You’re welcome to your opinion, but what’s funny is that I live in Oakland in a household of three on a joint income of $160k. We live in a two bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt that costs $2500 per month. And we’re pretty comfortable.

It sounds like you and I are neighbors. If you’re having a harder time than I am I don’t want to invalidate your experience. But not everyone who feels financially constrained is poor, imo.

I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.

First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.

Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.

By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).

This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.

You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.

Oh hi Phil

Not really. “Africans” doesn’t really have humor value in the way that “Francophones” does.

I’m not saying the chat is definitely wrong. I’m just saying that a chart of language use in which French is flat until the present and then is forecasted to suddenly take off while everything else stays level reads like an example of well-executed visual humor.

That graph feels like comedy.

I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.

If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.

$200k is not poor in San Francisco.

It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.

I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.

I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.

You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.

Okay, but that’s not what poor means.

No?

This question makes no sense.

I mean, the inputs into his decisions are simple, but also such a jumbled mess that it’s hard to be sure. But my hopeful guess is that he is finally looking for an overdue exit strategy, and his goal now is to agree to as many of Iran’s terms of ceasefire while obscuring the defeat as best as possible.

I’m hopeful this is a blustery move to look tough as the US forces capitulate and leave.

What exactly is in the picture though? Is the scratch-off lottery ticket a liberal fascist who has been scratched off? Is that the metaphor?

This story is wonderfully written.

I don’t understand what the meme means.

Also, does this have alt text? If so, how do I view it?

Wait I’m not up to date on the Bratz lore: do they hunt demons?

Although I doubt that a studio would use slop for something this important, I agree completely.

I looked at this and had the same reaction. Artistically, it feels empty and senseless in the way that ai is. What the hell is going on in this scene? Why are those ninjas flying at him in the middle of the sky? Why are they packed so close together that they clearly can’t attach him without hitting each other?

This is also a common issue in super hero crowd fight chorography: watch any goon in one of the Zach Snyder movies and their tactics are always completely irrational. Their movements only make sense if their goal is to get into position to get beaten. Same here.

While this may be true, never forget that what he says has no connection to the truth and are purely reflective of whatever words will produce the outcome he wants at a given moment.

I get the logic. But it’s still really dumb.

This is truly an April Fools-level move.

The US is closing the Strait? The generals couldn’t open it, so Hegseth said, ‘Okay! I’ve got it! We declare that WE’RE closing it, NOT THEM!’

How … is this better?

First, I’ve been to Astoria Oregon, and I assure you that people live there. It’s not Vancouver, but it’s a legit town.

But I get your question. I think the answers are complex and technical, but my understanding is that people migrate and settle, and then population centers often grow based on a mix of natural features and where human-made resources like centers of education are constructed. So it’s really more of a question of why were the locations of Portland and Seattle better.

I’m not a geographer, so I don’t know the precise features, but my guess is that Portland and Seattle were located in areas that offered most of the benefits of this coastal region in terms of access to the ocean but had greater benefits and fewer downsides. I’m just speculating here, but my first guess would be that the weather inland is less intense. It might also provide better access to freshwater and arable land.

But people do live there. And if you live in Newport or Lincoln City you’re two hours from an international airport. That’s not exactly undeveloped wilderness. People just chose to settle a bit more inland along bays, which considering how rough the weather in the coastal Pacific northwest can be, seems sensible.