Hi! I'll give it a try, though I didn't downvote you. My reading is that your comment is trying to argue with the one above it, even though you're both coming from the same direction.
GP says that "SV techs" are unrelatable because they always want more $, and mentions that they're satisfied with what they make. They don't try to say that they're not in a privileged position, just that they don't see the need to always be wanting more.
Your comment, then, is a bit of a non-sequitur - even though it's correct, you don't really have an argument to have with GP. Maybe it's just your phrasing that's throwing people off.
Thanks, I read it all a few times more and I think I can see what you mean, though it’s quite hard.
No matter how, I keep coming away with GP sounding like they’re humblebragging :) I don’t have issues with the literal content, just with the meaning I read into it.
Either way, thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen a comment on HN flip flop around so much on score.
I'm sure the parent commenter meant to use "please" in that manner, as the stats are being used in a deliberately misleading manner.
Even your source shows it... that's 30 percent of a small (presumably affluent) section of the city, not of the whole city. There are some 2.5 million apartments in the city, and this is talking about just 5k.
There are other sources that cite the actual percentage as 11% [1]. That's still high, unfair to residents, and worth discussing, but you can't win arguments by putting up fake stats.
GP says that "SV techs" are unrelatable because they always want more $, and mentions that they're satisfied with what they make. They don't try to say that they're not in a privileged position, just that they don't see the need to always be wanting more.
Your comment, then, is a bit of a non-sequitur - even though it's correct, you don't really have an argument to have with GP. Maybe it's just your phrasing that's throwing people off.