The national average wage for the USA is roughly 70k according to a quick Google search, unless you’re suggesting the devs are making $4.9 billion per year I think you’re not using exponents correctly.
It looks like there's a lot of assumption on X. Trolling a bit because you know, SV folk.
If there is something that x is referring to that is not wage, then please enlighten us because I honestly cannot read it as any other way.
There are no realistic values of x for x^2 that work with this argument.
If OP wants to say I don't know what exponents are, that's on them. The whole thing stands.
Folk can be pedantic about numbers and take the mick out the average intellect of the average HN user I suppose. I'm not on the spectrum so not especially retentive to those minor points.
The main point was that a lot of these employees were on very large sums of money, and in control of the information flow across the web. It's a centralised platform. Anyways, doubt it's worth making the point any more.
I don’t think you’re having this conversation in good faith and I’m going to stop interacting because of it.
> According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median wage for workers in the United States in the second quarter of 2022 was about $1,041 per week or $54,132 per year
Which puts your estimate of the average silicon valley wage at $2,930,273,424 per year.
You can spot stupid[*] replies miles away when there's no attempt to engage with the substance of the argument.
[*]: Yes, stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc
Rather, I think it makes the original argument look irrational if they have an extreme exaggeration if they have to use that to make their point.
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.
What I get from this whole experience is big tech employees, likely on a wage double their national average, are able to communicate more widely to the world about their disenfranchisement about being unemployed than others made unemployed who are not.
Slightly ironic that they're employed by social networks. Said tongue in cheek because these are people with livelihoods and looking after families.
There are others that are concerned with big tech in general and its role that have been marginalised in mainstream news. Is there actually any pioneer in these companies that thinks social media on a global scale can work for good, apart from Elon Musk, apparently?
The whole centralisiation of the net was a problem in the first place.