OK, what about that? What's your point? Those situations are awful. Those people need help. But it doesn't make six figures a reasonable number for a "living wage".

This statement is nothing more or less than a caricature. It's ugliness borne out of envy.

In programming, we generally subscribe to the 10x rule, that some people are just naturally 10x better programmers than average. I believe this rule applies to all skillsets: art, leadership, investing, sales, whatever: there are some people who just have a knack at whatever it is, and this I believe accounts for a large portion of the wealthy. Yes, there are many rich greedy bastards. But to suggest that rich people are *all* or even *mostly* greedy bastards, is bigotry.

You are still dodging the point. I guess you don't really believe your "living wage" is a legitimate threshold.

My sons were young adults when they had to get roommates. If you're still working an entry level job at 35, then I feel bad for your lack of privacy having to get roommates, but not all that bad. By 35, you should be at *least* in a senior position, if not managing teams. The threshold isn't high, all you have to do is be responsible and do your job well. If you can only qualify for a job that a teenager can do, I don't really feel sorry for your need to have roommates.

Of course, if you're doing point-and-shoot stuff, resolution doesn't matter. But if you need to do anything professional, it matters a lot.

Of course you'd say that. But why is a reboot necessary then to fix things, instead of just restarting the software?

The primary lighting systems I've used are HOG, ETC, Jands, and GrandMA, all using DMX.

Inflation has existed as long as money has existed. We have seen historical evidence of inflation as long ago as 330 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's simplistic to insist that inflation is an evil thing caused by shadowy government figures or "money printing."

The government's money goes to the rich and well-connected...in communist and socialist governments. Under those systems, the only way to get rich, is to be friends with the communist party leaders. In the US, this is starting to become more common in the Trump era, but by and large, rich people get their money through business ventures, not from the government.

There is no "pie." If you get more money, that does not give me less money. That's not how money works. The "pie" is constantly growing and shrinking.

It's a lie that wages are being depressed by rich people. Real income--that is, wages adjusted for inflation--has risen significantly over the last 50 years, and continues to rise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... Also, poverty has fallen dramatically over the last 35 years. https://www.cbpp.org/research/...

It would seem you are making things up.

You are certainly naive. Nobody stops wanting more money when they have "more than they know what to do with." What actually happens, is your expenses get bigger. Instead of a functional used car, they want a new car, and then they want a *nice* new car. Instead of wanting to go to the state park for a holiday, they want to go to Europe or Asia for a holiday. There is no such thing as "more money than you know what to do with." This is a mythical state of being.

I didn't deny this. What I said was, the "billionaire class" is not homogenous. They have as many varying desires as people in any income level. Some are dedicated to helping humanity, some are greedy bastards. Some are democrat, some are republican. Some love Trump, some hate him.

My point is, it's not correct or logical to lump all "billionaires" together in a "billionaire class." By using this term, you paint a caricature that is as pejorative as labels people use for black people or gay people. Oh, but of course, it's *fashionable* to ridicule rich people, so it's OK to label them.

Well lucky for Americans almost nobody makes minimum wage. Walmart employees start at $14/hr. With a roommate, you CAN afford an apartment on that pay. I know, my sons did it on less, just a couple of years ago. And neither of them stayed at those low wages for long.

But you're dodging the point. There is a LARGE gap between minimum wage, and your "living wage." It was the six-figure "living wage" that I said was absurd.

Sure, they all want more money. Even people who aren't billionaires want that. But those who complain about the "billionaire class" complain about HOW they want to get money from all the rest of us, namely, by making us peasants or slaves. That's nonsensical.

Your link says this:

https://www.investopedia.com/t....

That doesn't sound like consensus to me.

The article states that a "living wage" for a family of four in the US is $104,000 per year. That definition is laughable. "If you don't make six figures, you're a slave!" That's absurd.

People who keep looking after they find someone, are going to do that whatever site they use. The point is, on Bumble, there is nothing to do there BUT hook up. On Facebook, the whole site is geared around maintaining connections long term, not just finding that special someone. This means they can hope to keep you engaged, even after you find your soulmate.

Standardized by whom? And what authority do they have to say what my standard should be?

When I graduated from college, I shared a studio apartment with a roommate, to make ends meet. There was *nothing* wrong or inappropriate or demeaning about that arrangement. We had everything we needed, including food, utilities, and transportation. Was I a slave because I didn't have a two bedroom apartment to myself? Not at all.

My son, who has only a high school education, supported himself initially by working at a local movie theater. With one roommate, he too was able to maintain his own apartment, with utilities, food, and transportation. Was he a slave? Not at all.

Your so-called minimum standard doesn't apply to everyone.

For decades, there have been two main sci-fi camps: Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Wars appealed more to the jocks, Star Trek to the nerds. There are a *whole lot* of nerds (including me) who have loved Legos and Star Trek for years.

They really need more than just this one ship, they need a whole ecosystem of Star Trek ships, large and small.

That idea is *ludicrous*!!!

Other dating sites are all about finding that special someone. Once found, they have no ongoing business model, nothing to keep people interested in staying on the site. Quite the opposite: once a match is made and the new couple gets serious, it would actually be seen as cheating, if one of the couple kept using the site.

Facebook has a big advantage here. After a successful match, they can hope that the new couple will transition to their core product, which is meant to connect people long term.

Because of this difference in strategy, Facebook's dating features just might work.