B0btheBuilder

I looked at that table and immediately thought, "Those are pretty solid correlation values", so I was confused by the point you were making.

I also read the page in the PDF you linked that was the source of the table and became more confused, because it very clearly writes out that:

>What this means is that 40% of the variation in students’ SAT/ACT scores is attributable to differences in socioeconomic circumstance.

I think you are either:

1. Misunderstanding correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients range from -1 to +1, implying a 100% negative or positive correlation. 0.4 and -0.4 are moderately positive and negative correlation values. That table is saying that if you are an underrepresented minority, you are expected to do 40% worse on the SAT/ACT.

2. Quibbling over the "thing that correlates highest with SAT score" claim, because you feel like 0.4 is not high enough of a number. The only factors with higher correlation values than 0.4 in SAT/ACT scores would be stuff like "Was the student currently injured?" or "Did the student make it to the testing center?"

There's a great episode of the "Hidden Brain" podcast about scarcity: https://www.npr.org/2017/03/20/520587241/the-scarcity-trap-w...

One claim made was that poverty and loneliness are two of the most difficult scarcity traps to be in. Even more so than hunger (especially in the developed world). Because poverty and loneliness push you into behaviors that only perpetuate more poverty and loneliness. You can see this with the rise of toxic misogynistic groups on the Internet, and I personally see this with my more awkward, lonely friends and acquaintances who put off new company with desperate, weird, or standoffish behavior.

I'm struggling to see a distinctive difference between a middleman and a platform...

Actors, comedians, and politicians all have memorized scripts, lines, routines, and soundbites. I'm very curious as to what hathawsh's eventual answer to baxtr's question will be, because I consider their comment at the top of this thread to be utterly counterproductive and unhelpful. Oftentimes, HN threads have a top comment that is contradictory to the post for the sake of being contradictory. In this case, the comment is both contradictory and harmful. Literally no one learning or teaching communication says that "uh" and "um" are good habits. In fact, I would go even further than the article asserts and claim that I succeed socially the more silent I am. People are self-absorbed; they like people who listen to them.

I don't know about the salaries, but let's keep in mind that Alibaba and Tencent are two of the biggest companies in the world.

I am also younger (mid 20s) and I've had my FB deactivated for several years now; I also don't have Instagram or Snapchat. I admittedly do use Meetup.com and its app. Initially, I deactivated FB because I felt it was an addictive time-sink (as Semaphor mentioned elsewhere). Now, I spend a lot of time wondering whether I should completely delete it, because I honestly don't feel like I'm missing much.

I just text everyone I want to talk to.

Maybe it's because I went to a decently sized high school (a little under 2000). Or maybe it's because I currently live in a large city (top 20 populated city in the U.S.) Or maybe it's because I'm an extrovert.

But I would probably be overwhelmed by the sheer number of events my social network would produce on FB. I already accompany friends to events thrown by friends of friends pretty frequently.

How often do you go to these birthdays of people you barely hang out with? The average person has like 300 friends on FB. The median number is about 150-200. That's a lot of birthdays.

Considering that NYC, Chicago, and LA are the three biggest cities in the country, I would say, yes, quite a few of them grew up in these regions. If anything, boomers would be the only generation that could afford living comfortably in said regions.

>iCloud data doesn't contain phone call contents or iMessage data contents.

Literally the first paragraph of both of bduerst's links suggest otherwise.

Also, I don't know if you've used iCloud on multiple devices before, but it very much contains iMessage data contents.

>it’s not the checkbook that pays salaries

Doesn't the checkbook of a business literally pay salaries? I'm unclear as to what you're arguing here.

>The truth is that it's better for children if parents in a low-conflict marriage to stay together.

My siblings and I are all young adults in our twenties, but we've wanted our parents to divorce for years now. It's a toxic, abusive relationship that's only still existing because of the conservative Roman Catholic culture they were raised in.

I recently broke up with my girlfriend because I thought and still think she's a bad influence on me; I have no desire to hang out with her. I often wonder what happened when I see couples divorce due to "irreconcilable differences" or couples who remain civil or even friends after divorce.

As a child with parents in a high-conflict marriage, I'm not even clear why parents in a low-conflict marriage would want to get divorced.

Nope. Which is why I refuse to use services like theirs.

>It is just not my impresion that men who hop relationships look all that better. The comitted ones are not ugly ones.

There are plenty of good-looking men in committed relationships. You're reading the relationship in reverse. It's not that "men who hop relationships look all that better". It's that better-looking men can hop relationships.

>remember that British kid who sold a recommendation engine to Yahoo?

Nick D'Aloisio? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_D'Aloisio)

I was confused when you mentioned him, then I realized you think he didn't succeed because he's not a billionaire or didn't create the next Facebook.

Young millionaire studying at Oxford? I would trade places with that dude in a heartbeat. From everything I'm reading on his Wikipedia page, he seems to be doing quite well.

Zuckerberg's mom's a psychiatrist and his dad's a dentist. His dad taught him BASIC programming as a kid and then hired a software engineer as his tutor.

Gates' dad's a prominent lawyer and his mom was a prominent businesswoman on the board of directors on several different organizations. Not only did Gates learn programming as a kid, but Microsoft only got on IBM computers because his mom knew IBM executives.

When you come from privilege, it's much easier to have confidence that things will work out.

Even competent people with good training aren't perfect. Competent people make mistakes. You mention bridges, buildings, and ships, all projects built by massive teams of people and stringent processes. These massive teams of people and stringent processes are necessary exactly because people aren't perfect. I'm unclear what you mean by the article focusing on "untrained people", unless you're trying to claim that politicians and newspaper executives are untrained.

I think it has to do with the idea that technical skills are more transferable than product management and that there are more job openings for technical roles than management roles.

The parent comment wrote one sentence. How did you miss the "working for a low wage" part?

>vocab is very highly correlated with IQ, which is stable thought life and cannot be boosted.

Yet, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient):

>Raw scores on IQ tests for many populations have been rising at an average rate that scales to three IQ points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect.

I have three siblings and one parent still using Yahoo. The other parent uses Outlook. They just don't wanna deal with the hassle of moving to Gmail.

On top of that, said toxic people usually start harassing other users.

Google - 85,050 employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google)

Facebook - 25,105 employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook)

Amazon has 566,000 employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)), but it's unclear how many of those are actually tech workers. Amazon has a lot of retail and warehouse workers, many of who with wages so low they qualify for food stamps.

Apple - 123,000 employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.) Apple's 2014 SEC filing said that half of their employees are retail workers, so let's give Apple 62,000 tech workers.

Microsoft - 124,000 employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft)

There are around 7 million tech workers in the USA (https://www.comptia.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/201...)

Even if we pretended that all 566,000 Amazon employees were actually tech workers (they're not) and the above numbers were US-only employees (they're not), that would total to about 860,000 tech workers.

860,000 / 7 million = 12.3%

That means that at least 87.7% of American tech workers do not work at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Microsoft, despite these companies being five of the richest tech companies in the world.

>They are simply not important enough (by hiring volume) to carry the weight they currently do.

Unforunately, they are. A large proportion of the tech industry is startups / small businesses. I'd be surprised if Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/Microsoft make up even 10% of tech workers.

On top of the convenience, I don't have to risk putting my credit card information into random websites. My parents dislike online shopping because they're fearful of getting credit card information lost or stolen online. Amazon is one of the few places they trust online.

>Doesn't immigration law in America apply equally to immigrants from everywhere?

Isn't part of the whole immigration debate in America the fact that Latinos find it easy to illegally immigrate here? Asians literally have whole oceans to cross to get here. Many Latinos can get on a truck and just drive across the border.

You also can see huge income differences between African immigrants and native-born African-Americans. This has less to do with mindset and more to do with the selection bias TheCoelacanth mentioned. Immigrants from Asia, India, Africa, etc. will be more financial successful because they are deliberately selected for.

>The second is a fictional prize created to let Americans have prizes too.

Huh? Doesn't the U.S. have more Nobel laureates than any other country?

"A friend of mine died and I didn't know because of algorithms": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15956811

To be fair, you can pay off the full amount of your credit card every month and never have to pay interest. A common misconception is the idea that you have to pay interest to build credit.