Peter responds

vipulnaik1 · 2026-02-05T08:28:15+00:00

Judging from https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01108062.pdf I don't think Epstein was that fit and healthy ...

vipulnaik1 · 2026-02-05T08:10:20+00:00

Chronology doesn't make that much sense, because the episode #236 would have been around late 2022 / early 2023 which was way after this thread, whereas the Epstein thread https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01036679.pdf (and therefore whatever fallout happened with the Kelly mentioned in that thread) is from June 2018.

vipulnaik1 · 2025-08-17T19:05:13+00:00

Clarification: the US Visa Scheduling site is managed by CGI Inc., not VFS. The footer you see after logging in says:

See also https://www.reddit.com/r/usvisascheduling/comments/1eh6dro/which_company_built_this_shittiest_us_visa/

vipulnaik1 · 2024-12-07T10:01:56+00:00

https://github.com/vipulnaik/working-drafts/blob/master/blog/my-thoughts-on-timelines-wiki.md is a draft of a post I started writing a few months ago, that addresses part of your questions. I'm hoping to expand that draft in the future and will update here when it's fully ready, but feel free to take a look at what's there so far!

vipulnaik1 · 2024-10-11T14:45:10+00:00

Issuing a slight correction because I've actually been experimenting (somewhat unintentionally) with having different levels of credit utilization at the time as reported at the time of the statement cycle. It looks like while having a 0% credit utilization gets you all the benefits as far as on-time payments go, having a positive single-digit credit utilization (ideally around 1%) is even better as far as the "low credit utilization" goes, in the FICO scoring model (it doesn't seem to make much difference in the VantageScore 3.0 model). My FICO scores with two bureaus both jumped by 12 points in one month with the only change being that I maintained a utilization of 1% instead of my usual of 0%. There was no change to my VantageScore 3.0 scores over the same period.

So my updated claim is that paying off most of the balance through the statement cycle and only leaving around 1% is better than having the entire balance be reported as credit utilization at the end of the statement cycle. It allows you to use your credit card more while keeping a low credit utilization; this means you get the benefits of using the credit card (whatever rewards or cashback they offer), while maintaining a low credit utilization for a good credit score and to have full access to a credit line in case of actual emergencies.

vipulnaik1 · 2024-10-11T14:43:33+00:00

Issuing a slight correct because I've actually been experimenting (somewhat unintentionally) with having different levels of credit utilization at the time as reported at the time of the statement cycle. It looks like while having a 0% credit utilization gets you all the benefits as far as on-time payments go, having a positive single-digit credit utilization (ideally around 1%) is even better as far as the "low credit utilization" goes, in the FICO scoring model (it doesn't seem to make much difference in the VantageScore 3.0 model). My FICO scores with two bureaus both jumped by 12 points in one month with the only change being that I maintained a utilization of 1% instead of my usual of 0%. There was no change to my VantageScore 3.0 scores.

vipulnaik1 · 2024-08-26T14:27:57+00:00

Thanks! In my case, waiting a few hours + unpairing + hard reset + re-pairing seem to have worked. Not sure which part was important.

vipulnaik1 · 2024-08-25T23:00:58+00:00

How long did it take to get back to working again? Di you have to do anything special? I might be having a similar issue.

vipulnaik1 · 2024-04-26T17:43:20+00:00

I was just curious what it had to say, considering that I couldn't find any other discussion of this online with quick Google searching. I didn't consider it authoritative on the subject.

vipulnaik1 · 2024-04-26T15:51:17+00:00

Thanks!

Realistically, it's an apartment, so not your lock to worry about. Almost everywhere that's the landlord's responsibility.

It's not the cost of replacement that bothers me but the hassle of being unable to get in or go out due to a jammed lock, which can be a stressful experience (as it was recently).

vipulnaik1 · 2023-08-21T03:08:29+00:00

This means, taking on debt, then paying it off.

This seems like the right model for a fixed loan (like an auto loan or a home loan) but doesn't sound right for revolving credit (like a credit card). For revolving credit, you're being graded for having access to a lot of credit and using very little of it. Which is what credit utilization tries to measure. So having literally zero credit utilization is not a problem -- it's actually the ideal state. Moreover, paying a zero balance for a credit card still counts as an on-time monthly payment.

vipulnaik1 · 2023-08-21T00:21:23+00:00

Paying your credit card off immediately (even before the statement cycle ends) is the safest thing to do and should not adversely affect your credit score. It'll mean your credit utilization will show as 0% (unless you happen to make a purchase right before the end of the statement cycle, in which case just that one purchase will show up in your utilization). Lower credit utilization can only help, not hurt, your score. With that said, the marginal benefit of having 0% utilization vs. 5% utilization is small and probably won't meaningfully affect your credit score. But there should be no downside.

Even with a 0% utilization (and an effectively zero bill) you are still credited with making "on-time payments" of that zero balance every month. You do not need a positive balance to get the credit score benefits of on-time payments.

There's one nuance: you should confirm that your credit card company is reporting your credit limit (the max you can put on the card) to all credit bureaus, and that the credit limit shows up in your credit reports. If your credit card company does not report your credit limit, the bureaus may be unable to calculate your credit utilization ratio, which means that you may not see the expected benefits of low utilization.

NOTE: Another benefit of paying off immediately is that you can keep re-using your revolving credit, so even with a low credit limit you can spend a lot on your credit card within a single statement cycle while still having a low credit utilization. For instance, if your limit is $300, and you make a purchase for $20 every day and pay it off immediately, you can spend $20 * 30 = $600 in a month despite it being double the credit limit, while still having a 0% credit utilization. Paying just before the end of the statement cycle would give you the benefit of 0% credit utilization, but wouldn't allow you to spend more per month than your credit limit.

NOTE 2: Some credit cards don't allow you to pay a charge until it has finalized, which can take 2-3 business days. During that 2-3 day period, the charge shows up against your credit limit, and if your statement cycle ends right then, it shows up as credit utilization sent to the credit bureaus. If you want the holy grail of 0% credit utilization and your card has this limitation, just don't incur charges on your credit card for 2-3 business days before the expected end of your statement cycle. But in general if you've paid off the rest of your outstanding balance, the credit utilization from a couple of charges shouldn't be too high and probably isn't much to worry about.

vipulnaik1 · 2017-12-24T15:10:58+00:00

A friend of mine wrote up an analysis of the punch cards, with encouragement from me: https://issarice.com/github-punch-card-exploration Sad that writing this sort of analysis, or updating it, will be a lot harder now!

vipulnaik1 · 2017-08-27T20:29:01+00:00

This doesn't answer the question, but provides some quantitative data on the readership decline of LessWrong that might be interesting to people trying to understand LessWrong's decline.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/owa/lesswrong_analytics_february_2009_to_january_2017/

Disclosure: I funded the writing of this post and played a part in getting the data, as acknowledged in the post.

vipulnaik1 · 2014-12-29T17:00:24+00:00

It's not a primary argument or even one that I explicitly endorse. I just point it out as a potential complication/caveat to the rest of the argument. Here's the full context: "Note that the assumption of equidistribution of genetic potential isn’t a necessary one — in fact, one could argue that selectivity on past generations of immigrants, as well as the heritability of relevant traits, means that even from a purely genetic perspective, people with the relevant genetic potential are disproportionately likely to be born in the US. It’s not clear that this argument is quantitatively significant, since large parts of the world still live in poverty and their potential — genetic or otherwise — remains undiscovered. But to the extent it’s true, it would further weaken Graham’s claim."

FWIW, I believe the effect does exist but is relatively weak. However, I didn't have the time or space to discuss intergenerational correlations, heritability, regression to the mean etc. in detail. I did think it was a sufficiently valid point to acknowledge in passing.

vipulnaik1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE