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

451–460 of 817 posts

Re: Poor in Tech

#451

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

Grustaf wrote: post #242
golergka wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be bad? Most of the list doesn't attack the "rich", in my opinion. It just highlights the difference between the subjective experiences, but I don't see as a vale judgement on anyone.

What is the point of the "nobody thought I would steal their stuff" comment then? It only makes sense if you assume poor people are thieves. In this case it was correct, but I don't think it's true in general.

No, she’s point out that no one treated her like a thief. Previous workplaces treated her like a thief because she was poor.

Re: Poor in Tech

#452

Post by periya »

username90 wrote: post #373
sophacles wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your intelligence is based on how much money your parents made? Your intrinsic ability to be educated is a function of someone else's wallet? Something seems off in this statement. I wish your parents had money, then your statement would probably be coherent!

No, intelligence is mostly inherited. If your biological parents were smart then you will almost surely be smart and vice versa. And smart people end to earn more money, so intelligence is indirectly correlated with parental wealth. But when you put kids from poor parents into rich households they will continue to do poorly. They do a bit better, but their biological parents still matters more. If it was easy to prod…

Intelligence is not completely due to genetics as you are suggesting and has to do more with socio-economic conditions. Read “guns germs and steel” for why human development through the ages has a lot do with just being at the right place at the right time.

Re: Poor in Tech

#453

Post by bzzzt »

maury91 wrote: post #430
StavrosK wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, exactly! Because why would someone steal when they can just go on Amazon and have the thing delivered?

I believe it depends on the value of the object and the chances of getting caught. If you steal a macbook in an office full of cameras is a bad deal. If you steal a macbook every other day in an office without any camera is a good deal. And the second option is exactly what happened in an office I worked on, at some point enough people complained that their macbook was stolen and they installed cameras. Funny thing i…

Didn't anyone bother to set up the MacBook activation locks? Or did people steal MacBooks anyway just to throw them away later when they turn out to be unusable?

Re: Poor in Tech

#454

Post by NortySpock »

zozbot234 wrote: post #420
domador wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only other implicit criticism toward her coworkers was ignoring and not greeting the cleaning staff. For the most part, her coworkers come across as privileged, rather than mean or otherwise morally deficient.

I'm not sure I see anything wrong with not bothering the cleaning staff while they're at work. The whole reason they've been hired is to spare everyone else the time and effort involved in cleaning, so to have everyone waste time on greetings would just be demeaning their work.

Not even a "good evening" for your fellow human?

I usually nod or say a quick greeting in passing as I head out for the evening. I've also thanked the guy who refills the soda can dispenser, pointing out that the company runs on caffeine. Each of these interactions takes less than 30 seconds and reminds us of our shared experience on this planet.

Re: Poor in Tech

#455

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

username90 wrote: post #373
sophacles wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your intelligence is based on how much money your parents made? Your intrinsic ability to be educated is a function of someone else's wallet? Something seems off in this statement. I wish your parents had money, then your statement would probably be coherent!

No, intelligence is mostly inherited. If your biological parents were smart then you will almost surely be smart and vice versa. And smart people end to earn more money, so intelligence is indirectly correlated with parental wealth. But when you put kids from poor parents into rich households they will continue to do poorly. They do a bit better, but their biological parents still matters more. If it was easy to prod…

> But when you put kids from poor parents into rich households they will continue to do poorly.

Have you considered it’s because being a poor child is itself a traumatic experience that isn’t magically cured by being ripped away from family and put into an environment of material abundance?

Re: Poor in Tech

#456

Post by proxyon »

teachingassist wrote: post #409
gadders wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

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

This is nonsense. In many medical deaths such as cancer (and especially since euthanasia isn't available) the person dies by slowly withering away. One of the first things that happens is that they become skinny and frail. That doesn't associate underweightedness with mortality. It intentionally draws a false correlation.

Re: Poor in Tech

#457

Post by proxyon »

MattRix wrote: post #171
FriedrichN wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must say I was rather triggered by that statement. I'm 100% sure that at one point my earnings were much lower than hers and I wasn't "a fat body". I had a second hand road bike that consisted of many different parts and I loved that thing, I've put thousands of kilometers on that old frame. And guess what, I still use it to this day, even though I could buy a fancy new one. As a matter of fact, not having a lot of…

Did you grow up poor, as she did? If not, then you are missing the important context of what it’s like to grow up in a food scarce environment.

> Did you grow up poor, as she did? If not, then you are missing the important context of what it’s like to grow up in a food scarce environment.

Yes I did and I'm still not obese.

Re: Poor in Tech

#458

Post by gadders »

teachingassist wrote: post #409
gadders wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I said "relatively slim". I actually meant by that a bit of a tummy, but not morbidly obese. I'm not recommending six packs for all. God knows I don't have one.

Also, being "overweight" could be for a variety of reasons, including excess muscle. I'd be interested to see mortality correlated with % body fat.

Re: Poor in Tech

#459

Post by [deleted] »

sidlls wrote: post #260
giantg2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Making your lunch at the office and not bringing Advil from home? I know generationally wealthy investment bankers who do these things" Generally they don't like to waste money. That's part of how they stay rich for generations (as opposed to someone who hits the lottery and the next generation is basically back to where they started in many cases).

You think someone with generational wealth would stop to even consider the cost of advil or a lunch in FiDi? They don't. This little bit of mythology has always been amusing to me. They may make their own lunch out of habit or simply because they have a preference or whatever--but cost isn't a reason for people of that much wealth. They don't like wasting money, but what they consider "waste" is not the same thing as…

[deleted]

Re: Poor in Tech

#460

Post by bittercynic »

lkbm wrote: post #344
olingern wrote: post #68

I grew up poor and now live and work around "never been poor" folks. Classism 100% exists. The thing that I noticed most folks can't grasp is the appreciation for the small things and the security they have. I find that people who have never experienced being poor are often lacking in both humility and "can do" attitudes. For me, not being wealthy is a feature, not a bug. I realize I'm speaking from a place of privil…

After college I lived with a bunch of UT students (good university; median family income of students is $123,900[0]) while working at a school for high school dropouts (median family income unknown, but definitely under $30k) and it really impressed upon me that people coming from families in the 75th income percentile expect to live free of the poverty/class markers mentioned in the article, while for people in pove…

I relate to being (somewhat) well-off-but-frugal, and for me there is a danger of falling into the trap of thinking: I don't care that I have some markers of being poor, so you shouldn't either.

It is largely a matter of luck to be in a situation where you don't have to worry about maintaining a certain appearance, and developing some empathy for those who do has been an important positive change for me.

Post reply on HN