> People of lower socioeconomic status drive less safe cars on less safe roads for longer commutes.
But can't you account for 'type of car', 'type of road', 'commute length' as direct variables pretty easily without dipping into social/economic backgrounds?
The socioeconomics of the situation is why I'm questioning it, not what I think would be best measured.
Although it certainly isn't "easy" to measure all of this directly; there are thousands of that constitute the type of driving scenario that someone might engage in. Even just "type of road" isn't a single thing, it's hundreds of things.
And reddit exist for the sake of smug echo-chamber dwellers. Or bots.
A lot of the posts listed there are:
* obvious joke/sarcasm/tongue-in-cheek etc
* taken out of context, or editorialised to similar effect (e.g. missing nuance that often exists in the same thread)
* based on the disbelief or disapproval of equally unqualified reddit-bros
* flagged/dead or heavily downvoted, the opposite of being 'encouraged'
In other words, a lot of low effort 'gotcha' point scoring against alleged 'tech-bros' which may or ma not mean everyone in HN is a SV start-up pitcher, or that no one really know what a tech-bro is.
If you think this is possibly true, I think we are far apart the discussion wouldn't go anywhere. Not a judgement, just trying to be better about my online engagement style.
My perception is a 'tech-bro' is someone in a tech hub (i.e. SV) with access to large amounts of capital (e.g. VC funding), likely involved in start-ups, or with some sway in tech companies (the prototype is often Elon Musk, et al); and their tendency to treat technology as a cure-all, especially in naïve or overoptimistic way, overestimating their own grasp of technology, or applications of technology, to various pursuits. There might also be a machoistic 'frat' element to it as well. A large group within HN perhaps, but probably not a majority of HN-ers.
This definition is not a million miles away from the sentiment of 'I could build that in a weekend' from the dev-side, or 'I just had a great idea (a clone of something well know etc) - you implement it, I'll be compensated equally as the "ideas guy"' from the biz-end.
In contrast, I think some (per r/SHNS) believe a 'tech-bro' is any man with a background in tech (usually software, maybe hardware), and hence most (the majority of) of the male population (still significant majority..) of HN.
By this definition, we aren't a million miles away from the gendered insult/accusation of 'mansplaining', which is basically arrogance, but when a man does it (or specifically, in respect to a woman), with the implication of them misogynistically underestimating women; Not clear if there is an implication that they otherwise treat other men differently - most anecdotes cover the former case without establishing a baseline of behaviour/arrogance.
What I'm saying is, as the term is weaponised, there is a scope-creep in direction of greatest utility / weaponised potential - It's inconvenient to establish someone is actually involved in the tech industry, SV-culture or tech-start-up-mentality, such as to critique those things in any relevant or substantial way, so instead any rando is a 'tech-bro' purely because they post on HN, i.e. HN-er == tech-bro, and it just become bashing men in tech; From my perspective 'man involved in technology', generalised across all tech-scene and cultures, isn't a meaningful or relevant distinction or discussion.
Maybe where we disagree is the idea of it being a binary thing. I see it as a . . . oh, let's call it a "spectrum" just because, where the top end is Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, people have made their wealth (well maybe not Elon) on the Internet and have used those gains to make the world actively worse and to try to pervert politics in a way one person should not have leverage to do. On the other end of the continuum would be every person who posts here in threads on unions saying they would never join a programmer's union because it would cost them money. The average people who see themselves as 10x, not realizing if they were all 10x, nobody would be. In between are the LinkedInLunatic grindset CEOs of a 2 person company constantly posting about how they work 167 hours a day and then the guy who has an enormous amount of k8 orchestration and multi-region failover for his company's static website that gets 100 hits in a good month.
Do you consider my post to be condescending or patronizing?
Also, it appears that tclancy is also male, so I don't think it qualifies on that count either.
As for the accusation of sea-lioning, assuming this definition:
"..a form of online harassment where someone persistently and politely pesters
a person with a relentless stream of questions and requests for evidence, all
while feigning sincerity and ignorance"
I'd have to say that I'd debated whether to reply or to be even a little bit serious in my reply because I don't think you are-- well, it's not that I think it's "not in good faith", it's that I think you have some blinders on that are comfortable. Given you have argued that both "mansplaining" and "tech bro" are false constructs, it feels an awful lot like you are one of those Oppressed Men we hear so much about. Much, much more than I care to hear about.
I can't possibly defend myself against unsubstantiated, unflattering speculations about me or my perspective - such as that I have comfortable blinders on; or that I 'sound like' some such negative stereotype of a person that you dislike. I do feel you are being honest in what you are saying, but I also think it's not particularly charitable or fair PoV.
What does that mean though: "water used"? The only actual use of "water" is an E = mC^2 conversion to raw energy, or a chemical/location change such that it's locked-up/removed from availability permanently.
The water normally continues to exist, so presumably it's some other resource we are using. This may seem pedantic but it's not - raw groundwater, or unprocessed grey water is not potable as in "water a person uses" for drinking, which is a subset of the water a person uses overall (directly in showers etc, or by proxy in bought products, building materials etc).
In each case, water is more of a "carrier" for some other resource or property. If in CA the almonds go through a lot of water (is this due to perspiration? i.e. their cooling mechanism?), the water will still create clouds that I presume increases rainfall elsewhere? In fact, the water now holds more energy (from solar) that might be useful somehow.
Similar comments around "land usage", entirely depends on opportunity loss otherwise.
It’s one of the things I noticed in France and Italy. Like after a few days you notice the mens’ silhouettes are alien. Not in a bad way, but noticeable.
But due to lack of protein, vs less fat and sugar? I'm sure minus the fat, many American men would also lack muscle.
That said, Italy and France are known for smoking a lot, which supresses the appetite. Your original observation was swiss though (land of milk, chocolate and cheese)?
reply