That would just make Georgia even more ridiculous and wash out everything closer to white

Functionally synonyms

Edit: The 25% of Illinois that isn't Chicagoland are over-represented in reddit malding, at least, I see.

> airbnb/rental property that would have otherwise been a home on the market.

Rental properties are homes, my man. AirBNB are not.

Then why didn't they put it in their graph? "They're genius experts at this, but they just keep it to themselves because reasons"

This is a really bizarre graph... 35 in age for example represents a completely different point in history for every one of the generations, so if the gap is bigger, is it:

• Because of racist stuff changing or accumulating? Or...

• Because of home ownership changing nationwide over those intervening years, in general, and that showing up at different points along the X axis for each generation even though it was simultaneous, tricking the viewer?

For example, if Gen X is 20 years younger than Millenial, then 50 for the blue line = the same point in time as 30 for the purple line. The gap at 50 on the blue line is around 28%. The gap at 30 on the purple line is... about 28%

So... gap in home ownership for Gen X and Millenials was actually dead even at the same point in actual time? But not when you spread them out by making the X axis age.

That doesn't mean both things aren't still happening. Just that we can't interpret it from a graph. I think this needs to not be a graph at all that humans have no way to validly make sense of, but instead a multivariate analysis to control out each variable each way and find the most well fitting model.

Unrelated: it would be vastly easier to follow if there was just a "ratio" line for each, not two lines.

> Point to me where the chart says $19B is the tax they pay.

Okay: https://imgur.com/a/AdTIdUi

> Literally the only thing it says is “tax”.

Yes, IN RED which is for paid costs by the company. jfc.

Clear low tier trolling at this point. Bye.

> I’m not claiming there’s an error in the chart

plus

> The 19B isn’t the tax they pay.

plus

[The fact that the chart quite clearly says "Tax" in red, the color for outgoing costs they paid, with $19B next to it]

You are contradicting yourself. Chart says they paid $19B in tax, you're saying $19B isn't the tax they pay. So therefore yes, you're saying there's an error in the chart. But then you say you're not saying there's an error in the chart.

Cool story, nobody claimed it did or that 5% was their tax rate, at any point. Again, why are you just listing random fun facts off topic from the thread in response to nobody?

The graph says it is tax / revenue, it does not say it is their "Tax rate". It did not mix it up, there was never any error, you and the guy at the top of this comment chain just pretended something was said that wasn't, then "corrected" an imaginary error you made up. The chart even went out of its way to give you an asterisk telling you that that wasn't what it was talking about, which you still ignored.

> The tax data reported on an income statement is “income tax expense”, which is $19B for Apple

That's the SCALAR amount on the chart.

We have been talking about the PERCENT written next to it.

The percent (5%) is very very clearly indicated on the chart as $19B (all tax paid) / $394B (total revenue) = 4.82% rounds to 5%.

AKA total taxes / revenue. So if you were ever talking about a % other than taxes / revenue, you were simply off topic. Nobody ever claimed that was their tax rate, or anything else, just total taxes / revenue.

The chart makes crystal clear that what it's showing is tax as a portion of revenue.

You said "That’s not what income tax expense is though." So by your own definition, your term you used cannot possibly be referring the chart, since you said it doesn't mean tax / revenue, yet the chart very clearly shows tax / revenue.

Pick one:

• You're talking about [tax / revenue] (if so, why did you say that that wasn't what the term you used meant if it was...?), OR

• You're talking about something not in this chart (if so, why are you off topic?)

Can you please draw a circle around where in this graph or in any of my comments, you encountered the term "income tax expense"?

My brother in christ, it literally just tells you how big the flowy bit of the sankey diagram is on the right versus the flowy bit on the left, it's not that complicated. YOU'RE the only one talking about (and incorrectly assuming everyone else is too) specific tax jargon and normal/official types of tax metrics.

Nobody claimed tax is calculated on revenue...? Nowhere in the OP does it say "the purpose of this graph is to understand how Apple does their taxes" nor did I say any such thing. Read what I said:

> It shows you how much of the total inflow vs outflow (the whole point of this graph) through the entire company's finances is tax.

Why are people interested in that? I don't know, maybe you should ASK them, instead of deny that the obvious popularity of these graphs is real and gaslight everyone.

What do you mean? It shows you how much of the total inflow vs outflow (the whole point of this graph) through the entire company's finances is tax.

It's as meaningful as any other branch of any other Sankey diagram. Obviously people consider them quite meaningful in general, since there's been like 50 of them upvoted to the top of this subreddit recently.

It's pretty much the same as the US + just less dense population thus a little bit more more driving around between places. If you compare it to like Texas or Montana specifically it'd probably be the same or lower.

It's 5% of their revenue, consistent with all the other parentheticals immediately next to it and consistent with revenue being defined at the top as 100%, not a 5% tax rate.

They even went out of their way to give you an asterisk to clarify for you in case you didn't notice...

> No, they preprogrammed how to break down that sentence into individual parts and process each one and how they relate to each other.

If you meant "processing", why did you say "stimuli and responses", neither of which is processing?

Regardless, also no, they almost certainly didn't train it grammar either. Similarly to how you don't teach your 2 year old child sentence diagramming, in most AI like this, it picks it up from examples, not explicit rules.

They did program in basic fundamentals of learning and conditioning though. Much like your human genes programmed into you, since newborn infants already demonstrate reinforcement learning...

> So, the fear of the outcome of an armed attack stopped the government's actions?

Yes I already agreed it was a valid example...?

> That means no convictions.

The charges for showing up with guns and shit were dropped. The $1,000,000 fines and the grazing injunction were not dropped, still apply, and had due process in arriving at them. The grazing is and has been all along a properly categorized crime (or misdemeanor or tort or whatever the technical category is). The gun play is not.

So making the government not bother to enforce the illegal grazing penalties is a man standing up against the People and the Rule of Law.

People thwarting the rule of law and due process is absolutely a backfire. Or are you "pretty sure" the founders meant for rule of law to not be a thing either, but just didn't get the time to write that down either?

> LAPD literally bunkered down.

So did people in the Battle of Britain during every bomb sortie, which the allies then proceeded to win. So what? Bunkering down during hot spots =/= backing down or quitting or running away or losing. So what? They absolutely did not, according to your own source, stay bunkered down the whole time. it is mentioned only infrequently in narrow situations in the timeline.

> They put up barriers around precincts, stopped patrolling, and turned the city over to everyone else.

If only your own source backed you up on that, cool fanfiction though. What it actually says was that not only were police continuing to work, but they were airlifting in MORE police from surrounding areas up to and through the same period of time that the national guard were arriving.

Your own source also talks about all kinds of PATROLS in different areas of the city up to the same point in the timeline as the national guard, and those patrols being reinforced, and what they were up to and so on.

The hell are you talking about, seriously?

> I notice in all of our conversation so far, you haven't mentioned breathing, shitting, or eating.

I would if I was writing a summary medical/anatomy textbook 😂 The equivalent of the federalist papers and/or constitution and/or declaration of independence and other founding documents, specifically all about laying out the foundational principles.

And I would mention breathing dozens of times, if I furthermore had a chapter on the lungs specifically and what exactly the lungs were for, which is the equivalent of having essays on the second amendment and what exactly its purpose was and what balance was struck, etc.

> Then people started dying. Then they fought back.

At which point they reduced their chance of success by 50% versus not fighting back and remaining peaceful. Correct.

> The peaceful part depended on the actions of the government.

No... Them CHOOSING to fight back depended on THEM.

> Or are you suggesting you should continue to peacefully protest amidst incoming machine gun fire?

Yes, I have ELI5'ed this multiple times. If you want to have double the chance of success, that is exactly correct. Remain non violent. Do you want to have double the chance of success? Or not? (In case you're unaware, by the way, "running away" from a gun currently shooting at you is non-violent.)

And if you get 3.5% of the population in on it as well, your chance of success goes to around 100%

> simply keep shooting peaceful protestors with machine guns until they stop protesting

They DON'T "stop protesting" when you shoot them a lot. They protest MORE. Your industries start shutting down from strikes, your treasure stops flowing in. The protestors swell from outrage making recruitment easy as hell for them, and they now outnumber your henchmen by 40:1 instead of 10:1. Then next month 100:1 if you keep shooting more... your own guys start defecting because whoops! You shot your own lieutenant's cousin yesterday. Oopsie, he went to the protestors. And the whole rest of the world meanwhile joins them in protesting and begins to sanction you back to the stone age...

Your question is inherently leading in that you wrote into it an incorrect assumption that "you can make people stop by shooting them". No. You can't. Your assumed premise is simply wrong, according to all examples from modern history.

> What's to stop you? International sympathy?

Yes, that and domestic sympathy causing them to recruit +5 people locally for every one you shoot. As we see from a wide array of examples throughout modern history.

> Like how it's working with Putin and the Chinese government who are "hosting" large numbers of ethnic minorities who would "peacefully protest" if they didn't expect to get killed anyway....

They don't have 3.5% of the population, remember the TWO extremely simple rules I told you? Peaceful + 3.5%...

Uyghurs for example only number about 12 million people, out of 1,400 million Chinese overall... even if they organized at unprecedented levels and an incredible half of their number got out and protested at once, that'd be less than 1/2 of 1% of China.

Jews were about 0.5% of Germany in 1933

Armenians were about 4% of Turkey in 1915 (but it has to be people joined to the cause and actually protesting, you obviously won't get 88% of your group out protesting right out of the gate)

> Sounds like a real winner.

Yes. Correct. Unironically yes. The data shows it is a winner 2x more often than violence is. The data happening to conflict with your angry monkey brain telling you "monkey revenge! ooh ooh monkey smash!" does not make the data wrong, sorry.

> Bundy standoff

Alright that's a good example. Except:

1. They only seem to have stood down because the amount in dispute was only $1M. The cost to recruit and certify a police officer and the amount they have to pay out in survivor benefits to spouse and children if a single one dies can add up to $2M+... not very likely this would work with anything higher stakes or easier to respond to (such as more urban where they could be affordably overwhelmed sufficiently to just give up with minimal risk)

2. The guy was very obviously breaking the law and already received due process to that effect, so your example is pretty counterproductive to what your original argument was about standing up to tyranny. It being, instead, a criminal standing up to completely fair and resaonable treatment and avoiding paying what his own countrymen and peers voted for laws saying that he should pay... he stood up to the People, not to tyranny. So... the one clear successful example backfired actually...

> LA Riots is an easy one. LAPD totally just bunkered down for a while.

Right at the top "12,000 arrests were made" and "[police were blamed for] failure to de-escalate" i.e. the exact opposite of what you were supposed to be demonstrating...

Not being 100% active the entire time 24/7 is not "being stood down", and your own source summarizes them as being overall highly active, in fact too active.

> I'm pretty sure they didn't think the part of armed overthrow of an overreaching government was necessary to spell out again

You're "pretty sure" that an allegedly foundational principle of the country didn't need to be mentioned AT ALL in hundreds of pages of commentary about the foundational principles of the country. Despite even the fact that they DID take the time to write down thoughts at some length about the 2nd amendment specifically, but still mysteriously didn't have the time (?) to include the "actual" reasons for it. Lol alright dude.

Or maybe you just made that up, and it was about state militias removing the need for a federal standing army. You know, exactly like they explicitly say it was about. And that's it. Wacky alternative theory!

> https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011

Not peaceful protests anymore, because they started shooting back. I, and my source, were quite clear when I said no PEACEFUL protests greater than 3.5% have ever failed.

> The Syrian Civil War started with peaceful protests.

Not peaceful protests anymore because they started shooting back. So invalid datapoint.

Not sure what's so confusing about what I said, it's really not that complicated. 3.5% of the populaiton + peaceful = 100% success rate.

Your own sources also confirm the same mechanism I described: when they got gunned down initially, it garnered massive local + international sympathy, which is what would have won it for them if they stayed peaceful. Numbers of involved protesters swell much faster than bodies piling up do (you kill one guy, his whole family and best friends join the protests), sanctions start raining down internationally, etc.

When you shoot back, people stop gaining any swell of massive sympathy. You may sometimes still win, but statistically half as often as if you hadn't shot back. Not 0%, just half, but still unstrategic to do so. The bullets are about 50% as effective as the sympathy would have been.

Oh alright, by bet on it i thought you meant like literally BET on it, as in invest money with hopes of a return, "bet", sorry

> You should read about

I know about those topics already. What you think they have to do with the conversation, though, I am not sure. You need to outline that yourself, I'm not going to guess your whole argument for you, if any.

> nonviolent protests last only to the tolerance of the government.

I just gave you a source showing that it literally not once has ever failed in all of modern history, worldwide, any form of government, anywhere, with even just a measly 3.5% of the population protesting, or more.

No. It's not "at the tolerance of" anything. It ALWAYS works. Governments can't do shit. Or else some of them would have. None of them have. None.

So... wrong. And already cited as wrong...

> Once more, the whole idea behind the American Second Amendment is the deterrence of needing violence again and the creation and maintenance of a government who would prefer nonviolent protesting to the application of violence.

The founders such as in the federalist papers made very clear they were talking about literal militias, to avoid the need for a standing army. Not anything to do with protesting or casual civilian affairs of any such sort. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

The fixation on individual gun ownership as a private one person or family unit matter began in the 1960s as a re-conceptualization of the amendment by the Black Panthers to give them an edge over the cops they were beefing with who didn't expect to see them walking around with shotguns on the street observing. Yes, their conceptualization is similar to yours. Which was then adopted by other groups like the NRA (which before that was totally into gun control). But that began in the 1960s. Not 1860s, not 1760s. Not Jefferson or Hamilton or Madison, etc...

> So, so far, the insurance mostly works. I mean, except for (1960s examples)

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Washington,_D.C.,_attack_and_hostage_taking

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

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/04/us/separatists-end-texas-standoff-as-5-surrender.html

Meanwhile, do you have any examples of a situation where a group of people brandished guns at police to try and scare them off and it WORKED?

But if you take the output in the year they said it would take 4 more years, and multiply that by 4, it's less than the number of issues that have actually come out since then.

...?

Infoation adjusted wages are slightly HIGHER than they were before COVID. As in it is in fact easier to afford the cost of living than before. Wages don't just sit around static either.

The core problem is only if you have a lot of cash savings or if you are a creditor

Lol yep, turns out just stealing shit is really cheap. WHO KNEW!

"Price of a candy bar before vs after I started just walking out of the store with them. 100% decrease! Massive efficiency gain!"

Your statement is wrong and has been for decades. It can definitely respond to brand new stimuli it's never seen before. You seriously think the ChatGPT guys "preprogrammed" the answer to "Give me the recipe for a cake but in Shakespearean iambic pentameter"? Lol? There are also tons of AI systems that for example take any painting you give them and make it look like Van Gogh. The programmers never saw your painting before...

If you want to argue subjectively about the term intelligence, fine, but "preprogrammed responses" as well as "predetermined stimuli" are both objectively wildly incorrect.

New prize for the most ridiculously misleading visualization I've seen on the sub so far.

Literally just a 5 point line graph, and you still managed to absolutely butcher it by using Willy Wonka's Wacky Y Axis where there are no rules and the numbers don't matter.

And boring even if was done correctly.

And ugly.