1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md b/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md
index 96ebaf0..d26fab9 100644
--- a/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md
+++ b/content/entry/started-from-the-bottom-stayed-at-the-bottom.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Rather than drawing the conclusion that "This person got very lucky." they draw
 
 First, let's assume that by "economic success", people mean upgrading their socioeconomic class, since that's what happens in media that inspires these sorts of claims.
 
-The conclusion then implies a pseudo-[meritocratic](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) view of the current economy where wealth is apportioned according to who works hardest. But wealth distribution is not even close to meritocratic and even if it were, those who are predisposed to pick up certain skills would be rewarded the same as untalented people who worked very hard to learn the same skills.
+The conclusion then implies a pseudo-[meritocratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) view of the current economy where wealth is apportioned according to who works hardest. But wealth distribution is not even close to meritocratic and even if it were, those who are predisposed to pick up certain skills would be rewarded the same as untalented people who worked very hard to learn the same skills.
 
 Also, it's not clear what the conclusion means by "anybody". I assume it's excluding the severely disabled people and senile elderly people who are poor who we would all agree have zero socioeconomic mobility.
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ That may seem like a trivial question, but I argue that it's not. There's room f
 
 I think I've sufficiently critiqued the conclusion enough to convince the audience that it should be rejected outright or at least be treated very skeptically, but we have to go along with it anyways to understand the mindset of those who believe it.
 
-The [modus tollens](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) of "Anybody can upgrade their economic stratum if they only work hard enough." results in "People who can't upgrade their economic stratum don't work hard enough." which often gets twisted into "Poor people are lazy."
+The [modus tollens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens) of "Anybody can upgrade their economic stratum if they only work hard enough." results in "People who can't upgrade their economic stratum don't work hard enough." which often gets twisted into "Poor people are lazy."
 
 Even accepting the flawed premise that I've already criticised, one still could not conclude that "Poor people are lazy." The phrase "hard enough" in the conclusion after the modus tollens, while sounding like a moral failure on behalf of the poor, merely refers to the fact that the poor aren't better than their competitors in the labor market. Calling them "lazy" just because it's logically impossible for everyone to be better than the competition is stupid. By that logic, there can never not be lazy people no matter how hard everyone works.