They do point out that it varies by location, but really their number range is terrible. "classified a family of three earning $133,000 to $400,000 in 2024 dollars as upper middle class." From the HUD Section 8 income limits [huduser.gov], expensive places the lower end of that is considered low income, like San Jose 143,600 qualifies for Section 8, versus cities like Akron where 72,250 is low enough to qualify. Location, location, location.

You know, there is a TON of land and cities between the coasts,,,,,with tech jobs and reasonable costs of living....

You do not need to live in NYC or Silicon Valley or anywhere in CA for that matter to earn 6 figures and have. A VERY comfortable life and work in pretty much any industry you can name.

Aside from a very few outliers, like NYC or the like with ridiculous costs of living...across the vast majority of the USA, $133K - $300K+. Annual income is VERY easy to live off of.....

There are plenty jobs of all types with good pay in areas with reasonable costs of living....

Remember the US is a very large country....there's opportunity everywhere...and living outside of NYC doesn't mean the alternate is rural and on a farm...lots of smaller cities out there that are much nicer to live in, not only fiscally, but healthier and calmer too.

No mention of islam though, which was the next thing filtered.

"and two others that can block content forbidden under Islamic teachings. "

You can tell which one people have learned to fear. Islam is the future, because even anonymously, people have learned to fear them.

I'd say the better argument is that we should be evolved enough now to know that a highly successful capitalist economy is maybe not the best goal for human happiness, even if it does seem, empirically speaking, to produce the most powerful economies on the planet.

Well...I'm pretty happy,

But sure, you can say capitalism sucks...BUT, it sucks a whole lot less than every other type economy ever tried on earth to date.....

Thanks for your insightful posts. I expanded on that idea in 2010: https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

That said, indigenous ways were "the original affluent society" (even if such ways might have been harder to practice on a restricted reservation after extensive conflicts with Europeans wielding "Guns, Germs, and Steel"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The basis of Sahlins' argument is that hunter-gatherer societies are able to achieve affluence by desiring little and meeting those needs/desires with what is available to them. This he calls the "Zen road to affluence, which states that human material wants are finite and few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate"."

Still, Slashdot doesn't have to play along with their weasel wording. For example, "ergonomic collars that deliver an electric pulse" - just say "shock collar". Don't help them whitewash what they're talking about.

Structuring your nation's laws around the longevity of companies is a terrible idea. Most companies should fail, because most companies are bullshit created by ambitious idiots and/or scofflaws and deserve failure. Most companies that have ever existed are gone today. And that's fine. That's healthy.

I'm just curious as to why you'd use that instead of any manufacturer or google's offering, since those are feature complete, have no ads and no in app purchases.

"I used it when options were worse, and I just like it the way it is" is a completely justifiable reason. A lot of things in our lives, there are better options but having to switch carries cognitive and time costs that are just not worth it.

Why would you want SMS app with "ads and in app purchases" when so many fully featured ad free with no in app purchases SMS apps exist?

What does it offer that others don't?

general inequality because it factors in all the levels, not just specific boundaries.

Everyone has their own message app, and outside US, almost no one uses it for anything other than SMS. For everything else, it's Whatsapp, Telegram, WeChat, Signal, etc.

It's interesting that google and other phone manufacturers lost this fight so comprehensively.

That's the point of TFA, to sound good, to create the impression that the country is no the right track and life is getting better for the people. Decades of people entering upper middle class, sure, if you play with the definition a bit.

Meanwhile two thirds of the nation cannot afford a $500 emergency expense https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/3... and are one hospital visit away from the streets https://www.marketwatch.com/st...

This is a valid retort. But let us not think that lawyers are struggling: once they get to be a "partner" in a firm they are likely making $1 million/year. And the entire context of the discussion is that they aren't relying on staff like they used to. Back in 1980, a lawyer had staff members who ran down to the court house to get documents, bring them back, photocopy them, staple them, file them, make phone calls. Now all of that is 100% automated, plus now they have AI.

I'm not sure the legal overhead is quite what it used to be.

Disclaimers like this apply to Excel, TurboTax, GCC, ChatGPT, and more: The user is ultimately responsible for the application. The manufacturers always disclaim responsibility.

You can get companies to stand behind products and accept liability or sign a Business Associate Agreement - but you are going to have to put it in a contract and pay extra for it. This is why the product you buy at Home Depot and the one the government/military/NASA buys has a very big price difference even if it is the exact same part.

Every industry does this.

From Housing inspectors and plumbers, to software products - it is super common. I just had plumber put this into their contract for replacing a cast-iron drain with PVC. Then I had the tub reglazed and they did the same thing. There are often two prices, based on if you want a guarantee behind it or not. I paid a structural engineer to inspect the foundation of my prior to purchase. While he said the cracks were normal setting, the price was $200 for the inspection + verbal assessment, or $600 to put it in writing and stand behind it. In the last two weeks I've gotten this same thing from a tax preparer and a property attorney. Free advice from the tax preparer, but if we want him to file it and sign it there was a price. The attorney told me what to say in court, but quoted me a price to put it on his letterhead or to show up and say it.