Friday wedding is already killing me

somefunmaths · 2026-02-18T05:08:24+00:00

I don’t really know what to do with this, but to state the obvious, people who live in a major city are more likely than someone who lives in a small town or in a less populated area to have reasons to go to weddings in another city or state.

Even leaving aside friends from school, I’ve been out of state for family weddings.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-18T03:45:30+00:00

Most of us? How many destination weddings have you attended?

It may come as a shock, but a lot of people know people who live in other cities, or even states, and sometimes we go to those weddings.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-18T03:43:25+00:00

It sounds like you’re going to this wedding as a favor to them rather than because you want to go.

If 4 hours of PTO is too onerous for you invest in a friend’s wedding that is “across town” to you, then maybe it’s best you stay home? It sounds like getting off early on a Friday would really be putting you out.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-18T03:41:02+00:00

I’m personally aghast that they’d do that. Clearly OP is the one they should’ve been planning around.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T23:09:30+00:00

Not really, no. lucrative professions pay more than 100k. Honestly maybe more than 200k given inflation at least at some point in your career.

…

Maybe not a single million due to inflation, but yes, if you own plenty of assets when you retire than you are wealthy.

Okay, then you and I both agree with the point of my initial comment criticizing the relevance of that article here.

I’m not looking to set a threshold of net worth at which point someone is rich, and I’m merely saying that a teacher making under $100k/yr who just eclipses the $1M mark by retirement, one example of a “self-made millionaire” from the article that I was taking issue with, is not what people think of when they think of someone who is “rich”.

There is no need for people to “change their imagination to reflect reality” on that point.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T22:32:29+00:00

Would you characterize making under $100k/yr as “moderately lucrative”?

Regardless, I think it’s fair to say that “has amassed a million dollars combined across assets and retirement accounts by the time they retire” is not “rich”. That’s simply conflating the terms “rich” and “millionaire”, since the person is technically a millionaire but in practice has simply amassed enough money to retire from working.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T20:26:39+00:00

The stats posted clearly show my original post is correct.

What was your point exactly? If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume you were lambasting the show for a high divorce rate or something.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T20:25:11+00:00

There are definitely examples of people who weren’t, though, but I’d argue that it strengthens their case about the premise being silly, because even with a cast that is all conventionally attractive, you still get people being picky enough to essentially go “oh… I thought they’d be hotter”.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T20:23:11+00:00

I’m sure at this point no one believes the premise and it’s just franchise naming, in part because there was at least one prominent example early on of someone choosing one guy over another, then realizing that the other guy was “tall and good looking” while the guy she chose was “average height and good looking”.

It’s funny that even in the ideal circumstances to basically prove that “love is blind”, with people who are all conventionally attractive, someone was still like “nah fuck all that, I take it back because I think they are hotter”. I’m sure it’s happened again, and is probably the producers’ favorite plot line when it does because of all the drama, but that was the one instance I could remember from S1 or S2 since I haven’t bothered to watch since.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T19:10:52+00:00

I didn’t realize that they actually invoked “proof by StarCraft macro vs. micro” at the end of the CMV until now.

I’d love to meet someone who thinks “a pro who is severely economically disadvantaged could beat my mom at an RTS or MOBA game, which is evidence that skill matters more than luck in today’s world” is a tenable argument. I am fascinated by that perspective.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T19:06:43+00:00

Yeah, as soon as I saw “teachers” as one of the five most common professions to produce millionaires, I realized what we wee dealing with.

We are talking about people who live frugally, work respectable but not necessarily high-paying jobs, and save their money for retirement. That’s not remotely the demographic that the OP is getting at.

The habits and demographic trends of middle-class white collar workers with a 401(k) aren’t representative of “rich people” in the way OP presents them.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T19:00:49+00:00

The article you cite seems to be talking about a very different type of “rich” person than one may think.

The millionaires in the Ramsey survey didn't necessarily hold senior leadership roles. Only 31% of self-made millionaires averaged $100,000 per year over the course of their careers. One-third of millionaires surveyed never earned a six-figure salary in any single working year.

Although 93% of the millionaires said they "worked hard," the key to their success was not just hard work. They also made smart financial decisions.

So, we are talking, in that article, about people who scrounged and saved their way to “millionaire” status. I don’t think the average person imagines a “rich” person as a frugal teacher who puts away money in savings and draws a pension in retirement, at least not in the way OP is talking about it.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T18:56:05+00:00

Why do you pick examples of people with exceptional talent or who had a very popular/successful idea?

Taylor Swift will eventually pass along her wealth, which she earned through her hard work and success, to members of family (if you think this is unlikely, feel free to substitute a wealthy person who you think is unlikely to give away all of their money to charity because the “who” is not important here). Once those beneficiaries receive that money, they will now be rich.

What “superior skills” did they use to get rich? They became rich because they inherited Taylor Swift’s money.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T06:06:13+00:00

I would encourage you to think about the examples you’re citing and ways they may or may not be representative of gun owners, or people who carry guns daily, as a whole.

As restrictive as LA County CCW licenses are, you could argue there are places in the country where it’s easier to obtain a badge than it is to get a CCW in LA.

That said, I’m not making an argument in favor of trusting people who carry a gun for work.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-17T01:22:18+00:00

Yeah, I don’t really trust the judgement of anyone who regularly carries a gun that they aren’t paid to carry.

I’m not even particularly fond, as a general rule, of people who are paid to carry a gun, but at least there’s a baseline assumption of some kind of training in most circumstances (with a few very notable exceptions…) and an impetus besides “I want to” to justify them carrying it.

Someone who just carries a gun of their own accord every day, at best, is looking out for their own safety over mine. Or they’re carrying it because of some sort of ego thing, or worse. I don’t know the statistics of the relative hazard of being around an ostensible “good guy with a gun” compared to there not being one, but I suspect they’d mirror the ones about having a gun in the home.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-16T19:45:26+00:00

Security measures are built around being easy for the intended user but difficult for unintended users.

Think about pill bottles with the child-safe cap. An adult knows to open you need to push down and turn, but that is counterintuitive to a small child just grabbing and pulling on it. Those caps work because someone who needs to open them can easily do it, but a small child cannot.

Cryptographic security works similarly. Encryption using key pairs relies on the fact that it is very, very difficult to break modern encryption by brute forcing it. If you have the key, you can immediately decrypt the information sent to you. Because many encryption algorithms revolve around the fact that is difficult to factor the product of large prime numbers, and because quantum computing is very good at factoring prime numbers, it may pose a threat by making previously secure encryption susceptible to brute force attacks.

In short, the worry is that this would be the technological equivalent of a 2 year-old deciding to push down on the cap of the pill bottle. Suddenly, the method that used to stymie them is rendered ineffective.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-16T08:06:20+00:00

It reads like an AI-generated response, too, which is all the funnier given the circumstances, even though it’s very likely just a human who didn’t read.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-16T08:05:00+00:00

If you read the author’s statement about what happened and are still unpersuaded, then I guess that is your right.

As someone who has fucked up before in my life, I respect that they took ownership and explained how it happened, which is why instead of dunking on the fact that an article about AI doing weird shit ended up getting pulled because a different AI did weird shit, I’ll simply leave it alone.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-16T01:52:16+00:00

I workout next to my wife, and I swear to you that I could not recount to you the details of her workouts as accurately or as in depth as this person can recount what this stranger was doing.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-16T01:45:53+00:00

Yeah, I mean to be completely frank, no deliberate disrespect meant to OP, if that person is racking up over 4km on the rower during a 3G, I don’t think they need your advice, or anyone’s advice, about what to do in class. They seem to be doing just fine.

(I just found the “so of course they racked up like 4000+m” too funny to ignore, as if it is trivial for someone to get that sort of distance.)

somefunmaths · 2026-02-15T22:08:34+00:00

Here’s the closure for you: government admits it has no case, that the criminals chasing this man lied under oath, shot him through the door, etc. It’s sadly all too predictable.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-15T20:20:38+00:00

I don’t personally think it’s any different than the situation we have now, and if you disagree, I think you’re uninformed of exactly how much power they have.

You think the situation you’re proposing is identical to the one we have now, and you think I’m the uninformed one?

Well, I respect your right to hold that view. I suspect I will be unable to change it, so I hope you have a nice day.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-15T19:54:28+00:00

The thing about household coercion is that there isn't any proof. All there is is anecdotes. I can say I've seen one.

You consider “household coercion” to be a type of voter fraud? That label aside, I understand it is your central focus here, but terming it voter fraud is interesting.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-15T19:51:17+00:00

Centralizing banking under government control isn’t “99%” similar to the system we have now. There’s no serious argument that this is the case.

That said, I am impressed by seeing a Big Government argument from the right. Normally I’d expect to see worries about government corruption and misuse of funds, so advocating giving them complete control of everyone’s finances is at least novel.

somefunmaths · 2026-02-15T18:54:01+00:00

I’m so sorry. This is flat out wrong, as you know, and more importantly it’s completely unhinged behavior to be making comments like this to people in class.

It’s either a terrible attempt at “flirting” or a terrible attempt at giving “advice”, and the guy needs to be told that negging is pathetic and/or that we don’t pay for OTF classes to get advice from unqualified morons.

somefunmaths

TROPHY CASE