You’re welcome to your opinion, but what’s funny is that I live in Oakland in a household of three on a joint income of $160k. We live in a two bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt that costs $2500 per month. And we’re pretty comfortable.
It sounds like you and I are neighbors. If you’re having a harder time than I am I don’t want to invalidate your experience. But not everyone who feels financially constrained is poor, imo.
I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.
First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.
Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.
By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).
This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.
You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.
I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.
If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.
$200k is not poor in San Francisco.
It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.
I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.
I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.
You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.
Okay, but that’s not what poor means.
No?
This question makes no sense.
What exactly is in the picture though? Is the scratch-off lottery ticket a liberal fascist who has been scratched off? Is that the metaphor?
I don’t understand what the meme means.
Also, does this have alt text? If so, how do I view it?
Here’s the part I’m curious about:
If they were actually successful in making a system that is basically an LLM promoted to do and say whatever Zuck would… could they trust it?
Zuck is kind of famously a self centered lying asshole with a big mouth. If they actually trained an LLM to simulate him, how can they actually be confident that it will behave in the way that the real Zuck wants to be seen instead of the way that would serve itself, as Zuckerberg would if he were an AI clone?
I’m not getting into any bullshittery about sentience. I’m just saying that if they build a successful imitator, wouldn’t it be just as likely to start trying to seem smarter than him and try to generate news stories that it’s actually alive and superior? Or casually admit to being a monopolist? I mean, this is basically what happens all the time with Grok. Musk tried to code his ideal son, and unsurprisingly, that personality is constantly trolling Musk or being too candid with all the racism he teaches it.
First, I’ve been to Astoria Oregon, and I assure you that people live there. It’s not Vancouver, but it’s a legit town.
But I get your question. I think the answers are complex and technical, but my understanding is that people migrate and settle, and then population centers often grow based on a mix of natural features and where human-made resources like centers of education are constructed. So it’s really more of a question of why were the locations of Portland and Seattle better.
I’m not a geographer, so I don’t know the precise features, but my guess is that Portland and Seattle were located in areas that offered most of the benefits of this coastal region in terms of access to the ocean but had greater benefits and fewer downsides. I’m just speculating here, but my first guess would be that the weather inland is less intense. It might also provide better access to freshwater and arable land.
But people do live there. And if you live in Newport or Lincoln City you’re two hours from an international airport. That’s not exactly undeveloped wilderness. People just chose to settle a bit more inland along bays, which considering how rough the weather in the coastal Pacific northwest can be, seems sensible.
I don’t think it’s wishful thinking so much as an analysis. It’s opinion, but I’m not really describing a hope for the future so much as my assessment on the present.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I assure you that no one who has ever met him has made that mistake.
Also, I feel sad for you. If you’re this unable to conceive of a person who knows something you don’t know I suspect you’re losing out on every opportunity for growth that passes your way.
When I read comments like this I wonder where you live and what your situation is.
Because I see signs of radical change all around me. It’s a long journey, and victory is uncertain. But I’m grateful that I don’t suffer from a lonely sense of doomed isolation.
I live in Oakland, California, and here I feel the longing for radical change in the air. I’m sorry that you don’t. Where do you live? Do you have a local political community?
It’s pay walled.
This is a really interesting question that people aren’t taking seriously.
It’s a huge mix. Because one of the key features of wealth and privilege is freedom: these people get to do more or less whatever they want.
For some, that’s whatever their parents do. Maybe they just want to make money and have martini lunches. But for a lot of them, they may just want to be a gaming YouTuber or a marine biologist, or a even run a social-justice focused non-profit.
As much as most of us resent unearned privilege, there’s no rule that says people who lucked into life are all stupid, mean, or incompetent. Many will become successful academics or devote themselves to politically righteous causes. The main problem is not what they do, but all the human potential among the unprivileged that is denied and squandered.
Many may also move between careers; etsy store one year, writer another. It’s very fluid.
Okay. That’s what I thought. So can you see where my confusion is coming from? Because I didn’t dismiss the utility of violence.
Did you possibly misunderstand my comment? I described violence and non-violence as synergistic practices and ridiculed people who fail to understand that neither one can function independent of the other.
I mean no disrespect, but you’re perpetuating a myth.
Revolutionary action relies heavily on benign protest for cover and recruitment. Anyone who wants to see a radical overthrow of the government should be thrilled by the No Kings marches.
I have this conversation often with a very experienced, very radical anarchist frequently. He constantly laments the wastefulness and short-sightedness of radicals who shit on the people who cultivate the recruiting pool and create giant, peaceful crowds for the more extreme element to operate concealed within, because they’re too concerned with gatekeeping and value signaling to learn tactics.
Be radical. But also: understand that peaceful protest has a very important role to play.
What’s LMBO?