Yes but you can pick up an infection while immunocompromised that kills you even after you remove the graft and stop the immunosuppressant drugs, or before you have a chance to do so.
I think this is incorrect because it assumes the job offers are equal. My understanding is that it is much more like two chronically unemployed people: the first doesn't get an interview 99% of the time, the second one is 99% only offered MLM job interviews where they're expected to "invest in themselves first" by buying the MLM product aka scams.
I think generally the quality of interactions both sexes have with the opposite sex on these apps is roughly equal.
That said, even by this analogy, that would imply the 1% of the time the first person gets an interview, it is also likely a scam or a non-start 99% of the time.
So the second person is still 100x as likely to find a job as the first person. The market just happens to suck for everyone.
Do you actually talk to women about dating apps? I have, and they basically have to walk around variously unhinged, landmine men who are still in the dating pool (the good ones are obviously snatched up quickly). I'm talking demeaning language, fetishization (especially if you're black or asian or latina), the "hey" followed by "you fat bitch" if you don't respond fast enough, etc.
Also if you're a fat woman your dating chances suuuuuck.
> I live in a fairly poor area and people seem very willing to throw litter out of their cars, blast bass so loud it shakes my house, do drugs in public view, or commit flagrant traffic/parking violations (no value judgments here, just being objective) compared to other places I've lived.
I used to live in wealthy frathouse neighborhoods and they do the same shit there too. They just have the money to hire cleaners after they trash houses, or collectively buy summer vacation trips to other countries to do it.
My previous apartments were mostly very near a campus, so that's more or less my point of comparison. I definitely was more upset at entitled college kids than I am about my neighbors today (who I mostly can excuse), but I do think there was a lot less of it.
The bass issue for example has gone from 1-2 times a week to 2-3 times a day, and this is a much lower traffic area. A lot fewer loud parties here, but I think that's mostly a function of age. And yeah, they'd trash their own houses/lawns, but I'm not sure that's even illegal. Here I pick up a small bag of trash from my own property whenever I mow the lawn; nobody once littered in my lawn by campus (I do have about 4x the space where that could happen now).
This is all anecdotal, my experience certainly doesn't override yours. I'd love to see some data, but I can't seem to find anything.
I disagree with the broad idea that immigrants have less resources compared to the US born population as a category. Immigrants are often more educated than the native US born population, with greater incomes. Nigerian-Americans are some of the highest educated Americans by demographic, and way out-earn their native African-American counterparts.
Remember that the immigrants who come to america already have enough resources at minimum to immigrate!
> Immigrants are often more educated than the native US born population
... and are usually unable to do anything with that education because most American employers (outside the very unusual field of software engineering) discount or ignore non-American degrees. An immigrant with an engineering or medical degree making a living by driving an Uber in America is a stereotype very much based in reality. I personally know people who fit that stereotype.
One of the biggest indicators to me, as someone who has navigated such lines before, is how comfortable co-workers are with waste. A co-worker who takes catered food home (without saying something like, "oh I have 3 growing teenagers" or something else to excuse it) is low-class. Do you keep the little sauce packets, napkins, disposable cutlery, etc. from take-out? Low class. Do you keep the pencils and notepads etc. from places? Low. Class. Also this causes you to need to have a place to store all these things, and now you fulfill the stereotype of a poor, messy person.
Minimalism, aka the confidence to be able to acquire anything you may need at the moment with resources always available to you, is a class indicator.
When I was in law school I went out to many work lunches and dinners during the recruiting season. I was impressed by one firm — made up mostly of biglaw refugees — that took the leftover food at the end of the meal. It stood out in contrast to the normal practice, which was to spend $65 per person on lunch (20 years ago), and leave 1/3 of it on the table.
I chose to intern at the firm that took the leftovers.
I noticed you didn't bring up them also taking napkins, sauce packets, sugar and creamer, cutlery etc. You either already were eating at wealthy enough places (metal cutlery + real cloth napkins) that this wasn't an opportunity for you & that was itself a class indicator, or you were focused on one thing (taking food home) and missing the bigger picture.
Of course each individual action of preventing waste isn't a 100% indicator for having grown up in poverty. Low-waste is arguably fashionable, even. But being low-waste is different from acquiring and retaining arbitrary stuff to use later in place of things you can just buy when you need it. Buying a reusable straw is different from keeping every disposable straw you're given, same as buying a reusable bag is different from keeping every takeout/grocery plastic one. The house of my parents displays my impoverished childhood clearly-- it is a place of incredible resourcefulness using all the things people normally refuse to acquire or throw away if given to them.
> I noticed you didn't bring up them also taking napkins, sauce packets, sugar and creamer, cutlery etc.
That wasn't the point of my story, so it would have been a distraction to mention. Even now, 20 years later, I have a drawer stuffed with free napkins, and I've kept some ketchup packets so long they burst.
I was keeping my reply succinct, and the point was that it stands out when wealthy people take home leftovers, and some people view that as a positive thing.
> My point is not that no wealthy people save things.
That may not be your point in this comment, but in your original comment you listed several things (taking home leftovers, keeping sauce packets, hanging onto free pens) that you labeled as low-class indicators. These are only indicators of being low-class if they are not done by a significant number of non-low-class people.
My point was that there are actually some people who are quite wealthy/comfortable who do these things also, and that some people (like law-school-me) react positively to it. The point is that people who do this because of their current situation or past situation need not feel embarrassed or odd for doing this, because some people see it as practical and commonsense.
I've been poor and I've never known anyone to take sauce packets. You're supposed to take what you need for your meal not so you can take them home. It's iffy ethically.
I don't think the paper implies any causality either way. Notice that the title of the paper itself is "The neurobiology of life course socioeconomic conditions and *associated* cognitive performance in middle to late adulthood"
Really, this is editorializing on the part of the person who submitted this link to HN.
I don't quite agree. While the paper is much less sensational than the submission title, the way the abstract reads clearly sounds like they are at least implying some causality, subconsciously or not.
Take the sentence "Individuals from higher income households showed preserved cognitive performance..." That could just as easily be written "Individuals with preserved cognitive performance showed higher levels of income..." There are a bunch of similar examples like that throughout the abstract.
TBH That's literal nitpicks. Nowhere in the paper is a causal relationship proposed. Your statement that a potential subconscious proposition exists in the paper is windmill-tilting.
Forgiveness isn't like acting like what a person did never happened. It's describing the cessation of the feeling of resentment and anger at being wronged. Depending on how small or large the action is, the wrongful action can be but is not always treated as if it never happened. I can cease being angry at my abusive parents but that doesn't mean I have to engage with them.
That's what you say is the definition of forgiveness, sure.
But is that the definition of forgiveness that everyone else actually has? Clearly enough people have a definition of forgiveness meaning exactly "acting like what a person did never happened", that threads like this become split with people talking past each other.
Dictionaries don’t determine how populations actually use words. They either tell you what the author thinks the word should mean, or more optimistically how a population used to use a word, with considerable lag between updates. When a dictionary fails to capture the meaning of how people use a word, is that a failure of the dictionary, or the people using the word?
To be clear, you are not wrong for having your own definition, but neither are others. Which is what I’m trying to communicate.
Again, what’s most important is to hear what people are actually saying in good faith, instead of trying to jam it into the shape we’d prefer. If so many people have a more complex definition of forgiveness than expected, does constantly waggling a finger and pointing to another definition facilitate communication, or does it start resembling gaslighting? For many people, telling them to “forgive” is identical to telling them to say “it’s fine/it’s no problem anymore”. What a dictionary says is irrelevant here, is the above what you really want to say, even accidentally?
When a population is clearly split on word meaning, then frankly the best thing to do is find a better word that can properly separate the concepts being used. Or just call it what it is, “letting go of anger/resentment”. Frankly that’s a lot more clear on the scope and benefits of what is being talked about. Perhaps psychology has something applicable, dunno.
> It's also rare for a doctor to tell a person they are too fat and to lose weight.
Genuinely curious... have you ever been an obese person? Every fat person I've known have told me they're constantly shamed about being fat in medical settings, some to the point where they actively avoid going to a doctor anymore because they've given up on anything beyond being told they're fat.
It its a complicating factor in almost every ailment known to humankind. A doctor would be negligent not to address it. There is no healthy level of obesity.
I'd say I'm obese, and never heard a word about it. Even through covid. I have a friend who is a doctor who has been brutally honest with me (it's appreciated), but even though I've gone to many paid doctors in the northeast US, not a peep.
I don't want to confuse my experience with actual data. Also, I don't think it's shaming if it's a health issue and obesity should be recognized as such.
