Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually the exemple given if my memory serves me right,is more akin to heroin. As in the symptome is the avoidance of coming down.


Found it, should probably reread it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Only now realised that you wanted to be sassy.

Well, at least Cocaine is safer than Monster Energy drinks.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually the exemple given if my memory serves me right,is more akin to heroin. As in the symptome is the avoidance of coming down.


Found it, should probably reread it.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Only now realised that you wanted to be sassy.

Well, at least Cocaine is safer than Monster Energy drinks.

Well considering synthetic sugar replacements and Aluminium can on top of it.
Probably not but still damaging enough that raising public attention would be beneficial for public healthcare and the costs for society generated through that.

Food Deserts....

https://www.moveforhunger.org/harsh-reality-food-deserts-america/

One of the key components of someone’s risk of poverty is their location. In regards to many aspects of life, location is everything, especially when it comes to the accessibility to food resources. In the United States, many citizens face the risk of going hungry because of their location within a food desert. A food desert is essentially an area in which someone does not have access to a food source, such as a supermarket, nearby.

The definition of food deserts differs, though, based upon whether one lives in an urban or a rural setting. In fact, according to a Newsweek article published in 2014, “[I]n urban areas, the U.S Department of Agriculture considers a food desert an area with no ready access to a store with fresh and nutritious food options within one mile. In rural America, a food desert is defined as 10 miles or more from the nearest market.” Unfortunately, food deserts are not few and far between, “it’s estimated there are more than 23 million people, more than half of them low-income, living in food deserts.”

I have a feeling there is a pretty compelling link between diet, access to health care, access to mental health resources, and economic choices related to health care that all go together to help explain what is happening with Mortality in the US.

Would be interesting to see a map with wealth comparison and one with crimerates aswell

 Ouze wrote:
The US? Turning its back on people who served honorably?

Surely you jest, sir.

The level of anger this brought up in me as a result of the last few bouts of military strong men may very well explain the despair and the suicide rates....

And frankly, yeah, chicken breast and veggies is relatively expensive on the budgets of some folks I know, even if that along with rice it's a large part of my own diet to save money.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

Because you got a sweet deal by joining the military at a young age, and now get to reap the benefits. You were lucky enough to make the decision that turned out to be right for you.

That's part of the problem I outlined above. Some people are a good fit for service and so get to have a good retirement start before they're 40. Not everyone can join up, the military doesn't want everyone to join up. Not everyone can take your path.

Politicians and lenders sold you an even bigger bill of goods with the 'college' racket than they did with the so-called 'lending crisis'. In that, the answer to being 'fair' was to give loans to people that had no chance in hell of paying them back. Then cry and moan over the defaults, and get Uncle Sugar and the US taxpayer to make them whole again.

But they have been even more successful in getting people to believe 'everyone must go to college' racket. The end result is a mountain of debt for a largely worthless education for a job that will probably never exist. Bottom line - a college degree is as worthless as a high school diploma when everyone has one.

"Seeing an opportunity and taking it isn't lottery, it's skill" is just... Wow. What if there hadn't been an opportunity to see?

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

Because you got a sweet deal by joining the military at a young age, and now get to reap the benefits. You were lucky enough to make the decision that turned out to be right for you.

That's part of the problem I outlined above. Some people are a good fit for service and so get to have a good retirement start before they're 40. Not everyone can join up, the military doesn't want everyone to join up. Not everyone can take your path.

But don't say that to a veteran's face or some vaguely implied misfortune will befall you!

 totalfailure wrote:
But they have been even more successful in getting people to believe 'everyone must go to college' racket. The end result is a mountain of debt for a largely worthless education for a job that will probably never exist. Bottom line - a college degree is as worthless as a high school diploma when everyone has one.

Trade schools are legit. They encouraged any of us that weren't going into a STEM field with our GI Bill to go to a trade school. I don't care who you are, at the end of the day- you're still going to need those skills and those jobs have pretty good job security. My younger brother did this, and he's doing great.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Seeing an opportunity and taking it isn't lottery, it's skill" is just... Wow. What if there hadn't been an opportunity to see?

I wouldn't know what living on the moon or in a third world country is like.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But don't say that to a veteran's face or some vaguely implied misfortune will befall you!

And it would be rightfully deserved, IMHO. I would enjoy laughing at this "misfortune".

NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

We could, at the very least, teach them how to teach themselves. But that's something we save for college.

When my 18 year old stepdaughter was 15, she tattooed herself. She's done it multiple times for whatever reason. You know how she figured out how to make her tattoo equipment? Same way she figured out how to make mac and cheese from scratch: Google.

I had my starter go out, and I'm about as mechanically inclined as a sack of wet onions. I looked up a YouTube video on how to change the starter on my specific van, and 20 minutes later had a running vehicle.

People are intelligent enough as a whole to learn and actively seek out through the tools on the internet ANY information or process they want. What do they wind up looking for, though? Kylie Jenner's mammary sacks or Collins Key YEEEETing a bottle behind his back.

Lead a horse to water, yadda yadda yadda...

Bookwrack wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I still work, because I want to and I like the extra pay. But I could survive on my retirement pay.

Because you got a sweet deal by joining the military at a young age, and now get to reap the benefits. You were lucky enough to make the decision that turned out to be right for you.

That's part of the problem I outlined above. Some people are a good fit for service and so get to have a good retirement start before they're 40. Not everyone can join up, the military doesn't want everyone to join up. Not everyone can take your path.

Then forge your own path. Nothing says you have to settle for a McJob instead of pursuing a career that will foster to your needs. You're confusing luck with ambition, to your detriment. It's also an issue when people decide to dump $40,000 on a Liberal Arts degree in Basket Weaving when there's no prospects for employment and they are left redirecting to a "career" at Target.

I went through this myself on accident. I was almost through my Associates program in Forensics when the Chem Tech Dean/whatever informed us of the massive glut in the market of Forensics qualified personnel. Had the Registrar's office pointed that out in my initial counseling, maybe I could have redirected. CNC Machining maybe? As I wound up at Caterpillar as a Machinist, it would have worked out MUCH better in the long run. Instead I have loans I'm paying on a degree I didn't finish because I couldn't have even used it once I had it.

Its the same in the UK. the system channels everyone through college and university. I was almost sent that way myself and wasted 3 years at college, before joining the military. but theres little to no consideration given to advising kids at school about different life paths and careers.

personally I think its because those in higher education are not considered unemployed and thus are a useful way to skew the stats, although it becomes a false economy later on when they are in debt that cant be repayed, or have useless degrees.

I'm doing much better than most of my university educated colleagues as the military allowed me to save money that I can invest, and purchase a house.

however on the flip side of that there are plenty of idiots in the military who waste all their money, and will likely have fewer prospects when they eventually leave, having gotten used to subsidised food, travel, accomodation etc.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 totalfailure wrote:
But they have been even more successful in getting people to believe 'everyone must go to college' racket. The end result is a mountain of debt for a largely worthless education for a job that will probably never exist. Bottom line - a college degree is as worthless as a high school diploma when everyone has one.

Trade schools are legit. They encouraged any of us that weren't going into a STEM field with our GI Bill to go to a trade school. I don't care who you are, at the end of the day- you're still going to need those skills and those jobs have pretty good job security. My younger brother did this, and he's doing great.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Seeing an opportunity and taking it isn't lottery, it's skill" is just... Wow. What if there hadn't been an opportunity to see?

I wouldn't know what living on the moon or in a third world country is like.

You don't have to have that experience to realise you got a lucky break though. It's elementary reasoning skills. You ended up in a situation where you could use your skillset to identify an opportunity and take it. That's great. There's also a bunch of variables that you have no control over that made you end up there.

This isn't difficult. Anyone could figure this out using Google.


Am I doing this right?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You don't have to have that experience to realise you got a lucky break though. It's elementary reasoning skills. You ended up in a situation where you could use your skillset to identify an opportunity and take it. That's great. There's also a bunch of variables that you have no control over that made you end up there.

This isn't difficult. Anyone could figure this out using Google.

I don't think "Luck" was involved. Unless, of course, you mean I was lucky to not be born with or acquire some major disability. Because otherwise- not being a junkie, not being a criminal, not being a slob, and not being an idiot- those were conscious efforts (and trust me, some folks make being an idiot look fun). Well, they should be the norm, but hey- it's 2019 and we can't figure out how to use a stove and make food. So, I dunno.

I earned it. I worked for it. And I didn't have a skillset at 18 years old, so... not sure what Google you're using.

Oh, wait. I could cook my own food. That's apparently a LOT now, right?

You know, let's assume for a second I had a special little skillset. Do you know how you acquire a skillset? It doesn't just happen to you. You're not really born with it. It's not some magical awakening that happens while you're praying. Skillsets are learned. And to learn things you have to get up and go out and find the information. And unless you live in some cave on the moon, there are ways of acquiring that information for basic life skills.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I wouldn't know what living on the moon or in a third world country is like.

I'm in one right now. People here mostly eat healthier than 80% of people in Europe, never mind the US. At least the ones who can afford food. (It helps that most of the super-unhealthy stuff everyone there just gobbles up is difficult to acquire and usually expensive on top here.)

I really do think that for the West food education and even the places where healthy food is available being loaded with unhealthy crap have more to do with unhealthy diets than character faults in everyone but a happy proud few who, being the ubermensch they are may now look down on the rest of us with rightful contempt of our lack of willpower to stay up and cook a full meal after 12+ hours of hard labour.

 Just Tony wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

We could, at the very least, teach them how to teach themselves. But that's something we save for college.

When my 18 year old stepdaughter was 15, she tattooed herself. She's done it multiple times for whatever reason. You know how she figured out how to make her tattoo equipment? Same way she figured out how to make mac and cheese from scratch: Google.

I had my starter go out, and I'm about as mechanically inclined as a sack of wet onions. I looked up a YouTube video on how to change the starter on my specific van, and 20 minutes later had a running vehicle.

People are intelligent enough as a whole to learn and actively seek out through the tools on the internet ANY information or process they want.

Are these the same people that shouldn't buy a cell phone with a data plan in many "conservative" circles because such a device is a luxury?

Asking for a friend.....

Bran Dawri wrote:

I really do think that for the West food education and even the places where healthy food is available being loaded with unhealthy crap have more to do with unhealthy diets than character faults in everyone but a happy proud few who, being the ubermensch they are may now look down on the rest of us with rightful contempt of our lack of willpower to stay up and cook a full meal after 12+ hours of hard labour.

Pull a full 24 after 30 days in the mud and rain and we'll talk about a good excuse not to make a meal. "Meals" don't have to be cooked, some require little to no cooking.

Also, you can pre-prepare meals and reheat them. I do that often because I hate cooking after work and i eat a small dinner.

Also, bad dieting choices is a character fault.

 Easy E wrote:


Are these the same people that shouldn't buy a cell phone with a data plan in many "conservative" circles because such a device is a luxury?

Asking for a friend.....

Reality hurts. Unless that phone data is required for work, education, or survival- it is, indeed, a luxury item.

Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

Because every system will hurt someone. Otherwise, we'd have a universal system for everything and reality would be perfect.

Why should i enact the labor of solving 1% of someone else's problem when they refuse to enact the labor to take care of themselves? At that point, I'm wasting my time/money/labor.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Because every system will hurt someone. Otherwise, we'd have a universal system for everything and reality would be perfect.

Ok, so, since no system can be perfect, why bother changing ones that are plausibly harmful?

Again, why not just legalize heroin or crack then? Sure, some people might die from it, but so what, other's with greater characterological fortitude can use and enjoy it (and not abuse it, since they have the "personal responsibility" capable of doing so), or freely ignore it's existence even. Why bother prohibiting or outlawing anything for that matter then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Why should i enact the labor of solving 1% of someone else's problem when they refuse to enact the labor to take care of themselves? At that point, I'm wasting my time/money/labor.

Oh, I see now, it's pragmatics. That's fine, it's the "greater good" since 99% of people are OK, so what if 1% die from it.

Let me ask then, it all seriousness, at what number does that calculus change? What percent of people need to be harmed for something to be pragmatically actionable in your estimate?

Also, nothing I proposed actually necessitates your labor, but I'll, for the sake of a charitable reading, just suppose somehow that it does. Even though people not dying (and being healthy) actually would cost you less, not more.

Well, the survivors would be of better stock.

You are not entitled to others' labor because you lack self control and responsibility.

I think the issue people have with cooking isn't cooking, it's having to do the dishes afterwards. Cooking makes a mountain of dishes in short order. Fast food is generally eaten with the hands, so there's no dishes (that you have to deal with) either before or after. This is compounded by the fact that people that are struggling generally don't have a ton of pots and pans and plates so they can't put off doing the dishes forever. Add to that the very real possibility of not having certain equipment that makes re-heating food convenient (like a microwave), and prepping larger amounts of food to save time becomes less possible/productive.

There are absolutely work arounds for some of these issues but it can take a larger shift in thinking than it might seem at first blush. Poverty introduces a lot of problems and extra costs that aren't apparent to someone in a better financial position. One example I like to trot out in these arguments is the one of toilet paper.

Toilet paper - we all poop, we all wipe our butts with it. It's not cheap. In fact, the smaller the package of it you buy, the more it costs. But if you're poor, you can't afford to buy in bulk. So you're buying the highest per-unit cost of TP every time. OTOH, if you're not poor, you can buy in bulk every time TP is on sale, which means you have enough to last until the next sale when you can buy in bulk again. So someone above the poverty line can pay half as much real dollars for TP than a poor person, and for far better quality TP.

This exact same problem can apply to so many things people need to buy. Having money makes saving money far easier. Now, this doesn't mean that fast food is a smart or economical choice - at all - and the claims of 12+ hours a day of hard labor just to tread water smack of hyperbole, but poverty can be a trap of limited opportunities and options.

 H wrote:
What percent of people need to be harmed for something to be pragmatically actionable in your estimate?

100%

And if being too incompetent to eat moderately decent is too hard, the action I suggest is "Fat Camps". Control their diet, forced exercise.

You want to use extremes? I will too. I give you "action".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
100%

And if being too incompetent to eat moderately decent is too hard, the action I suggest is "Fat Camps". Control their diet, forced exercise.

You want to use extremes? I will too. I give you "action".

So, again, what is the case against the legalization of heroin or crack then? Since 100% of people won't take it, why shouldn't it be allowed?

Why are we using your tax dollars to stop those sorts of drugs being made, sold or entering the country, when we should just be relying on people's personal responsibility to not take them at all?

 H wrote:

So, again, what is the case against the legalization of heroin or crack then? Since 100% of people won't take it, why shouldn't it be allowed?

I'm all for it. It'll sort itself out in about a year.

And being lazy =/= being chemically addicted to narcotics. This is getting absurd.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I'm all for it. It'll sort itself out in about a year.

And being lazy =/= being chemically addicted to narcotics. This is getting absurd.

It's not absurd, at least, not really more absurd than your initial, and continued, instance that it's 100% personal responsibility all the way down. So, sure, my example is extreme, because your initial proposition is as well.

The thing is, while your sort of utilitarian idea of systems culling people out is all well and good, likely until you find yourself, or something you care about, on the "wrong side" of the culling. But honestly, I am not interested in changing your mind. I see that you have a strictly utilitarian approach, I disagree that it is a foundation for an actual productive society to have for a variety of reasons and I'll move on with my life.

Don't live outside your means. Take care of your body. The best answer isn't always the happiest.

Reality hurts.

If you refuse to help yourself at all, society owes you nothing. Be an adult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll raise you one.

Let's play percentages. We as a society remedy the small percent that maybe possibly isn't "personal choice". But if that fails, the person gets nothing and is 100% responsible for themselves.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
However, I do agree that life would be easier for everyone if the government paid for healthcare and retirement.

You know it's a slap in our face when you insinuate that this is just some little freebie we get for existing and wearing a costume, like it's just handed to us. I just want you to know that.

I implied no such thing. I respect all of my friends and family who served in the military and honor them for their service. I am not downgrading you or your accomplishments by pointing out what you yourself said, retirement and good health are possible with the government looking out for you. You deserve to be recognized and rewarded for your service, but giving everyone in this country a better life does not make yours worse. Saying "we should take care of everyone" is not the same as saying you should go screw off. I look at the countries where our grandparents used to hand out chocolate bars and see they can take care of all their citizens without putting them in crippling debt, and suggest America can damn well do the same and better.

I also want you to know it's something that's only said on the safety of the internet. Go down to the VFW and say this, I dare you.

1. You seem really ready to believe the worst interpretation of what people say to you. That's got to make things difficult.
2. You're usually the confident poster who can dish it out as well as take it, and instead of some sarcastic burn you resort to impersonal threats of violence? It hurts me to see you that delicate.

Yes, it would be an easier life if everyone were physically, morally, legally, and psychologically capable of doing this for 20 years and earning those benefits. I dare say we'd live in a much better world if all people were capable of earning it.

It would be much, much easier if everyone were physically healthy, yes. Some of us weren't born with that option. Psychologically, too.
Morally? It think it's pretty dangerous for any one class of people to claim sole moral authority. In fact, I consider it a moral failing. America is a melting pot, and we wouldn't have half so great a country if every person thought and believed the same way.
Legally? I know some people who served who may not have been strictly legal...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While it would be nice if everyone knew how to cook and make minor repairs, these things have to be taught to be learned and schools don’t teach these skills any more. Blaming the students for not knowing something they never had a chance to learn might feel good but isn’t going to accomplish much.

I did not know how to cook when I got out on my own. I did not have these classes in school.

I learned. I went and read, or asked people to show me, and once they decided to put Youtube on a device that fits in my pocket I was unstoppable.

It's called "initiative". It's more than an old stat from 7th. At this points, the excuses sound like what I expect to hear from a lazy person.

Yes, yes. I had a similar story. I had to learn how to cook in college and am still teaching my parents. Like, they can make soup now.

However, my wife's circle of friends has a lot of ...damaged people in it. Abuse can strip initiative away from the survivors. Instead of becoming fired up for self reliance and self-defense, some people shut down or retreat into more sheltered forms of living. You can't expect everyone to have the same confidence or initiative as you do, and punishing other people for needing help is not an answer that leads anywhere we want to go as a society, or so I hope. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, for one reason or another, lift themselves by their bootstraps.

Besides, you have a high opinion of yourself. You clearly feel superior to the average person. So, then, why do you demand they all meet your personal accomplishment standards to qualify as deserving empathy or respect when you acknowledge your personal achievements are beyond the possible for the average person? Is everyone beneath you in the capabilities you value unworthy? Should everyone at Adeptus Doritos-minus-one in life just die of debt poisoning?

I believe you've talked about your charitable giving before. If you feel so much contempt for the needy, why do you give?

"Not having the chance to learn"- if they had no capability to read, no means to speak to another human being, and have absolutely no time to remedy any of the above- I wish to speak to this exceptional individual and inquire about the monsters that kept them locked in a basement for an entire lifetime.

Exceptional? Have you been in a classroom in a "bad" school? Like, half the damn kids are fethed up. Four or five in every class would spend their entire time just staring down at their desks, never talking, never drawing, never doing anything. A lot of kids are taught early on by their parents or bad teachers never to ask questions or attempt to better themselves or show initiative. And some start out with promise but get fethed over by the experience, by drugs or school violence or the apathy of everyone around them. It's apparently pretty easy to break a lot of kid's will to learn.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you ever lived in an area where the only chicken you could buy required an extra halfhour of travel and was marked way the hell up? If you’ve never been in a “food desert” it can be really hard to believe, but they do exist. And they suck. I’d say they suck ass, but even that can be pretty unavailable.

Then one should seek an alternative. While I'm fairly certain you could land on the moon and find a place with chicken breasts for sale (next to the Dollar General that you know is going to manifest there), I'm quite certain that in no way can all of your protein foods be inaccessible. At that point, other sources can be found.

I think it was Elbows who addressed this earlier, but there really are parts of the country where healthy food is scarce or too expensive to consume regularly. And again, it all depends on your perspective and experience. My wife grew up in such an area, where most of the food her family could buy was in a can or a box. Sometimes the church would hand out fresh food..and sometimes they would buy from a truck that sold stuff that fell off other trucks (I never knew that was a real thing before I met her). When they finally got a discount foodmart type place near them, they had no idea how to shop for fresh veggies or fruits or handle raw food safely, and her parents never did cotton to eating some fruits that didn't come out of a can. The older kids grew up with an idea of what food was that left them ill adapted to cooking healthy meals. My wife learned how to cook healthy meals, but some of her older siblings didn't or wouldn't. They all have debilitating health issues these days that cost the taxpayer more than an extra class or two on how to live right ever would have.

 Easy E wrote:


Are these the same people that shouldn't buy a cell phone with a data plan in many "conservative" circles because such a device is a luxury?

Asking for a friend.....

Reality hurts. Unless that phone data is required for work, education, or survival- it is, indeed, a luxury item.

So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

Cheers!

Just Tony wrote:I went through this myself on accident. I was almost through my Associates program in Forensics when the Chem Tech Dean/whatever informed us of the massive glut in the market of Forensics qualified personnel. Had the Registrar's office pointed that out in my initial counseling, maybe I could have redirected. CNC Machining maybe? As I wound up at Caterpillar as a Machinist, it would have worked out MUCH better in the long run. Instead I have loans I'm paying on a degree I didn't finish because I couldn't have even used it once I had it.

Isn't your anecdote the best example for you getting lucky a few times with some information and you getting some of your choices somewhat right? That doesn't sound like just hard work did it for you? You could have worked harder than any person on earth and ended up as a whatever forensics people do and be financially less stable if you hadn't accidentally gotten that information. All that tells me is that in addition to whatever hard work, initiative, and smart choices you had, luck was also a big factor in you leading a better life than what you initially thought possible.

Here you are in a situation you think is better than it could have been (because you randomly got some information that was useful) but also worse than it could have been (if only you had known earlier). That's kinda the point when people say that it's not always possible and that not all factors are within your power to change just by the magic of hard work, initiative, and smart(er) choices. And it's often much more complicated and harder for people than missing some bit of information they can actually act on.

 Easy E wrote:
So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

I want to emphasize that while not the majority this is the level of reasoning applied to problems in the US at a not-insignificant frequency. Many voters think this way and naturally elect representatives who then put such 'logic' into practice. It creates a cultural and institutional blame of people for suffering problems that aren't their fault simply because there is a -theoretical- way to fix them. It's like taking a person with no mechanic experience, putting them in a garage with a broken car, piles of parts & tools that may or may not be relevant to fixing it, then blaming them for not knowing that they had to dig up a charging cable to plug in the laptop on the other side of the room so they could guess the password then log into google and learn how to fix the car.