Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sin7's commentslogin

There's a free community version.


De facto is not the same as official.


Not much of an argument but when it comes to English it is. “Official” as in widely and universally recognised and accepted by government authorities? English in the UK (and US) absolutely is

Though now we’re just descending in to semantics which is not very entertaining


California recognizes Spanish quite a bit, including on official forms like the DMV.


Lies, damn lies and then this. 85% counts Hispanic people as white. The 35% does not. Ain't no way this is an innocent mistake. Hispanic people have always been a large portion of California.


No, both numbers refer to non-Hispanic whites.

The Hispanic population of California was 13.7% in 1970. 19% in 1980, 39% in 2020:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanics_and_Latinos_in_Cal...

And over 55% of students in CA public schools today:

https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrethlevels.aspx?a...

The shift in demographics wasn't driven entirely by the increase in the Hispanic population, and in fact I didn’t mention Hispanic population at all. It also was in part driven by immigration from Asian countries.

Not sure why you’re calling me a liar.


I misread your comment. Sorry about that. I misread it because I think of a generation as twenty years and a lifetime as what you described. Sorry again.


Ah, you’re right. It says online that a generation is 20-30 years so I was actually looking over 2-3 generations. Thanks for the correction.


Quite a lot of Hispanic people who might have previously been counted as white no longer identify that way (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-09-09/south-los-a...).


The article you linked to is about people who previously identified as “white Hispanic” now identifying as “other Hispanic.”

But the numbers I provided are specifically for non-Hispanic whites, who never identified as Hispanic. The article is irrelevant to that demographic shift.


>Hispanic people have always been a large portion of California.

Not true.

Whether Texas or California, the land that is now the American southwest was almost completely empty before the Mexican War; about 80,000 hispanos, or about 1% of Mexico's prewar population, mostly in New Mexico and southern Colorado. They were very, very isolated, living in "islands", and were already dependent on the US, not Mexico, for trade <http://web.archive.org/web/20070517113110/http://www.pbs.org...>. The American takeover and attendant influx of settlers completely changed the region; by 1860 California alone had 380,000 people] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Pop...> and was a US state.

*85% of Mexican Americans today are from post-World War II immigration.* As late as 1970 <http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait...> there were five million people of Mexican ethnicity in the US, including one million born in Mexico. Now there are 33.7 million and 11.4 million, respectively. The number of people of Mexican ethnicity has grown by ~16X in 75 years (from ~2 million in 1940), while the US population has grown by ~2.5X. Had the Mexican-ethnic population grown by the same rate as the broader US there would be 5 million today, not 33.7.

History, even recent history, has been rewritten in peoples' minds by popular culture. Los Angeles's stupendous growth in the first half of the 20th century was driven almost entirely off of internal US migration. So many Iowans moved to LA that it was joked that southern California should be renamed "Caliowa". Almost everything we think of about the city, demographically speaking, is a post-1970 phenomenon.

According to Census estimates <http://web.archive.org/web/20080912052919/https://www.census...>, the city of Los Angeles was 7.1% Hispanic (almost all Mexican, of course) in 1940, and 15-17% in 1970. In 1990—let me repeat, two decades later—it was 39.9%. The non-Hispanic white population went from 86.3% in 1940, to 61-63% in 1970, to 37.3% in 1990. As of 2020 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Race_and_ethnicity> the city is 46.9% Hispanic and 28.9% non-Hispanic white.

"We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us" is only true for the aforementioned hispanos. If alien space bats had rotated the contiguous US 180 degrees in 1945, all other Mexican Americans would be living in Buffalo and Portland and Boston and Rochester and Detroit. Those cities would be known as the home of Cal-Mex and Tex-Mex cuisine, not LA and El Paso and Phoenix.


If a 'fair' coin came up 70% you lose, you'd be ready to fight the person trying to scam you. At the very least ready to call the cops on them.


Even worse, a good portion of the population believes that a good portion now believes that ... whatever you just said. And this good portion is annoying. Bring up nonsense like this in conversations where it does not fit, in the middle of dinner, in the middle of pumping gas. Like damn, I'm watching out for one of those kids with a gun just waiting to exhibit his mental health and you want me to worry about the guy in a dress?


[flagged]


Yeah. So?

Make no mistake about it, there is no argument. We are not negotiating. I'm not recognizing anything that was said. Like hearing my nephew cracking up over saying poop, it was cute the first time. It's time for new material yungin'.


Sir, you have made my day. This is the funniest thing related to Joe Rogan.

Thank you.


Luka is currently playing in his 5th year. He has 4 years behind him. Not the best comparison, but seems fair.


Can poor people take out a loan and create new money?


They don't, and in times where there's most need for that, banks squeeze their wallet close even tighter.


My understanding is any loan from a bank creates new money. However not sure about the types of loans that poor people use such as payday loans and pay-in-4 services. Maybe that us too since an investor may use bank borrowed money to fund them?


Whites also have lower average scores on them. Lower than Asians and Jews.

At the elite level this would make a huge difference. At the state level not at all.


What do you mean by "whites". American "whites"? The last IQ report has many Asian countries at the top followed by "white" European countries. Whites and blacks are such generic terms. There are many different types of white, black, asian, etc peoples that have different cultures and phenotypes based on the region.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-i...


That site is a mess. Shows a chart where the average IQ is 82, links to a page saying the average IQ is 100 (which is the original design). Also cites a eugenicist and thinks that worthy of a passing footnote. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anything I read there.


Can we somehow blame this on oppression?


Lead poisoning lowers your IQ; blacks are more likely to be exposed to it. (https://www.dw.com/en/lead-poisoning-reveals-environmental-r...)


And this is the same reason whites rank lower than asians and jews?


No need. Just attribute an unmeasurable quality such as creativity to your racial group.


I already have a machine that makes white castle burgers at home. It's called a microwave. The results are not the best.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: