I've never used any of the three languages in discussion here, and would barely count myself as a programmer at all, and upon initial reading of each of these routines this was my interpretation:

Java (I assume yours is): For every integer (call it "i") in the set "items", if "i" is less than ten, do whatever the 'add' function of the 'results' object does to it. (No idea what that function is, but my first guess would be to do the math of "results" + "i". Upon reflection after seeing the other languages' versions of this routine, I get now that it means "put 'i' as a member into the set 'results', or more loosely, "add 'i' to the set 'results'".)

Haskell: The set "items" contains members 1, 15, 27, 3, and 54. The set "results" contains every member of that set ("items") that passes the filter of being less than 10. (This is the clearest to me, and the one that shed light on the purpose of the other two).

Python: The set "items" contains members 1, 15, 27, 3, and 54. The set "results"... uhh.... assuming this does the same thing as the Haskell function, I'd guess it means that "results" contains every "item", where "item" is any item in the set of items, but only if "item" is less than ten; a roundabout way of saying, in a more Java-like fashion, "for every item (call it 'item') in the set 'items', if 'item' is less than ten [then that is part of what the set 'results' equals]".

Except it's not hyperbole because I actually mean all.

I don't think there's a downside to a minimum wage, or at least, not a compelling one.

As to specific implementation details. I really don't know. Not my field. My lay opinion would be that, well, it needs to be tied to the local cost of living and what not, but it would be a bitch to administrate. But no, having the minimum wage in Buttfuck Arkansas and Los Angeles be the same is probably sub-optimal.

I intended more to point out that while a small increase is basically a cost-of-living raise, a large increase will, indeed, likely do more harm than good.

I don't think there's any downside. But there are all sorts of upsides to working towards eliminating preventable, fatal diseases.

No child should have to risk death because their parents are stupid.

It's nice to see positive news like this coming out of Russia.

Really nice.

The company is valuable because it makes high profits.

It makes high profits in large part by paying low wages to its employees.

Thus the wealth of the owners of the company is directly due to the poverty induced in its employees.

Nobody needs to sell anything to reverse this. Just paying the employees more would accomplish that, but that would come at the cost of the profits of the company, and thus the stock value, and thus the wealth of the owners, who aren't willing to make that sacrifice.

Black, but it's covered in a bunch of transparent hairs that scatter white light something awful, obscuring its true color.

Just up the registration renewal fee. I'm assuming Oregon already has an annual registration fee similar to other states. The vehicle weight, age, and fuel type are already information the state has. You could tax electric vehicles just slightly more, but not so much that it hurts. This could be phased in gradually, until we might get to a point where there are few gasoline-powered cars on the road, and infrastructure is funded mostly from registration fees. It would also be a helluva lot less Big Brother.

I wasn't really the one making a generational analysis, just casually agreeing with someone else's that sounds pretty plausible from my personal experience and the things I hear other people saying.

Anyway, with regard to average incomes, the mean personal income is approximately equal to the median household income, both of which in turn are approximately twice the median personal income. Which suggests that the median household has two median income-earners supporting it, not one earner supporting five people like your family did. The days when it was plausible for most people to support a household with one income are long gone now. Which means single people, or people like me whose significant others don't make much, face even greater challenges. A single person who wants to live an independent life (and not be crammed into a house with strangers who aren't even family) has to pull the financial resources of two people to accomplish that.

Bravo! Thank you. I wish I still had the emotional fortitude to respond to people like that like you just did.

I'm not replying on my degree to get me anywhere (and I'm somewhere relatively good now, making over twice the median income), but replying to the AC who suggested that anyone working a low-paying job in tech must be some kind of stupid. I don't know what better evidence against stupidity one can offer than academic grades, unless we want to get into an IQ dick-measuring contest...

(And to cut it off before it begins: "success is the best evidence of intelligence" is not a valid response because it begs the question.)