> In 2013, for example, the average poverty threshold for an individual living alone was $11,888; for a two-person family, $15,142; and for a family of four, $23,834.7

I wasn't alive in 1969, but for 2013, that threshold is quite low - it may make sense for poverty, but it is not a net wide enough to catch a significant portion of (relatively) poor people whose addictions have grown to far outweigh their paychecks.

This seems impossible to solve without considering which people were actually experiencing this growth.

Detailing them is one thing, replicating them with physics is another (false equivalence from the author).

This is a short, colloquial way of expressing all of those frustrations. It’s assumed everyone knows already, not some aesthetic thing.

You seem to be attaching too much significance to the color. It really is because the experience sucks over SMS. The annoyance with the green color is just a symbol of that frustration. I implore you, to try having a meaningful group chat with a mix of users. Having just one Android user instantly degrades the experience for everyone involved.

> Unlike Whatsapp, Messages doesn't require that every participant has Messages, nor that they have an iPhone. Messages will send each and every group message to every Android user in the group using SMS.

Messages isn't the problem. Group SMS is.

You are forced into transitioning out of a group chat model, to a broadcast SMS one. All the usual issues apply - increased delays/out of order messages, no read receipts, Android phones randomly creating multiple smaller groups or just shitting out completely.. Any semblance of real-time destroyed.

You specify multiple reviewers. That's it.

They are completely different playing fields. In a plane your life is in the hands of a pilot or two and a computer. On the road, the risk is amplified by every other driver.

Also, skies aren't nearly as full of traffic as roads.

There is no 'acceptable baseline' that reaches across fields that isn't zero. I think this is the main point here. I doubt anyone today would consider the number of deaths we experience on the road to be an acceptable risk, either.

Without taking a stand on the greater discussion here, I'd just like to add: birth control is not all that cheap, and poorer people are much less likely to be as educated on all the birth control options available to them anyway. I would also reason that the feeling of having limited life prospects would make one more likely to have kids as it becomes a larger milestone at that point.

This is optional, there's a "let iTunes manage my music for me" checkbox somewhere.

While I agree that it's useful to maintain some nuance in our perspectives, generally I think it's better to recognize and realign our actions, not definitions. It's the difference between accidentally hitting someone, and accidentally hitting someone and proceeding to run them over.

And to your example, I think we know most people aren't really aware of what is going on. Another group of people don't believe it at all, a combination of ignorance and poor government. We're all human; that means something.

All of these things are no one's fault.

> Evil isn't about results. It is about intent and motive.

Exactly. Prioritizing profit at the cost of customers' well-being is a deliberate decision; if not, seeing that customers are harmed by your own, continued actions and doing nothing to change it is, to me, actively being evil. Your intent may not be exactly to harm, but you have no problem harming people to get there. There is no difference.

Don't bend yourself out of shape. Actively, happily ignoring the evil you have caused and continue to cause is evil.

Now that's a great idea. Let me create multiple outgoing feeds. Lists become 10x cooler when "C programming" only contains programming tweets