undefined | Better HN

0 pointsianai3y ago0 comments

That’s definitely a thing too often. The “middlebrow rejection” or something like that. But in this case the OP got a message saying they had exceeded the limit and would get a refund. Then they repeated the transaction at the limit for a total of 20k.

From reading comments here it sounds like the author both misinterpreted things and also compulsively over deposited to test the governments software.

Testing government systems as an outsider is a really bad idea.

0 comments

cmeacham983y ago

Maybe I was primed by the author because I was reading their article, but I understood it the same way they did - the entire $10k was rejected because it put them over the limit. I probably would have tried the same $9975 transaction they did.

sacrosancty3y ago

Maybe I still don't understand but why didn't he get any I-bonds for either the $10k or the $9975 if they're only refunding the excess? What are you supposed to do if you over-pay? Wait for your refund before buying again?

scarface743y ago

According to their system yes. It’s a bad case of eventual consistency.

ianaiOP3y ago

Didn’t they see at that point they were already down 10k? That’s what I thought they meant, from reading it.

Jenk3y ago

I like to think of it as an extension of Cunningham's Law[0]

> Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

That is "post anything online and someone will point out you are doing it wrong"

[0]: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse