Yeah, I don't quite agree with that, or think of it as any kind of a criticism. The candles are placed in such a way that the faces of the important characters are easily visible, while the spectators fade into the background. This is fine! You're not meant to see their reactions, only hear them. The lighting functions like stage lighting, or (more likely Kubrick's inspiration) chiaroscuro, focusing viewers' attention where it's meant to be.
As an aside: I've always suspected that the next scene (outside the house, at the end of this clip) is not naturally lit, though I've never seen anyone write anything about it. Even there, though, the lighting is used dramatically: as she turns, her face goes into shadow, leaving her reaction to his approach unseen, and therefore ambiguous.
Sorry / not-sorry , you were making a quick point, which I've totally hijacked to geek out about one of my favorite films of all time. Carry on.
For a camera exposing onto Kodak 5254, probably the fastest available in 1975, blazing ISO 100 film stock. Yeah it’s dim for that. To your eyes as I understand it’s pretty well lit.
The photo nerd hacking tweak of note here was the pushing of the stock to 200 and using uniquely crafted NASA lenses built to photograph the dark side of the moon with not seen before aparture.
Arguably a youtube rending of a compressed digital source viewed on a computer screen falls short of a 1970s full cinema via film live viweing.
> If composed of two parts, there is often a scion—the upper or shoot portion of a plant—which is joined with a separate rootstock to produce, if successful, a healthy grafted plant.
And like that, I finally figured out why Toyota named their offshoot brand Scion.
> Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson planted pecans at their plantations
At the time of Washington and Jefferson, they were known in English as Illinois nuts. And, living in Illinois, a few years ago I bought a selection of 2-3 year old seedlings of Illinois-native trees from the state department of natural resources to plant on my property. Pecan seedlings were included...
When people say that pecan trees grow slowly, they are understating reality. Mine are growing at maybe an inch a year. I get one or two small leaves at the top. No branches yet. I planted a plum tree near one at the exact same time and it has doubled in height.
If your river often freezes over (e.g. Rock), you're not in the right place. The Mississippi River almost never does where the Pecans grow.
"The tree can only survive in areas with warm winter nights, which severely restricts its distribution.
To ensure your pecan tree grows at the expected rate (1-3 feet per year for non-bearing and 5-12 inches for existing bearing trees) and produces nuts, the two most critical parts of pecan tree care are consistent watering and fertilizing."
>A pecan tree purchased from a nursery will reach its full height of four to six feet in 8 to 10 years if planted in the right spot.
That has to be a dwarf variety. I have seen pecan trees that are more than 80' tall or about half as tall as an Olympic swimming pool is long, with a crown diameter of over 110' or about 2/3 as long as an Olympic swimming pool. The trunk at chest height was more than 3 grown men wide, or about 1/10 the width of an Olympic swimming pool.
These trees get large and if they were solid objects their volume could store nearly as much water as an Olympic sized swimming pool. That is just the part above ground that we can see. Remarkable trees.
Pecan is furniture grade wood like black walnut and commands a premium. It is also prizes for smoking meats as it lends a nutty flavor to the brisket. It's my favorite.
When a pecan nut sprouts it sends all of its initial energy burst into growing a tap root, looking for the best source of dependable water, before you see any top growth at all above ground. Typically if your pecan tree seedling is 1' tall the tap root will already be more than 3' long. This is why nursery pecans are sold in planters that are about 3X taller than they are wide, so that the root is less likely to be coiling inside the pot. You don't want to strangle the tree by letting it become pot-bound.
This is why pecans need relatively deep soil with near surface water. If they have a dependable water supply they can stab that root through any crack and you will eventually have a huge, very productive nut tree.
Pecans are awesome trees. Mine have fed a murder of crows for several crow generations. They show up on the pecans every year about 2 weeks before the nuts are ripe enough to harvest and they strip my trees from the bottom up so that over the years, I have been able to harvest less than 5 buckets of pecans from 5 trees. Very efficient. I think they start at the bottom specifically to deprive me of the ones that are easiest for me to harvest. I surrendered the pecans to the crows a long time ago since they had a much more efficient system of exploitation than any I could conjure. I know the man who planted the trees had fought the same battles with them as I found the rubber snakes and the sad remains of a plastic owl in the trees while climbing them to assess their health right after we bought the place.
I'm on pretty good terms with the crows now. One has learned to ask for peanuts and I'm accommodating enough to provide them, almost on demand.
Pecan trees grow best in hot climates. They can tolerate some freezes. In ideal conditions, they produce nuts in 4 years. I'm thinking in colder climates, greenhouse starting in larger containers for longer is basically required. My grandparents had 50' tall pecan trees in zone 8a that dropped about 8-10 lbs. of nuts per tree per year. I'd guess local critters walked off with a fraction small enough to not matter because cleaning up was a semi-nuisance but not as bad as cleaning up olive- and plum-like trees from sidewalks.
>Pecan nuts were already a dietary staple for Native Americans in various parts of what is now the United States before Antoine’s innovation established the basis for a commercial pecan industry
Who is "Antoine"? Is it a first name? A last name? It doesn't ever seem to say.
Usually this means that the article is actually a book excerpt (often the first chapter of the book), and in this case we can find online the book's table of contents:
Preface
Introduction: Life as Testimony
1. Pecan Trees and the Roots of Stolen Botanical Knowledge
2. Sycamore Trees as a Path to Freedom
3. The Secret Lives of Willow Trees
4. Poplar Trees Bear Strange Fruit
5. The Sweeping Promise of Mulberry
6. A Haven for Community in Historic Oak Trees
7. Cotton Shrubs and Seeds of Subversion
8. The Gift of Apple Trees
Conclusion: Black Botanical Legacy Reclaimed
Usually the first chapter is self-contained, but in this case possibly there was some context about “Antoine’s innovation” in the Introduction that precedes the first chapter.
Not to sound pedantic (I believe this is a very important distinction), but as far as I'm aware most slaves were not _given_ last names by their slavers. They often had (if taken into slavery) or were given (if born in slavery) their own names within their own cultures.
The number of different cultures in Africa, each with its own set of traditions and ceremonies makes that a very difficult question to answer in a generalised way.
Fair. I was curious since English only started having last names in the 11th century, once the population has grown too large for local governments to effectively govern without some way to better differentiate people.
Grandparents had 6 paper shell "Pawnee" trees producing 50 lbs. / 22 kg of nuts per year with no special maintenance. USDA hardiness zone 8A and humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa). They fell on their own once a year.
Slaves did not get paid and were involuntarily captured, transported, sold, raped, molested, etc. No employer is doing that to you. You have it pretty good compared to slaves.
No one chooses to be a slave. You chose to be in tech. You can choose to be a farmer if the current state of things doesn't work for you. A slave would never have that luxury.
I agree that employment is “value extraction” and people without upfront capital (or risk tolerance) are selling off their IP to other people.
It’s unfortunate, but in most cases I’d struggle to even call it exploitation. So relating it slavery a bit too far and really underselling the horrors of slavery. I can quit my job or go to a new one. Tech companies aren’t running international mass-kidnapping schemes to get their headcount.
Actual slavery is even legal right here in the US. Per the 13th:
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
“Over the years, the courts have held inmates may be forced to work and are not protected by the constitution against involuntary servitude. They have also consistently held that inmates have no constitutional right to compensation and that inmates are paid by the "grace of the state."”
Everyone’s entitled to their opinions and more than a few people have written similar ideas.
However, I find this chain of thought both offensive to what being a slave meant and ignorant. If you think being a coder is the modern equivalent to being enslaved either you’ve never worked as an entry level employer in the service industry or else have forgotten your experience.
> The question is whether we are comfortable with an economic model where creative and technical labour consistently produces outsized returns captured by capital, not by the people who actually built the thing.
You have two mistakes in your thinking.
1. You assume that people are not comfortable with this economic model, when in fact millions of people are making the choice to be on the labor side of this model on a daily basis, who could actively afford to be on the ownership side.
2. You mistakenly believe that "the thing" that produces returns is the product/service/offering when in reality it's the entire business.
Let's start with #2.
Producing and capturing value is about more than just building the offering, i.e. coding something. Millions of people have coded something "valuable" and made $0, because building something is not enough. You have to make sure people learn about the thing, and they have to find it good enough to pay you for it, and then actually pay you for it, and you have to be able to make this happen repeatedly, a sufficient number of times and at a high enough price point to sustain and ideally grow the endeavor.
This goes far behind simply building a product. It requires building a business.
And let me tell you, my friend, software engineers at FAANG companies are only building the software, not the business. The people building the business are the ones making the biggest earnings.
Creators in every industry do not like to hear this. Take the music industry, for example. Everyone who can sing or create music hates the "middlemen". The record labels and whatnot. The DJs. They hate the grind. Every creator wishes that simply creating was enough, and many naively believe that it is. But we live in the real world, which has these things called markets and people and psychology. Markets are competitive, and people and psychology are complex, and someone who works to build a business (an offering + market research + a marketing/sales/distribution process + a viable business model) is going to beat the pants off someone who only wants to create the offering and do nothing else.
Building a business is incredibly difficult, and incredibly risky.
It's more likely than not that you will lose a ton of money and a ton of time. Most people would rather not face this challenge, take this risk, or endure these losses. Most would rather learn a fraction of the skills required (e.g. just the programming part, just the design part, just the singing part, etc.), then allow someone else to do the hard work of starting the business and turning it into something from nothing.
Most people would rather sell their time and services for a comfy salary instead of trying to become an owner. Which is why there are large numbers of well-paid white collar workers who make this choice every day, rather than quitting to start a business.
This is not slavery, it's people being content with what they have and trading risk for security. (God I hate writing any sort of sentence "it's not X it's Y" because AI has ruined this phrasing.)
“Just become an owner” assumes the barrier is courage.
It isn’t. It’s capital.
Risk looks very different when you’re risking surplus wealth versus when you’re risking your rent, healthcare, visa, and your entire savings in one concentrated bet.
Calling that a simple matter of “choice” is fiction.
Saying most engineers could just become owners if they wanted to is like saying most renters could just buy apartment blocks.
Technically possible. Structurally delusional.
Ownership compounds. Salaries don’t. Equity scales exponentially. Labour income scales linearly. The system is designed that way.
You can defend it as efficient. You can defend it as rational. But pretending everyone is standing at the same starting line deciding between “comfort” and “ambition” is cosplay.
The dividing line isn’t grit. It’s who can afford to fail.
If you're an engineer in tech, you can generally afford to fail. I'm speaking from experience. I didn't grow up rich or anything close to it. I became a founder because "well I can always get a job" was a good fallback plan.
This isn't delusional, this is reality for a huge percentage of tech founders.
Then factor in the fact that it costs very little to start a web/app company compared to traditional brick-and-mortar businesses. And the fact that funding is available (e.g. Y Combinator). And you have a lot of explaining to do for why so many well-paid engineers don't even try to start something.
> But pretending everyone is standing at the same starting line...
No one in this discussion has implied that everyone is starting at the same starting line. It's obvious that having more money makes things easier. As it should, because that's the entire point of money.
But the reality is that there are millions of millions of people in America today, even from the lower classes, who have access to the internet + a laptop + free time + the ability to survive a failure.
‘working by candlelight would have provided Antoine a focused, well-lit environment for the delicate dissection of two seedlings’
I think the author needs to try using a candle for light.
Candlelight doesn't mean a single solitary candle. As an example, here's the famous scene Kubrik's Barry Lyndon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQE73GDo4So
Yet this is an infamously dimly-lit scene.
Yeah, I don't quite agree with that, or think of it as any kind of a criticism. The candles are placed in such a way that the faces of the important characters are easily visible, while the spectators fade into the background. This is fine! You're not meant to see their reactions, only hear them. The lighting functions like stage lighting, or (more likely Kubrick's inspiration) chiaroscuro, focusing viewers' attention where it's meant to be.
As an aside: I've always suspected that the next scene (outside the house, at the end of this clip) is not naturally lit, though I've never seen anyone write anything about it. Even there, though, the lighting is used dramatically: as she turns, her face goes into shadow, leaving her reaction to his approach unseen, and therefore ambiguous.
Sorry / not-sorry , you were making a quick point, which I've totally hijacked to geek out about one of my favorite films of all time. Carry on.
For a camera exposing onto Kodak 5254, probably the fastest available in 1975, blazing ISO 100 film stock. Yeah it’s dim for that. To your eyes as I understand it’s pretty well lit.
The photo nerd hacking tweak of note here was the pushing of the stock to 200 and using uniquely crafted NASA lenses built to photograph the dark side of the moon with not seen before aparture.
Arguably a youtube rending of a compressed digital source viewed on a computer screen falls short of a 1970s full cinema via film live viweing.
Technically it was pushing well past the envelope for the day: https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-fa...
Often a sign of AI writing.
To modern ears it seems dim, but to contemporary ears it would be very bright compared to normal nighttime!
> If composed of two parts, there is often a scion—the upper or shoot portion of a plant—which is joined with a separate rootstock to produce, if successful, a healthy grafted plant.
And like that, I finally figured out why Toyota named their offshoot brand Scion.
Article doesn't say the "trick" - it was a technique now known as inlay grafting.
> Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson planted pecans at their plantations
At the time of Washington and Jefferson, they were known in English as Illinois nuts. And, living in Illinois, a few years ago I bought a selection of 2-3 year old seedlings of Illinois-native trees from the state department of natural resources to plant on my property. Pecan seedlings were included...
When people say that pecan trees grow slowly, they are understating reality. Mine are growing at maybe an inch a year. I get one or two small leaves at the top. No branches yet. I planted a plum tree near one at the exact same time and it has doubled in height.
The natural range of the Pecan is somewhat limited, so unless you're in southern Illinois or by the river, it might not be its preferred habitat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan#/media/File:Carya_illino...
They're actually considered a fast growing tree when in the right place--1 to 2 ft per year at first.
I had never heard about it being called a fast-growing tree :)
I am outside the natural range, but close to a [different] river and feel that with climate change it should be fairly ok. But it appears I am wrong!
If your river often freezes over (e.g. Rock), you're not in the right place. The Mississippi River almost never does where the Pecans grow.
"The tree can only survive in areas with warm winter nights, which severely restricts its distribution.
To ensure your pecan tree grows at the expected rate (1-3 feet per year for non-bearing and 5-12 inches for existing bearing trees) and produces nuts, the two most critical parts of pecan tree care are consistent watering and fertilizing."
>A pecan tree purchased from a nursery will reach its full height of four to six feet in 8 to 10 years if planted in the right spot.
That has to be a dwarf variety. I have seen pecan trees that are more than 80' tall or about half as tall as an Olympic swimming pool is long, with a crown diameter of over 110' or about 2/3 as long as an Olympic swimming pool. The trunk at chest height was more than 3 grown men wide, or about 1/10 the width of an Olympic swimming pool.
These trees get large and if they were solid objects their volume could store nearly as much water as an Olympic sized swimming pool. That is just the part above ground that we can see. Remarkable trees.
Pecan is furniture grade wood like black walnut and commands a premium. It is also prizes for smoking meats as it lends a nutty flavor to the brisket. It's my favorite.
When a pecan nut sprouts it sends all of its initial energy burst into growing a tap root, looking for the best source of dependable water, before you see any top growth at all above ground. Typically if your pecan tree seedling is 1' tall the tap root will already be more than 3' long. This is why nursery pecans are sold in planters that are about 3X taller than they are wide, so that the root is less likely to be coiling inside the pot. You don't want to strangle the tree by letting it become pot-bound.
This is why pecans need relatively deep soil with near surface water. If they have a dependable water supply they can stab that root through any crack and you will eventually have a huge, very productive nut tree.
Pecans are awesome trees. Mine have fed a murder of crows for several crow generations. They show up on the pecans every year about 2 weeks before the nuts are ripe enough to harvest and they strip my trees from the bottom up so that over the years, I have been able to harvest less than 5 buckets of pecans from 5 trees. Very efficient. I think they start at the bottom specifically to deprive me of the ones that are easiest for me to harvest. I surrendered the pecans to the crows a long time ago since they had a much more efficient system of exploitation than any I could conjure. I know the man who planted the trees had fought the same battles with them as I found the rubber snakes and the sad remains of a plastic owl in the trees while climbing them to assess their health right after we bought the place.
I'm on pretty good terms with the crows now. One has learned to ask for peanuts and I'm accommodating enough to provide them, almost on demand.
> full height of four to six feet
In South Carolina, they get to be 20-30 feet. They’re medium-sized trees. I’ve never heard of any variety that is full grown at 6 feet. That’s a baby.
Pecan trees grow best in hot climates. They can tolerate some freezes. In ideal conditions, they produce nuts in 4 years. I'm thinking in colder climates, greenhouse starting in larger containers for longer is basically required. My grandparents had 50' tall pecan trees in zone 8a that dropped about 8-10 lbs. of nuts per tree per year. I'd guess local critters walked off with a fraction small enough to not matter because cleaning up was a semi-nuisance but not as bad as cleaning up olive- and plum-like trees from sidewalks.
Is this article missing opening context?
First line:
>Pecan nuts were already a dietary staple for Native Americans in various parts of what is now the United States before Antoine’s innovation established the basis for a commercial pecan industry
Who is "Antoine"? Is it a first name? A last name? It doesn't ever seem to say.
At the bottom of the article, it says:
> From When Trees Testify: Science, Wisdom, History, and America’s Black Botanical Legacy by Beronda L. Montgomery. Copyright © 2026. Available from Henry Holt and Co., an imprint of Macmillan
Usually this means that the article is actually a book excerpt (often the first chapter of the book), and in this case we can find online the book's table of contents:
Usually the first chapter is self-contained, but in this case possibly there was some context about “Antoine’s innovation” in the Introduction that precedes the first chapter.https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
A lot of slaves had no last name, or only their owners’.
Not to sound pedantic (I believe this is a very important distinction), but as far as I'm aware most slaves were not _given_ last names by their slavers. They often had (if taken into slavery) or were given (if born in slavery) their own names within their own cultures.
I'm curious, do native African cultures often have multiple names?
The number of different cultures in Africa, each with its own set of traditions and ceremonies makes that a very difficult question to answer in a generalised way.
Fair. I was curious since English only started having last names in the 11th century, once the population has grown too large for local governments to effectively govern without some way to better differentiate people.
This article from 2017 goes over the same story but provides better context: https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/slave-gardener-turned-pec...
Thanks, that was a better-written article than the above.
The missing context is the title.
Similar, but also different, to the story of the guy who discovered how to scale vanilla pollination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Albius
Bittersweet sad-interesting.
Grandparents had 6 paper shell "Pawnee" trees producing 50 lbs. / 22 kg of nuts per year with no special maintenance. USDA hardiness zone 8A and humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa). They fell on their own once a year.
[dead]
[flagged]
You point out so many problems with our current structure that are worth addressing.
But at the same time, the current system is hugely better than chattel slavery.
Western citizens and workers have gained substantial rights and freedoms over the last 100 years.
That's great! But it doesn't mean we've finished improving.
Completely agree.
Personally I’m optimistic we’ll continue the trend line of improvement.
Slaves did not get paid and were involuntarily captured, transported, sold, raped, molested, etc. No employer is doing that to you. You have it pretty good compared to slaves.
No one chooses to be a slave. You chose to be in tech. You can choose to be a farmer if the current state of things doesn't work for you. A slave would never have that luxury.
I’m torn about this.
I agree that employment is “value extraction” and people without upfront capital (or risk tolerance) are selling off their IP to other people.
It’s unfortunate, but in most cases I’d struggle to even call it exploitation. So relating it slavery a bit too far and really underselling the horrors of slavery. I can quit my job or go to a new one. Tech companies aren’t running international mass-kidnapping schemes to get their headcount.
> Today we call it “employment.”
FYI, people may react poorly to exaggerated comparisons like this since Actual Slavery still exists.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
Actual slavery is even legal right here in the US. Per the 13th:
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
you picked the wrong phrase, that's involuntary servitude, not slavery.
No. If you wanted that, you’d do this:
“Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_Stat...
“Over the years, the courts have held inmates may be forced to work and are not protected by the constitution against involuntary servitude. They have also consistently held that inmates have no constitutional right to compensation and that inmates are paid by the "grace of the state."”
If you think it's so easy, you can quit and start your own company and find out.
“If you are homeless, just buy a house.”
Unlike buying a house, writing software can be done without up front investment in one's spare time
Turns out the value of it actually isn't just the code though...
> without up front investment
If you don’t count a computer and the time it takes to learn.
I'm assuming people comparing only earning a Bay Area salary to chattel slavery have reached that point already
Everyone’s entitled to their opinions and more than a few people have written similar ideas. However, I find this chain of thought both offensive to what being a slave meant and ignorant. If you think being a coder is the modern equivalent to being enslaved either you’ve never worked as an entry level employer in the service industry or else have forgotten your experience.
> The question is whether we are comfortable with an economic model where creative and technical labour consistently produces outsized returns captured by capital, not by the people who actually built the thing.
You have two mistakes in your thinking.
1. You assume that people are not comfortable with this economic model, when in fact millions of people are making the choice to be on the labor side of this model on a daily basis, who could actively afford to be on the ownership side. 2. You mistakenly believe that "the thing" that produces returns is the product/service/offering when in reality it's the entire business.
Let's start with #2.
Producing and capturing value is about more than just building the offering, i.e. coding something. Millions of people have coded something "valuable" and made $0, because building something is not enough. You have to make sure people learn about the thing, and they have to find it good enough to pay you for it, and then actually pay you for it, and you have to be able to make this happen repeatedly, a sufficient number of times and at a high enough price point to sustain and ideally grow the endeavor.
This goes far behind simply building a product. It requires building a business.
And let me tell you, my friend, software engineers at FAANG companies are only building the software, not the business. The people building the business are the ones making the biggest earnings.
Creators in every industry do not like to hear this. Take the music industry, for example. Everyone who can sing or create music hates the "middlemen". The record labels and whatnot. The DJs. They hate the grind. Every creator wishes that simply creating was enough, and many naively believe that it is. But we live in the real world, which has these things called markets and people and psychology. Markets are competitive, and people and psychology are complex, and someone who works to build a business (an offering + market research + a marketing/sales/distribution process + a viable business model) is going to beat the pants off someone who only wants to create the offering and do nothing else.
Building a business is incredibly difficult, and incredibly risky.
It's more likely than not that you will lose a ton of money and a ton of time. Most people would rather not face this challenge, take this risk, or endure these losses. Most would rather learn a fraction of the skills required (e.g. just the programming part, just the design part, just the singing part, etc.), then allow someone else to do the hard work of starting the business and turning it into something from nothing.
Most people would rather sell their time and services for a comfy salary instead of trying to become an owner. Which is why there are large numbers of well-paid white collar workers who make this choice every day, rather than quitting to start a business.
This is not slavery, it's people being content with what they have and trading risk for security. (God I hate writing any sort of sentence "it's not X it's Y" because AI has ruined this phrasing.)
“Just become an owner” assumes the barrier is courage.
It isn’t. It’s capital.
Risk looks very different when you’re risking surplus wealth versus when you’re risking your rent, healthcare, visa, and your entire savings in one concentrated bet.
Calling that a simple matter of “choice” is fiction.
Saying most engineers could just become owners if they wanted to is like saying most renters could just buy apartment blocks.
Technically possible. Structurally delusional.
Ownership compounds. Salaries don’t. Equity scales exponentially. Labour income scales linearly. The system is designed that way.
You can defend it as efficient. You can defend it as rational. But pretending everyone is standing at the same starting line deciding between “comfort” and “ambition” is cosplay.
The dividing line isn’t grit. It’s who can afford to fail.
If you're an engineer in tech, you can generally afford to fail. I'm speaking from experience. I didn't grow up rich or anything close to it. I became a founder because "well I can always get a job" was a good fallback plan.
This isn't delusional, this is reality for a huge percentage of tech founders.
Then factor in the fact that it costs very little to start a web/app company compared to traditional brick-and-mortar businesses. And the fact that funding is available (e.g. Y Combinator). And you have a lot of explaining to do for why so many well-paid engineers don't even try to start something.
> But pretending everyone is standing at the same starting line...
No one in this discussion has implied that everyone is starting at the same starting line. It's obvious that having more money makes things easier. As it should, because that's the entire point of money.
But the reality is that there are millions of millions of people in America today, even from the lower classes, who have access to the internet + a laptop + free time + the ability to survive a failure.