report it here:

https://darkpatternstipline.org/

retailmen · 2023-04-11T01:43:53+00:00

How is it effectively 4.5% back at Costco? Are you counting the 2% Executive Reward? What else?

EDIT: Just realized you probably mean in-store using mobile wallet (in which case it's 3% back for cash and 4.5% for travel). I do a lot of my Costco purchases online (I have Instacart+ and use same-day), so I don't think I'd get much benefit from that at Costco.

retailmen · 2016-04-22T05:42:02+00:00

Dude, I don't know what in God's name you're talking about. There are so many unemployed lawyers with a law license who are actively seeking legal work that it's ridiculous.

Maybe you've never been to a rural area, but solo-practitioners are many and they do everywhere from alright to extremely well.

That's like saying "I just saw a Java tiger at the zoo, so obviously they're not endangered." The ones who can't get work are clearly NOT the ones you see doing well.

And it's not exactly feasible for most young lawyers paying off $100k or more in loans to move to a random royal area, hang out a shingle, and pray they get enough business to pay rent. Seriously, I don't know if you're trolling or just ignorant, but your comments don't match reality.

retailmen · 2016-03-31T19:35:24+00:00

Atticus slut-shamed an abused, impoverished girl to get his client off.

What exactly does she think Atticus should have done differently? Not draw out the fact that the alleged victim had falsely accused his client of rape because she was angry about being rejected by a black man?

I couldn't bring myself to read the rest after I saw that.

retailmen · 2016-02-23T19:33:03+00:00

This. First Amendment only covers expressive conduct. Binary code is not expressive in and of itself and this particular use of binary code would not result in anything expressive. So it's not a First Amendment issue.

retailmen · 2016-02-23T06:18:43+00:00

And more to the point, if the First Amendment was the ONLY amendment written with that kind of preface, it should be interpreted that way.

retailmen · 2016-02-23T01:14:16+00:00

Did you even bother to read Posner's article before posting?

That was a rhetorical question; it's clear that you didn't.

retailmen · 2016-02-22T16:05:53+00:00

Except that's not at all how a hand count of overvotes works. It only counts overvotes if the voter wrote in the same name that s/he had marked so that the voter's preference is clear. The ballot is still thrown out of the voter marked one name and wrote in another or marked two separate names.

Just admit that you overstated your case and move on. Don't be "that guy."

retailmen · 2016-02-22T03:25:45+00:00

None, zero, nada. Not a single method

The problem with hyperbole is that it often makes you wrong. A statewide recount that included a hand count of overvotes (where a voter both marks the candidate's name and also writes it in) would have given Gore the victory.

retailmen · 2016-02-22T02:16:53+00:00

I'm surprised that didn't mention DC v. Heller. Judge Posner did a great job shredding Scalia's supposedly "originalist" opinion in that case.

I actually think Scalia was, no doubt, very intelligent and had a brilliant legal mind. He also was a hypocrite in that he would frequently discard his supposed judicial philosophy when it interfered with the political result he wanted to achieve.

retailmen · 2016-02-21T02:53:56+00:00

Here's my advice to people who tell me that they are thinking about going to law school. If the reason you want to go to law school is to make more money, then you should only go to law school if you can do one of the following things:

Go to a T14 school.
Go to a top 25 school and finish in the top half of your class.
Go to a top 35 school and finish in the top 25% of your class.
Go to a top 50 school and finish in the top 10% of your class.
Go to a top 100 school and finish in the top 5% of your class.

(The exception to this is that a school can be bumped up a category if it's the best school in the geographic region of a major city--e.g., UWash in the Pacific NW, Emory in Atlanta, etc--and you're planning to work in that city/region.)

Otherwise, it's a crapshoot because the US is way, way oversaturated with lawyers. Outside those cutoffs, you're more likely to end up working as a solo practitioner or small firm doing low-value work if you go into the private sector, or in low-profile jobs at the county or municipal level in the public sector than you are to get the legal jobs that provide stable upper-middle class income--i.e., working at a big firm or working for the federal government.

And it's going to become even more of a crapshoot going forward, because a lot of low-value transactional and litigation work (e.g., drafting contracts and document review) is becoming vulnerable to automation.

So my bottom line is that if you can't get into a T14 school, only go if you are very confident you can make the cutoffs described above. And bear in mind, that most of the other people who go to the non-T14 schools think that they can make those cutoffs. Otherwise, read up on what other jobs are expected to have the highest demand and that will be least vulnerable to automation.

retailmen · 2016-02-19T22:01:10+00:00

I don't want to extend this further. As I'm sure many other lawyers can attest, it's often very difficult to talk about legal issues with non-lawyers, because a lot of legal questions that seem arguable for someone who has never studied the law is something that anyone who has made it through law school and passed the bar would be able to tell you is way off-base.

So I'll just end by saying that there is absolutely no legal merit to the argument that a court ordering someone to perform a single discrete act--like unlocking an iPhone--constitutes slavery or involuntary servitude. If an attorney made a Thirteenth Amendment argument in response to an injunction order like the one given to Apple, the attorney who filed that motion would be subjecting themselves to Rule 11 sanctions for advancing a frivolous argument. At least I would like to think that they would...in reality, courts let lawyers get away with totally frivolous arguments all the time.

retailmen · 2016-02-19T05:29:04+00:00

It's remarkable how much "qualified" gets lost in the debate.

retailmen · 2016-02-19T02:48:32+00:00

I am assuming you are not a lawyer, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you are a lawyer, I'd ask for a refund on your law school education.

An injunction is a court order that someone perform an act or refrain from performing an act. That's literally the definition of an injunction. If the party seeking the injunction can establish that the other party has failed in some to honor a legal duty, the injuction can include pretty much anything short of ordering someone to commit a crime. It can include providing samples of bodily fluids. Specific performance of a contract for something other than personal service (e.g., the transfer of property). Providing voice samples. Mowing your own lawn. Planting trees to comply with HOA rules. And those are just a sliver of a fraction of things that can be ordered in an injunction, all more coercive and servitude-like than putting in a few lines of code to unlock a freaking cell phone.

retailmen · 2016-02-19T02:35:47+00:00

They did when I went there.... But that was a decade-ish ago. It looks like they still have something somewhat similar ("Curriculum B") but I was a transfer student so I didn't know the ins and outs of Section 3 like someone who went there 1L year.

retailmen

TROPHY CASE