[macmcirish]

As noted in their other reply, it is actually not a typo. A central part of their point is in that first sentence they note the extra eyes on marginalized people making more money than other marginalized people, but it’s blown out to being extremely exaggerated.

So yes, I think there is a “grave epistemic problem” with the first sentence that hurts the argument and its credibility as a whole, without having to get into the details of the argument itself.

That you called the first replier “stupid” or even their argument “stupid” is wholly unjustified.

[infamouscow]

The charitable interpretation of the argument was the exponent was intended to be a multiple of two. That's reasonable when comparing salaries in big tech to elsewhere, and I agree with this.

The fact nobody will engage in the good faith argument, but rather take the least charitable interpretation and spew verbal diarrhea around the assertion instead of directly addressing it is further evidence of the point.