By the way, I didn't reconstruct anything, those numbers are literally in that data.

Well I guess it was just a coincidence then that you started swearing when you ran out of arguments. Take care dude.

That you're a dumbfuck, lol.

It's always a little sad when people resort to swearing at you if their arguments run out. Like it just make you look bad really. And I even asked you to stop digging and then you do that one.

Oh, man. If you had actually opened that, you would have seen what I was trying to tell you, lol

Not only did I open that, I even made a little script to verify that the numbers were the same as the other ones. You asked for source, I provided you source

lol, incorrect. Educate yourself. [bls.gov]

From your link: "The modeled wage estimates are produced using a statistical procedure that combines survey data collected by the National Compensation Survey (NCS) and the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) programs."

So as I said, statistics from sampling. So again, you incorrectly called me incorrect. Yes these are official government statistics. Yes they have an error and confidence rate, just like every other stastistical process.

Incorrect. That's per-capita, which is average, not median. 5th, median household.

Nope, correct. When you scroll down on the page to per capita you see: States and territories ranked by per capita income

Which has California at 11th. I only stated that it had the same number 11th outcome and that is correct. So I am 100% correct that your link says it's 11th to. To refrase: my source and your source say the same thing: California is at 11, although you have it for per capita income, and I have it for median wage. Both your link and my link support that claim. The end result is both at 11th. It doesn't even matter for my argument if it's six or eight, eleven or whatever. Like if you said 'Oh but I think household income is a better rating because XYZ and there it's 5th', I wouldn't have even needed to reply to you. Instead you keep telling me how wrong I am and now swearing at me for some reason when I provide you with perfectly reasonable responses. And I even use official government sources.

So, this is how I feel about household numbers: These days those are very heavily skewed by the number of people in a household. I find it more interesting what individuals make from a job than what the household makes with N jobs.

I think it's fine to get these from a statistical process. If you disagree with the process that's fine, but don't claim it's not statistics.

For that last line I meant median wage.

Dude you messed up, just admit it that you confused wage and household income and stop digging that hole. It's ok. Everyone makes mistakes.

Here you go with that source you were unable to Google: https://www.bls.gov/oes/specia...

What do you mean with 'real statistical collection'? You seem to mix up 'census collection' and 'real statistical collection'. Like damn, you don't even know what you are talking about. BLS does real statistical collection using sampling. If you think sampling does not work or is not statistical, that's hilarious. You don't need to speak to every person in the US to get like a 99.9% accurate view of median wage. In fact for various reasons the Census is generally going to have higher error rate and get lower accuracy, not that it matters for something like median wage.

And yes, every number ever has an error rate. IRS is also going to have some errors. Reality is that you have no real data to back up that there is anything wrong with these numbers. Your suggestion that 'perfect data does not exist so there is no data' is ridiculous. Your household data is also not 100% accurate and neither is the 'GDP of California' number. All of it is some estimates. However, yeah, BLS is going to be pretty good actually.

That one has the same numbers I posted with California 11th for median household income. What is your point even?

Nope. If you are going to correct someone please be accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I specifically stated median wage for states and territories for which my number is accurate.

I think you took median household income for only states, which is not what I stated at all and I can go into a whole reasoning here, but the short version is that I believe wage is more representative because it matters more for this number what people get paid for doing a job than how many people are in a household.

Median wage in California is 10th place, not of the world, but of US states and territories. It's between Minnesota and Colorado.

California's GDP has nothing to do with the people of California. A bunch of big tech companies and media conglomerates have their HQ there and that's where the income of all their US revenue is registered. Their foreign income is usually registered in some tax haven. This talk about agriculture is nice, but at $60 billion it is barely relevant for the so called 'GDP' number.

Of course there is a large amount of medium to high income people in California, but overall these numbers just reflect some tech bro/billionaire dream rather than anything that is useful for normal people. Median wage is the best indication of how people of a state actually do.

As for the comments saying cities in California are a shithole... well they kind of are aren't they?

The summary makes a big deal about tourism, but with 15 million international tourists per year it's barely even registering on the charts. It's a number similar to croatia. National tourism might be bigger but it's hard to get numbers, compare them or even define it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

He was a securities analyst that got barred from securities for fraud. Not really a tech guy.

Mate we were literally responding to one of your MAGA buddies that was suggesting DOGE should defund this research.

That buddy of yours is the only one suggesting that DOGE cares about this, so pick it up with him if you have a problem with that.

Also nobody here said anything about 'repelling a doge invasion' except you.

It's European research. One problem there is that the security at university of cambridge would send the doge broccoliheads away and sending an invasion force to capture britain for this would be quite expensive.

As for JWST, Europe contributed 15% for 15% observation time

I mean even with Trump in office I didn't see any official instances. Unless we are like calling polite reasonable criticism 'talking trash'.

European leaders talk waayyy more respectfully about Trump than US ones.

Onofficially, I think there was the one case where someone evesdropped on macron having a private conversation with some other leaders and he said “He was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top” about Trump. Which I wouldn't even call talking trash.

Give me one example of an allied nation officially talking thrash on the US? Because I can give you a lot of examples of the US officially doing it the other way.

Right, lets let China run the international collection of vulnerabilities. Or a UN org that will give every nation state equal early access to those vulns.

Being the runner of this program benefits exactly 1 country and that is the US. It's really dumb to give that away.

What MITRE does with CVE's is collect the vulnerabilities the CNAs report and number and publicize them. It's not rocket science (and shouldn't normally cost 100mln) but for the more serious ones it sometimes does entail timed privileged access. Fine if you want other countries to pay into the programme but you should understand that that also means giving up control and secrecy of it.

Still want that?

Like 5% cheaper than last year, but still more expensive than 2022: https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...

A lot of the hotel pricing being expensive has to do more with cartel-like behavior rather than just empty rooms.

This is a just bad one that got caught: https://x.com/kannthu1/status/... . Yeah you or I would catch this but they only need 1 person to fall for it out of like 100. This stuff is happening at enormous scale. They are in some foreign country, there is nothing that can be done about it remotely.

Ok you are in burma and your friend just aced your job interview while claiming to be a US citizen in California. Now you get invited in person to meet someone in SF in the coming days and they tell you they will ID check. Which should be like a couple hour drive for you.What you going to do?

If it was all remote you would just let your friend do the second interview but it isn't. If you wanted to do this you would either need to fly to the US (good luck), or have someone in the US willing to go in there, show a fake ID that will be checked, etc. You telling me that's the same level of difficulty for a scammer? Reality is, if it's in person, you aren't going to do shit, you just drop the call and are going to the next potential victim.