Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Including the Chinese workers who assemble Apple's products?


Last time I looked up the numbers, those workers were earning at least an integer multiple of the average wage for China, and were right about where you'd expect for someone in Shanghai (a highly privileged part of China).

If you really think they're equivalent to Wal-Mart's minimum-wage employees, you are either extremely ignorant or just delusional.


> Last time I looked up the numbers, those workers were earning at least an integer multiple of the average wage for China

Underneath the pompous attempt at technical-sounding language, what are you trying to say?

If you really meant "...at least an integer multiple of the average wage...", this is a really pompous way of saying "some amount, which could be infinitely negative", since integers include negative numbers of unlimited magnitude.

If you really meant "...at least a positive integer multiple of the average wage...", that's a really pompous way of saying "...at least the average wage..."

If you really meant "...at least an integer > 1 multiple of the average wage...", that's a really pompous way of saying "...at least twice the average wage..."


"Integer" is neither pompous nor technical-sounding. Your entire comment is just a really arrogant way of saying "I'm a pedantic jackass".


> "Integer" is neither pompous nor technical-sounding.

I didn't say that "integer", standing on its own, is either pompous or technical sounding.

My criticism was that, as written, the sentence is actually completely meaningless ("X is at least an integer multiple of Y", where X and Y are from context real-valued measures, means, after all, doesn't actually provide any bound, lower or upper, on X), and that for any conceivable meaning that could have been intended, and that, given the word choice and the way the general structure was overly convoluted for any of the conceivable meanings intended, appeared to be a pompous attempt to use technical-sounding terminology rather than simple direct statements that would clearly communicate the intended meaning.

I notice that you still don't say what it is you actually meant by the completely meaningless phrase you used.


I meant your final interpretation, but you already knew that, as would anyone else reading my comment.

Absolutely no one who genuinely wants to address a linguistic ambiguity opens with calling it "pompous". There is simply no way you were acting in good faith.

You just wanted an excuse to be a jerk.


> I meant your final interpretation, but you already knew that

No, I didn't. My actual belief was that the last two were about equally likely, with a slight favor to the first over the second, and that it was about as likely as either of those two that you meant something else that I hadn't thought of, given how unnecessary the whole qualification was for the second interpretation, and how distant the third was from any reasonable (even considering understandable mistakes in word choice of the type that could support the second interpretation) relationship to the words you actually used:

* The first interpretation I assumed to be unlikely because it was completely meaningless (but I didn't consider it impossible that you were knowingly making an empty statement.)

* The second I thought was plausible because using "integer" in place of "natural number" or "positive integer" is a fairly common error, this would obviously be the interpretation of the three presented with the most excess verbiage, but of the non-empty ones it was the easiest mistake of word choice to understand.

* The third involves a bizarre, nearly inexplicable, error of meaning -- I've literally never before seen anyone use "integer" to mean "at least two" and can't see any reason why anyone would expect anyone to understand "integer" to mean that -- but provided some explanation of why you'd have any phrase modifying "average wage" at all.


"Integer multiple" in relation to "wage" combined with the mention of being in line with Shanghai wages is clear in its intended meaning. And I still don't believe a word of your BS because you opened with an insult, eliminating any possibility you are acting in good faith.

By the way, the "inexplicable" becomes a lot more explicable when you allow for the possibility (in this case fact) that the writer was suffering extreme exhaustion at the end of an incredibly long day.

Why not just apologize for being a jerk and move on?


Holy shit. I can't believe I just read that. I shall forever this moment as the one where HN jumped the shark. God damn.


What about the chinese workers that assemble products sold at walmart?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: