Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor in Tech

megelison.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 817 posts

Re: Poor in Tech

#401

Post by StavrosK »

maury91 wrote: post #391
StavrosK wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - The part of stealing I don't find relatable, even when my bank account was empty I would never resort to stealing, must be some honour system I grew up with Do you mean the last bit about the Macbook and the headphones, or the bit about the snacks? The snacks were more of a "it is fundamentally impossible to steal cheap stuff because we have infinite cheap stuff, why do you even care that someone took it!" mindse…

I was referring to this phrase: > Because they have never been poor, they had no idea what I might do. Why would I steal, when everyone clearly has enough? from how I understood it, because she has been poor, she had reasons for stealing. In companies I worked for the snacks are there for being taken, I notice in every company I worked for there's the rule "the company is going to put stuff in the kitchen in some com…

> from how I understood it, because she has been poor, she had reasons for stealing.

No, it says that nobody even considered that she might steal, because rich people don't see the point of stealing when stuff is so cheap relative to their wealth that it's effectively free.

That's why nobody bothered to even escort her, stealing just didn't even occur to them at all.

Re: Poor in Tech

#402

Post by isomorph »

bnralt wrote: post #354
isomorph wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I summarised a bunch of comments. If you have an issue with my summary you can critique it directly, just like you wanted me to do. To me they don’t look like differing opinions that have been thought through. They seem like kneejerk dismissals, which are against the HN rules.

Sure, if you want me to got into more detail, I'm happy to oblige. To me the whole first paragraph seems to be simply dismissive, painting different opinions as incorrect and immoral, talking about how surprised you are that the comments are so cold, that people aren't holding a mirror up to their own behavior, that this depresses you and that "we can do better": > Many of the comments on this article are so cold. I…

I don't think it's "immoral" [your word] or "incorrect" [your word] to have a knee-jerk reaction. It's a fact of life. I see that my statement has landed on you as a critique of morality or some kind of discussion-suppressing wokeness, but that's really not what I wanted, so I apologise.

The phrase I used - "we can do better" - was not meant to mean "I think these replies are incorrect [your word] and immoral [your word]" but that we can do a better analysis. A DEEPER analysis which requires BOTH the knee-jerk dismissal and the interrogation of that dismissal. I don't think it's morally wrong but yes, it is depressing TO ME. I'm not saying other opinions should be banned. I'm not even saying those comments shouldn't have been posted. I guess I'm saying they should have been longer and more considered and frankly less rude!

OK, let me write up my engagement with the other comments. I do agree with the possibility of cultural differences being responsible for some of the things in the post. I also agree that to some extent the "negative mindset" criticism is in some way valid, because growing up poor DOES give you a negative mindset. But the essence of my comment was that really the substance of those comments was missing the main point. There's a 1500 word article there with someone's actual experiences - a valuable outside perspective on part of tech and corporate culture. Even if one doesn't relate to the article and think it's wrong, one can say "Hmm... this doesn't fit with my experience." leaving the door open to the fact that one hasn't experienced that particular life, rather than just further marginalising the author by acting as if they have just magically generated 1500 words of "wrong".

Re: Poor in Tech

#403

Post by Haruiko »

I'm not rich but very comfortable and i always and always have greated and talked to cleaning people.

and still i wouldn't have taken the headphones. Because thats stealing and my moral and ethics are not defined based on other people 'bad' behaviours.

A lot of people around me are 'oblivous/busy with live' and that has nothing to do with what they earn.

Re: Poor in Tech

#405

Post by _underfl0w_ »

faraaz98 wrote: post #351
StavrosK wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess they mean that in many places around the world, public transportation is more usable, so people don't need cars.

or someone that's considered poor, can't afford one.

Easier to do in some places than others.

Public transport is nonexistent in several places here in Texas for example - you have to have a car (or know someone who does) to get to your job in the first place. But commuting puts wear and tear on the car, especially if you can't find work particularly close to where you live.

Re: Poor in Tech

#407

Post by princeb »

codegeek wrote: post #72
culturestate wrote: post #5

To me, this reads more as a list of "from outside the valley bubble" signifiers than it does as a list of things that people who've grown up in poverty might do, even if the former was a result of the latter. There are some exceptions - not noticing missed paychecks is the biggest - but most of it is just stuff that happens every day in other offices. Making your lunch at the office and not bringing Advil from home?…

Yea I mostly agree. For example not greeting cleaning lady has nothing to do with being rich or poor. It is just manners and some of us do it and some don't.

this actually reminds me of an article i read on nyt some time ago, about poor college students or first gen students in top colleges.

the parents were invited to the school to meet the faculty and the parents who were college educated or those went to the same type of schools understood the song and dance - the mingling with the adminstrative staff, the dean of students, the professors and lecturers - and the parents who were not educated or were part of the lower class didn't know what to do, so they hung out with the cafeteria staff, asked the cafeteria staff to take care of their kids. those were the people their families and relatives knew and understood.

and the first gen students also understood that they belonged to the same social strata as the cafeteria staff, and things like office hours or asking for help from the professors or the TAs were something that they could not possibly be entitled to.

Re: Poor in Tech

#408

Post by isomorph »

soheil wrote: post #399
isomorph wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm complaining about what I wrote in the comment. It wasn't the top comment when I wrote it. That happened after I wrote it. It got a lot of upvotes so I guess people who agree with me were more comfortable upvoting/replying after I wrote it than commenting before me. Maybe because they knew that the comment would attract criticism like yours

Is the complain still relevant now that you have the most votes? To me it seems like HN loves to agree with people whom it thinks are shunned by HN, but in reality you are the voice of HN. Again, as evidenced here after a few minutes of posting your comment.

I suppose it's become an unfortunate header for any comments agreeing with the article. I've never had a comment "succeed" in this fashion before so I wasn't prepared for the decontextualisation. If I could write it again, I would simply write how my experience seems to back up the experience in the article, and miss out my angry meta-commentary.

Re: Poor in Tech

#409

Post by teachingassist »

gadders wrote: post #177
ratww wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating healthy is not just about eating less, it's also about eating the right things. If eating was just about quantity then nobody would eat salads, there would be no Keto diet, and nobody would complain about McDonalds.

Calories In/Calories Out is 90% of it. You're better off being relatively slim on junk food than being fat on good quality good.

> You're better off being relatively slim on junk food than being fat on good quality good.

This has consistently proved false.

Being 'underweight' is associated with significant excess death; being 'overweight' is associated with a lower death rate than 'normal' BMI:

e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/20073... (many other sources are available)

Re: Poor in Tech

#410

Post by wlesieutre »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #186
tome wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are indoor rock climbing and adult soccer known to be especially expensive activities? I haven't done much indoor rock climbing, but I've done a lot of adult soccer, mostly for free.

Indoor rock climbing for sure. A gym will cost you at least $50 a month (where I am, but I doubt it's that much different elsewhere), and the equipment costs aren't astronomical but do add up, especially compared to "cheap" sports (at least $200 for shoes / harness, and additional gear depending on what sort of climbing you want to do).

The indoor wall where I'm from was at a YMCA, which has financial assistance programs for people who qualify. On a tech salary the author would probably be looking at full price, but if she were still poor it'd be a cheaper option.
Post reply on HN