It's a typo. There isn't some kind of grave epistemic problem with the first sentence where everything that follows is predicated on a falsehood. We don't discard the contents of books just because the publication has a typo.

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.

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 that nobody will engage in the good faith argument, but rather take the least charitable interpretation is further evidence of the point.

Eating a gallon of motor oil a day is great for your digestive system. Now let me tell you about my other nutritional insights.