Interesting, you say my argument has no substance, then you immediately go on and address all the substance within it. "She does not find to be good to her".

Interesting, you say my argument has no substance, then you immediately go on and address all the substance within it. "She does not find to be good to her". What was the process by which she found it not to be good? "You're not asking what did she do". Seriously? I read her entire post; if she had discussed her attempts to change the culture which was more than "hold discussions about social issues" with her peers at Google who she describes as "fake, self-serving, status-seeking" then I would have a different opinion. Every productive suggestion I make to change the culture -- which me and some of my friends do (rarely, we're not perfect or close to it) -- you argue against with a resigned fatalism. "Would you stay in a city that made you feel that way." And here's where we differ. There's a process, a reason why something makes you feel a certain way. And if you short-circuit personal responsibility, if you never act out or different in the world (or in your relationship) to see whether your nihilistic despair matches reality, that is juvenile. Maybe you don't have the bandwidth to tackle the problem. Fine. But you still take an L for never confronting the world, for never breaking through your inward solipsistic perceptions.