[yobutdude]

No it is not. Appeals to equality of condition have existed for centuries. Among them are that term used verbatim.

Ignored the other points and redirected to the least salient. Will take it as acceptance you realized how silly your carrying water for people who don't know or care you exist is.

Age of account makes it clear you need the social system to remain solvent as you're likely rich on paper. Nothing more.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ignored the other points

In this comment [1]? Seriously, what salient points were you trying to make?

Nobody is arguing anything is fairly valued. That's your straw man. There's a bit ironically complaining about innumeracy in a series of comments with zero numbers. Then a general appeal to Twitter tropes around sheeple and whatnot.

If anything, the quality of this comment thread sort of points to the quality of the argument for SpaceX being included in the Nasdaq 100 being corrupt. It's based on vibes and feels. Which is a good story–it's clearly convinced a bunch of people to watch another video, click on another ad.

> Age of account makes it clear you need the social system to remain solvent as you're likely rich on paper. Nothing more

...genuine question, how are you connecting that observation to that conclusion?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48925695

[yobutdude]

Back n forth with someone who used "a bit silly" as a justification.

You set a low bar out the gate. I merely met you down there.

Numbers don't make a difference. They can be shaped to any argument like English or German because they're picked by the biases of the author.

You seem to live in a rhetoric derived neural hallucination and are completely detached from physical reality, meaningful thresholds for verification.

Will stick to the skills I picked up studying applied physics and electrical engineering for checking hypothesis and formal verification. No interest continuing a conversation with a functional illiterate who cannot reason outside their native cultural bubble.

To paraphrase Feynman, doesn't make much sense to get hung up on the syntax and their semantics.

[defrost]

FWiW you were reading a lot better before this self aggrandising me and my STEM background twaddle.

Read the room, you can't chuck a rock around here w/out hitting two.

[pitrpatrgetatr]

Presumably that "twaddle" influenced the bits you found to read better.

[JumpCrisscross]

On what planet do our engineering backgrounds make us more effective communicators about wealth inequality and index inclusion?

[wubbawibba]

If you're so sure you're ignorant of those topics why so sure those measures are meaningful? Why answer what may just be some words you know but irrelevant to the context?

Can you prove the so-called experts know better? Or are you just deferring as you have been socially trained to? Maybe economists have over complicated things and you're too ignorant to know.

Society runs on hearsay. Heard that's how it works as kids, now say that's how it works.

Stats are just euphemism for what happened. For history. They’re not a meaningful basis for next steps. They cannot predict exactly the future; what stats showed covid would occur in 2020 exactly? Not just general appeals to stem a future pandemic.

Why then are economists analysis of history meaningful to future needs?

Like gibberish population forecasts saying 12 billion by 2100! while birth trends now show a halving of population by 2080, a whole lot of priors need to be revisited.

Strong, weak nuclear forces, gravity, and electromagnetism; the fundamental forces of physics that give rise to all we see and know; do not mandate a whole lot of the crap ideas humans babble on about.