> Compared to slavery, the holocaust, having your land stolen away from you, and a fleeing refuge from war and poverty, these are small potatoes.
Fleeing refuge from war and poverty are literally the circumstances from which Chinese have arrived in the US for centuries (not to mention the more obvious groups like Vietnamese and Cambodian). Modern China has only been wealthy for a very short time, shorter than affirmative action policies in the US (I'm not trying to argue for or against AA, just want to point out the timeline).
Look, I'm not going to say Chinese suffered more during their great famine than Jews in the Holocaust. But I'm also not going to say the opposite. Everybody has suffered here, enough so that these events are burned into the consciousness of both groups. If you can only see the visual story of one of these, it's not because the other one doesn't exist, it's because you haven't sought it out.
Asian discrimination in the US includes the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1917 Immigration Act, bans on the ownership of property (leading to the development of Chinatown ghettos), and internment camps.
Furthermore, many Asian immigrant groups came to the US quite poor, such as early Chinese, and in more modern times, Vietnamese.
I think this comment speaks more to personal ignorance than the actual truth of the matter.
This is missing what the graph is trying to convey.
Playing with the y-axis in this case, doesn't change the shape of the data. It only makes the graph more readable. For example, would you start the y-axis on a graph of global temperature at –273.15°C (absolute zero)?
Second, why should the graph use evenly sized groups? The whole point is to show an outlier in tax data among a small group of people. Using evenly sized groups obscures this point. If a graph of global temperature only displayed in increments of 1000 years, it would likewise obscure the recent impact of human industry on temperature.
Finally, as the article notes, the graph is of actual taxes paid not historical taxes.
If there is any legitimate criticism, it's that the graph probably should have been a bar graph instead so the "top 400" (likely for ergonomics) is less jarring. Also, just saying that the numbers are known for inaccuracy? This is a lazy statement that needs to be backed up.
This is not Evidence-based Medicine. EBM does not say to we shouldn't care about the mechanism of action. EBM will say that treatments without a randomized control trial can only be weakly recommended. In a perfect EBM world, everything would be strictly tested. You're describing why we have trouble practicing "pure" EBM.
Holy shit! This is literally my story too. Playing runescape and writing scripts for botting programs was literally how I learned to program.
I ended up becoming a moderator on the RsBot forums and I remember Autofighter Pro when it came out. Super popular, and I didn't even realize it was made by someone the same age as me back then!
Anyways, even though I didn't make any money (I gave my scripts away for free!), I did learn a lot. I'm currently an engineer at Google and I honestly owe it to the incredible monotony of playing Runescape.