That's a much better set of photos. It also confirms he was content with a two-car garage.
It also stands in contrast to the other celebrities and business leaders featured on that site. If they had a ranking ordered by size/value ascending, I wonder what number he would be. I still suspect it'd be near the top.
shrug. I'd rather people discuss whether claims are made in good faith and create standards of debate rather than try to prove that they're correct. Because ironically the latter just breeds bad faith rhetoric.
The worst pattern off rhetoric that is absolutely dominating public discourse is "You've been accused of doing X"; "Well yeah but my opponent did something vaguely similar, ergo it's ok"
Your preferences to not hear about something aside, you can have civilized discussion about myriad controversial figures historical and contemporary—Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Putin, Manson, Bundy, Judas, and Kanye—why not Trump?
It doesn't need to devolve into contention. We don't flag COVID, Apple, or Rust articles because they tend to devolve into contention.
> you can have civilized discussion about myriad controversial figures historical and contemporary—Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Putin, Manson, Bundy, Judas, and Kanye
I don't disagree with your point, but man is that rough company for Kanye in that list!
I'd argue that COVID is a critical health issue that we're still amidst, and Apple or Rust provide value that even their detractors recognize, so their discussion is useful even if it tends to contention.
Trump doesn't provide any kind of value, and is not significantly relevant as a historic figure, so we would be having contention just for the sake of it. If we're allowing this, then there's many demagogue leaders in the world that need coverage about their attempts to gain political support.
I didn't flag this post, but I have no problem if others flag it. It's empty calories to our HN diet.
Trump changed perception of reality itself, for millions of Americans. Things will never be the same. The most relevant historical US political figure in decades. He's polling higher than anyone else if he decides to run again. So you're probably way off in your assertions.
MD means Doctor of Medicine, i.e., they completed medical school. Dr. Fauci is a Doctor of Medicine in that he completed medical school and received his MD.
After medical school, doctors will enter a residency program for a specialty, but they are still MDs (DOs are equivalent). Their post-graduate training (residency and fellowship) varies but they are still MDs. MDs who specialize in infectious disease or epidemiology are still MDs. MDs who specialize in family medicine are still MDs.
You are falsely inferring MD means GP (general practitioner) which it may or may not. And you are further falsely inferring that a GP cannot have expertise in virology and immunology, which they likely don't, but they may. If you were to conclude a GP does not have CREDENTIALS to speak authoritatively about virology and immunology, I'd accept that assertion.
I CAN relate because I grew up poor, have a GED, have student loans because my parents didn't pay for my education, live in a poorer area than my coworkers, have a really old phone, worried about bothering potential mentors, don't fit in at the gym, relish bonuses, overeat free food because it's free (pre-covid), talk to janitors, was paid less than colleagues, etc. and yet I still find her sentiment negative, classist, self-victimizing, and unhelpful.
In my opinion, this comes off as shaming privileged people for their privilege. She could probably say a lot about the hard work and lucky breaks she's had that have helped her advance in spite of her challenges, but instead she focuses exclusively on her disadvantages.
I attribute most of my social mobility to a ton of lucky breaks. Some people aren't as fortunate, and there's a lot to be said about that, but I don't think this article advances that conversation.
Why do you think it's negative? It isn't a piece diagnosing the roots of inequality, and it doesn't pretend to be. It isn't a piece about "how I got here", and it shouldn't have to be. It's a piece about the weird aspects of not having a very, very specific background in tech, and her internal experience of those. It's not "here let me lay out the Nature Of The Thing Universally". I don't understand why you're holding it accountable to "advancing the conversation" about social mobility.
I think it's negative because I think it focuses on the negative. It's just my opinion and my opinion can be like the author's—my interpretation of something based on my experiences. And it certainly doesn't have to advance the conversation or be about how "she got here", but I wish it would have because I think that would've been more useful. I'm OK if we disagree.
I was primarily responding to the parent who intimated those irritated by it can't relate. I was irritated and CAN relate. That was my primary point.
> In my opinion, this comes off as shaming privileged people for their privilege.
I don't understand where do you see shaming. Even in points I think fit me, where I am rich person, I did not felt shamed at all. In points where I could relate to her, I did not perceived myself as victim.
> she focuses exclusively on her disadvantages.
Most of points don't compare her to others in a sense of gaining advantages or disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage was salary one and there the complain is mixed with her own behavior that helped situation to happen.
> She could probably say a lot about the hard work and lucky breaks she's had that have helped her advance in spite of her challenges
She could also write about drawing or socializing with buddies. Not everything have to be forced into "how I succeeded admire me" framework. Sometimes people write about other things.
Yep, she can write about whatever she wants. Some people like it, I thought it was unhelpful. I wish it were something else and you're glad it isn't. Cool.
I mostly wanted to say I can relate AND didn't like it, responding to the parent.
