jimbofisher1

Substantive argument? Care to point that out? Because to me it looks like he is claiming that inequality is unimportant because the poor now have cell phones and color TVs. Which is... hardly compelling. It seems like an extraordinary claim backed by an empty argument. Hence bullshit. I also spend about as much effort refuting flat earth claims, that is to say almost none.

Why you think giving what is basically unlimited power to an individual instead of a governing body that at least on paper is accountable to its citizens boggles the mind. Celebrity/Wealth worship has truly gotten out of hand.

Why don't you go find out how many articles they have written about inequality and tell me how the statistical power of their AB test looks. lol

Respected by who, the Heritage Foundation? Why don't you make a pro-inequality argument? That seems to be the bold claim that requires evidence.

You just have to take it to its extreme conclusion. A future with a handful of trillionaires and billions of destitute people entertained by electronics that cost pennies. Is this really the world you want for your kids or grandkids? If we continue to allow the concentration of wealth this is not only a possible reality but a likely one.

Yeah bro Buzzfeed is totally doing AB tests on Article Headlines about Income Inequality.

No you're right, I blindly trust Jeff Bezos to do the best thing for humanity.

Ah yes, I hear the trailer parks in East Palo Alto are lovely this time of year.

Ah the Silicon Valley Oasis.

"I will say there is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen..."

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Mayor-Theres-more-f...

This would go down as one of the worst A/B tests in history if that is the case, which I highly doubt.

Marketing in particular is probably an issue, 1-2 signups a week probably means eyeballs are simply not getting to his page. If he's already dealing with Facebook he should probably look into an aggressive Facebook ad campaign.

How does that play out today because it is very lucrative to be smart in today's world. You don't get to work at FAANG or on Wall Street by pretending to be less intelligent than you are. The same applies across many industries like Academia, Healthcare, Law etc. You may have to suppress opinions that go against the grain of the industry you are in but I don't see that as being the same.

How is that any different from a CEO with long hours and high pay? No one is forcing this person to be a Heart Surgeon. They could do very well as a Suburban GP with basically 9-5 Hours and still high pay and prestige.

I actually think you are just one of those "Taxation is Theft" libertards.

Lifetime? Not sure what you mean. Given that the vast majority of Startups fail and any equity you were granted would be worthless and even those that do payout are usually just getting you to parity to people who were at a FAANG over the same time frame I fail to see how a Startup would benefit. Even Resume wise, recruiters won't care that you worked at a startup that had a $100M exit but they definitely will if you worked at Google for 5 years.

You must be lost. OP made precisely that claim...

>The average person spends almost exactly as much as they make as income rises.

I think its extremely unlikely that there is any actual evolutionary process selecting for less intelligent people, in fact the opposite is probably more likely to be true. I'm not sure you were really sugesting that though.

Sure and I basically agree with that. But saying that the actual Average person is spending nearly 100% of any income gains is a pretty bold claim.

Financial rewards? Like $2 Million for a house that costs 200k in the rest of the country? What savings!

SV is fine if you never want to buy a home, start a family, live without roomates etc..

Even the most high power CEO in the world can take long extravagant vacations. Do you think he is crying because someone in Detroit can work part time and relax half the week? Your argument is bizarre.

Not that I disagree with the idea but do you have evidence that the average person is actually increasing spending every time they get a raise?

Coops, I'm not familiar with any in the IT space, care to share?

It seems like a very poor financial decision to turn down 300k from Google to make 150k + fairy dust money from a Startup. Even if the 300k is lower than what Google ought to be paying.

People have literally done this analysis and the finding was that most gains were the result of improved hyperparamaters. Why is this controversial?

If you work a job that allows you no free time that is your choice. Whining that other people have leisure time is absurd, if you want leisure get a better job.

I am disturbed by people's aversion to taxing the wealthy. After WW2 the top tax rate in the US was over 90% and until the 70s it was over 70% but since then we have been systematically fooled by the wealthy to believe the absurd "Job Creator" story and income inequality has sky rocketed as a result.

It's not accurate that the military doesn't care. You are foolish.

So the massive amount of US dollars funding those operations are irrelevant?

I believe in another decision they extended the idea that a Phone is becoming part of a person.

No and I never said that nor implied it but you should recognize that it is absolutely a luxury. There are people around the world literally fighting for their right to exist while you sit here on your "Moral High Ground" as though your position is unassailable but it isn't.

That may be your opinion but I can assure you it is not accurate. Your hysteria is clouding your judgement.

Dozens of seconds? Have you ever even driven a car? lol