It's not a contemporary review. It's from "Vol. 18 No. 14 · 18 July 1996" of the London Review of Books, so it came out contemporaneously with Infinite Jest
I think the confusion you're talking about when you guess that people will over-estimate the number of "minimum wage workers" is due to slippage between the term "minimum wage" and "federal minimum wage". There are 29 states that have a state minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage [1], so if we defined "minimum wage worker" as someone worker working at their state's minimum wage, then we'd be including far more (probably >100% more) people in the category.
I'm curious: Are you saying that FAANG have many applicants, but not that much talent? Or not as many applicants as people say they do? Or something else
Huh that's a cool observation. I think there might be more ambiguity there though. For example, I could (and in my case would probably) also interpret the second response as not being "friendly" exactly but as defensive and irritated. Only someone who is worried about being regarded as inferior or believes that you're acting superior would make that kind of overly demonstrative response. A peer would probably just echo your tone and just say "Ok". Not saying you should psychoanalyze too much or that your interpretation is wrong but be on the lookout (especially via written communication) for when kindness isn't actually kindness, but deference or defensiveness.
While this article has a number of problems that have already people have astutely already brought up, no one has yet mentioned his misrepresentation of the content and location of anatta in Buddhist philosophy. Anatta is just one the three characteristics of existence that mindfulness allows one to see directly in one's own experience. The other two are anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (sufferering). Defining any one of these on its own very difficult because they are so interrelated, despite being distinct concepts. In fact, it is traditional to define each of these in terms of each of the other two (and especially anatta, which is usually regarded as the most difficult to gain direct understanding of). If you don't take care with your definitions in this way, it's easy to argue with Buddhist philososphy on Western metaphysical terms instead of on it's own terms. In this case, the author represents anatta as being roughly equivalent with the metaphysical claim that there is no soul or "an underlying subject of our own experience". But that is not at all the claim made by annata: rather than simply being a doctrine of no-self, anatta holds that there is no permanent (anicca) and coherent/satisfactory (dukkha) self. From this definition it does not follow that "one is not one's feelings" or that one's feelings are not oneself. Though these are both true in a certain sense, the real insight of anatta (along with anicca and dukkha) is that it allows one to see right here and right now that neither of these statements make sense at all, because the dualism they assume is experientially and metaphysically false.
That said, this kind of careful study is lacking from the vast majority of so-called mindfulness meditation - which I think the author is totally right to call out. Teaching mindfulness outside of the full context of the Buddha's actual teachings (the Pali Suttas directly, or through teachers with years of practice and study) is - as he argues - never going to get you farther than a bit of destressing after work.
While this article alleges that addiction is the root cause of homelessness, it makes no effort to prove that claim. That there is correlation between the two is clear, but claiming that addiction is the root cause of homelessness of the west coast is just fear-mongering.
Determining root cause is important to finding the right solution. Further cracking down on homeless people will just transfer them from the streets to jails, where they will cost the taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money (and if they're in a private prison, create profit for private interests), while failing to get people back on their feet when they are eventually let go.
> no city on the West Coast has a solution for homeless opioid addicts
While Utah isn't technically the West coast, how does the author's claim hold up in the face of the resounding success of their efforts to reduce chronic homelessness (down 91% in a decade while saving the government 50%)? Does this proven solution fit with his root cause model?