3 ms·

> What part of "as a rule" made you think this was about a specific area? As a rule that just happenes to not work in any of the large metros of the country in

> What part of "as a rule" made you think this was about a specific area? As a rule that just happenes to not work in any of the large metros of the country in question. I've got a rule that a pen always rolls off on the left side of a desk, too bad it only works on my desk here that is missing a couple of legs! > Hollowed out opportunity, or hollowed out available jobs? As noted earlier, there is a pretty big difference Sure they'll go work minimum wage jobs at the highway fast food and gas stops. Buc-ees is iticing for jobs to sling BBQ sandwiches and scrub toilets! Big opportunity there. Once again, where's your data? I've linked mine, you're a foreigner going arguing against my lived experiences without even pointing to actual data, instead berating me and taking down to me about asking for you to actually give examples. > Can I assume this implies that you have diligently read mine? Yes, I have read yours. Have you actually read mine? I'm taking about one of the largest metro areas in the US trying to describe why people make the choices I do, showing real examples backed by federal reserve data and actual maps and housing costs and tax data. You're seemingly ignoring them and instead giving your own imagined ideas of transit times and job opportunities and property values not backed by any kind of data. You're giving assumed ideas while ignoring actual factual linked data and multiple lived experiences in this chat while accusing me of not reading the data you refuse to share. You might want to re-evaluate who is going by gut assumptions.

9rx 1y ago
> As a rule that just happenes to not work in any of the large metros of the country in question. Large... metro? What? Where did you see me say "large metros as a rule..."? Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule". You even literally quoted that exact bit in your response! How do you have absolutely no awareness of what is going on now? > I've linked mine You certainly did for some strange reason, but I have no idea why. It was rather bizarre. If I wanted to have a discussion with the FED, I'd go talk to it directly. I don't need you to act as a pointless middleman. That is a waste of your time and mine. I suppose I should have some appreciation for your obedient dog-like behavior as you deliver your chew toy to me with glee, but I really cannot find any reason to care. That's not what discussion forums are for. They are, surprisingly, for having discussions. I want to know what you have to say. If you have to rely on someone else to feed you what to say, why bother?
- vel0city 1y ago
  When your rule fails to accurately describe reality over and over, it's pretty worthless as a rule. > Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule" Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. So comparing and talking about metro areas is absolutely relevant here. And the metro areas I've been talking about include a mix of rural and urban areas. Metro doesn't mean urban. > You certainly did for some strange reason, but I have no idea why. You have no idea why someone would link to data to back their assertions instead of just saying things like "as a rule" without supppying any data. As a rule US males are 12 feet tall. As a rule dogs have eight legs. Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head. It's a total waste of time to actually research the data when I've conjectured a general rule in my head!
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > Metro doesn't mean urban. While that is absolutely true, rural areas within metropolitan areas are not the rule. What do you find notable about exceptional rural areas to offer relevance when discussing typical rural areas? > Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. At one point such comparison was made, but we also moved on from that long ago and narrowed our focus to rural areas alone. There was no reasonable sequitur that brought us back to comparison with urban areas. If you want to talk about some random thing outside of our discussion, why not start a new thread? > Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head. Exactly. If I want to know more about the height of US males (male what? you'd better link to something to clarify!!) and how many legs dogs have, I can consult the records. There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information. I am logically, given that this is a discussion forum, not a data collection agency, here to understand that what isn't documented and only revealed through discussion — things like your inner workings. Which, granted, is still being revealed through this diatribe. And the inner working are quite unusual, indeed. I know we're really starting to go off-topic here and I understand I am being "that guy" in perpetuating it, so I won't continue to push the issue like that curious case above any further if there isn't mutual participation, but I would love to dig into this deeper if you are game. Do you understand HN to be simply a place where you can find free secretarial labor rather than as a place for discussion?

9rx 1y ago

> As a rule that just happenes to not work in any of the large metros of the country in question. Large... metro? What? Where did you see me say "large metros as a rule..."? Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule". You even literally quoted that exact bit in your response! How do you have absolutely no awareness of what is going on now? > I've linked mine You certainly did for some strange reason, but I have no idea why. It was rather bizarre. If I wanted to have a discussion with the FED, I'd go talk to it directly. I don't need you to act as a pointless middleman. That is a waste of your time and mine. I suppose I should have some appreciation for your obedient dog-like behavior as you deliver your chew toy to me with glee, but I really cannot find any reason to care. That's not what discussion forums are for. They are, surprisingly, for having discussions. I want to know what you have to say. If you have to rely on someone else to feed you what to say, why bother?

vel0city 1y ago
When your rule fails to accurately describe reality over and over, it's pretty worthless as a rule. > Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule" Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. So comparing and talking about metro areas is absolutely relevant here. And the metro areas I've been talking about include a mix of rural and urban areas. Metro doesn't mean urban. > You certainly did for some strange reason, but I have no idea why. You have no idea why someone would link to data to back their assertions instead of just saying things like "as a rule" without supppying any data. As a rule US males are 12 feet tall. As a rule dogs have eight legs. Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head. It's a total waste of time to actually research the data when I've conjectured a general rule in my head!
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Metro doesn't mean urban. While that is absolutely true, rural areas within metropolitan areas are not the rule. What do you find notable about exceptional rural areas to offer relevance when discussing typical rural areas? > Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. At one point such comparison was made, but we also moved on from that long ago and narrowed our focus to rural areas alone. There was no reasonable sequitur that brought us back to comparison with urban areas. If you want to talk about some random thing outside of our discussion, why not start a new thread? > Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head. Exactly. If I want to know more about the height of US males (male what? you'd better link to something to clarify!!) and how many legs dogs have, I can consult the records. There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information. I am logically, given that this is a discussion forum, not a data collection agency, here to understand that what isn't documented and only revealed through discussion — things like your inner workings. Which, granted, is still being revealed through this diatribe. And the inner working are quite unusual, indeed. I know we're really starting to go off-topic here and I understand I am being "that guy" in perpetuating it, so I won't continue to push the issue like that curious case above any further if there isn't mutual participation, but I would love to dig into this deeper if you are game. Do you understand HN to be simply a place where you can find free secretarial labor rather than as a place for discussion?