Median rent right now is $2k. Rule of thumb is 1/3 or less of income spent on housing. So that's $6k a month. With comes out to 72k a year, pretty close.
All these articles act like workers have become so uppity and demanding but all they want is to live reasonably.
Here I am charging $675 a month. Damn! I should raise my rent. I’m kidding. I’m able to cover the house bills. No reason to raise the rent. But damn! $2 k wow!
Considering that Elon musk has made $208 billion dollars in the last 7 years that might have something to do with it.
That's enough money to give every single adult 18 years of age or older in America $1,000 and he would still have at least $40 billion left over, not to mention the 11 billion dollars he started with.
I can't fault a guy for doing (208,000,000,000/7 = 29.71 billion a year / ($7.25*2000 hrs a year * 50 years = $725,000 a lifetime) = 40,979 minimum wage earner's entirelifetimeearnings worth of work a year for 7 straight years on average, can I?
Haven’t read the article but the snippet says it’s the “amount to get someone to switch jobs.” I’m assuming this only applies to a small segment of the population but this news outlet is writing it as if McDonalds employees are demanding $80k salaries.
Yes, or say if workers keep demanding, inflation will rise as if we’re not asking for more literally just trying to keep up. Between rent, insurance, transportation, and groceries, we went from saving a ton every month and are now paycheck to paycheck.
My husband asked for 75 recently at an interview and was scoffed at and offered 60. We can’t budget enough to survive on that in our area. We want to be able to go to the doctor once in a while.
Unless you want literally anything kids might enjoy to be in a non-descript white box with black text, I think that’s overdoing it. Appealing literally includes having a picture of the product. And heck, even the name of the product can make it more appealing.
Whoa, whoa, whoa… Let’s not just run around spouting wild and crazy ideas. Have you prayed on this and spoken to God about it? Perhaps it was part of God’s plan all along for those children. Bet you didn’t think about that did you?
I can’t believe I’m being held responsible for my actions!!
If this were a case of a young driver who was driving irresponsibly fast and lost control of the car, killing their friends, that would be one thing. This is a 17 year old who repeatedly threatened her boyfriend with killing him while driving in the weeks before the accident, who made no attempt to avoid/stop ramming at full speed into a large building.
Yeah like, this wasn’t an accident. This was willfully killing someone. If she shot or repeatedly stabbed him, I don’t think you’d see the same sentiment. Something about hitting them with a mass of metal at high speeds is more sympathetic, because death by car strikes us at less violent.
…you don’t think she gave thought to the other people victimized? Even with one of the victims being her own child?
I’d bet my life that she’s put significantly more thought into this than either of us could possibly imagine, and that calling her a narcissist is simply closed-minded and pathetic. She’s a grieving mother ffs.
You should try to be a bit more empathetic. Always assuming the worst in people is no way to live.
And no kidding these people don’t get better in prison. That’s because our prison systems don’t rehabilitate - their only purpose is to punish and generate money.
She’s advocating for this person because she’s able to empathize with them. And her being able to do that doesn’t somehow negate any empathy she has towards the families of the victims - herself included.
Crimes aside, punishment should not include limiting a person’s diet or basic food options. No one’s asking for gourmet in prisons, but basic fruits and vegetables should be the baseline.
This isn’t punishment yet. Not for his financial crimes anyway. He’s being held because he allegedly violated his bond through witness tampering and because he can’t stop flapping his mouth to the media. The judge has an obligation to preserve the court’s integrity throughout the case, for both the plaintiff and the defendant, and that means limiting the defendant’s freedom.
Limit the freedom with regards to how well they're fed? That seems pretty... draconian. "You're not guilty... yet, but we're going to curtail your basic freedoms on principle, cause fuck it right?"
Yeah remember when Adam Lanza killed 26 people (mostly kids!) with a ball peen hammer? Or how sometimes kids accidentally stab their friends to death with their dad’s chef knife they found unsecured. I hate it when that happens.
To be completely fair about it, we have to remember that the overwhelming majority of minors killing and being killed with guns are directly involved in criminal gangs. Accidents are rare; school shooting deaths rarer still. Adult gang members are calling on these kids to commit violent acts on their behalf. These kids killing and being killed with guns are doing exactly what is expected and demanded of them by the “role models” in their lives.
It is rather disingenuous to blame the guns when their “mentors” are putting them in their hands and demanding they use them.
Gun violence is a symptom, not the disease. Trying to solve it by taking away the guns is like trying to cure tuberculosis with Robitussin. It hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, can’t work. At best, it masks a symptom while the disease spreads. You need to eradicate the infection to cure the disease. If we want to tackle kids killing and being killed, we have to target the conditions that lead to them to associate with the violent, criminal gangs that actively seek these murders.
You are using the tired old fallacious gunnit claims about gun deaths only being “gang killings”, which even the article in question thoroughly refutes.
Trying to solve it by taking away the guns is like trying to cure tuberculosis with Robitussin. It hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, can’t work.
Funny how it works in almost all other countries (and certainly in all other rich Western countries) but the US though.
So I’m going to explain this to you like you’re the 5 year old I assume you are.
Guns don’t pull their own triggers. That’s correct. It is because they are what people call an “inanimate object.” What is an inanimate object? Glad you asked.
And inanimate object is something that does not and cannot move on it’s own. Such as, a pitcher of PBR, or an unused toothbrush.
Now, with this new knowledge, we can arrive at the point where we understand how a gun cannot pull its own trigger. And not only that, but we csn understand how not only thinking so is wrong, but to think anyone would think it’s even possible… is wrong as well.
(Bonus lesson: This is also known as a bad faith argument! But don’t use these. They’re easily to spot and make you look incredibly foolish)
Now that that is out of the way-
It’s because of the fact that people are dying in record numbers- DESPITE guns not being able to pull their own triggers- that it is suggested that stronger laws need to be placed on the PEOPLE that are firing them at one another, instead of the guns themselves, which as we just learned, are inanimate objects that are incapable of firing themselves.
Your trusted mentor puts a gun in your hand and tells you to kill a rival. You do it, and your mentor praises you for it.
Is the problem the gun? You? Or is it the gang mindset learned by your mentor and shared with you?
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs, whose leaders are actively seeking these murders. Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
I swear so many of these people can’t tell the difference between reality and what they see in TV and movies. QAnon even posted previously that were living in some giant movie production so these people must have taken that to heart.
Taking all the guns on the planet will do nothing to stop adult criminals leading children to slaughter.
If only there were other countries on earth that had both criminals AND stricter gun laws where we could see if reducing the number of guns saves children’s lives despite not eradicating criminal activity. And only if, I don’t know, social scientists had analyzed it systematically.
Among comparably large and wealthy countries, Canada has the second highest child and teen firearm death rate to the U.S. However, Canada generally has more restrictive firearm laws and regulates access to guns at the federal level.
If the child and teen firearm mortality rate in the U.S. had been brought down to rates seen in Canada, we estimate that approximately 30,000 children’s and teenagers’ lives in the U.S. would have been saved since 2010 (an average of about 2,500 lives per year). This would have reduced the total number of child and teenage deaths from all causes in the U.S. by 13%.
If the problem was just “guns”, we should expect to see their unarmed crime stats be similar or even greater than US numbers. Canadian violent crime stats are lower across all categories, not just the “gun” categories.
Canada has a vastly superior social safety net. They address poverty conditions far better than the US. Gangs thrive in poverty, so when Canada attacks income inequity, they greatly reduce their gang problems relative to the US. Their social programs - including a universal healthcare provision - reduce their crime rates across the board.
The single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun deaths (and all forms of criminality, violent and non) in the US would be to adopt Medicare for all.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Even so, the child firearm mortality rate in the U.S. (3.7 per 100,000 people ages 1-17) is 5.5 times the child and teen mortality rate in Canada (0.6 per 100,000 people ages 1-19).
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
I reject your claim that Canada is our closest peer in anything but geographical proximity.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe. Neither Canada nor Europe have areas with economic conditions comparable to our high crime areas. Nations like Mexico and Brazil have areas economically similar to our high crime areas, and similar crime rates.
But let’s set all that aside for a moment, and look at the math. 48,000 people die to guns in the US per year, 2/3rds are suicides. Absolutely perfect gun control can save a maximum of 48,000 people, and it certainly won’t be perfect.
Conservative estimates put the number of lives saved from universal healthcare at 335,000 per year.
Now, the politics: gun rights have been steadily expanding for the past 30 years. CCW permits have expanded from fewer than 1 million to more than 30 million. A majority of states have adopted permitless “constitutional carry”. The last time a significant gun control measure passed was 1994, and it sparked an event known as the “Republican Revolution” in 1996.
If you think “perfect” gun control has a chance at being adopted in the US, “you’re not approaching this issue honestly”. The only thing that a serious push for gun control will certainly accomplish is to drive the country toward the GOP, which opposes universal healthcare.
The options in front of you are a Quixotic attempt at saving a small fraction of 48,000 people that will prevent us from saving 335,000 people; or, push for universal healthcare and similar social programs that will save an order of magnitude more.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
It is absolutely true, and you would see that if you drilled down to zip codes instead of looking broadly at the state level. We have some zip codes with homicide rates near 200 per 100k, and some cities over 80 per 100k. The economic conditions in those areas are more comparable to third-world countries and active war zones than wealthy nations. These poverty-stricken hellholes are where our violence comes from. They also happen to boast some of the lowest rates of gun ownership and strictest firearms laws and enforcement in the nation. Guns are an expensive luxury item: poor people don’t tend to own them, unless they are actively engaged in criminal behavior.
The “50% higher” statistic is interesting. We should not see a drop in unarmed crime if the cause for the drop in gun crime is strict gun control. And yet, your “50% higher” statistic applies to all crime, not just gun crime. This is inconsistent with your “gun control” theory, and perfectly consistent with my “poverty control” theory.
It’s ok to want two good things.
Your position is like that of a little kid, pestering his mother while shopping. She’s got a new game console in the cart, but he’s begging for a slushie. She asks him to stop. She tells him to stop. His brother warns him that Mom is getting pissed off and is about to leave without buying anything, and that he can have the first turn on the new console, but he goes ahead and throws a temper tantrum about that goddamn slushie. So we all go home, no game console, no slushie, and we’re both grounded for good measure. (The events of this analogy may or may not have happened on my 8th birthday, and I may or may not still be salty about it.)
And yet, the zip codes with the highest rate of gang activity are consistently the zip codes with the highest homicide rates, and there is a strong social correlation between murderers and victims.
I wonder why all these non-gang members go to areas of high gang activity to kill and be killed. I guess they’re just trying to frame innocent, hard-working criminals.
The “mentor” scenario which you have dreamed up and repeated ad nauseam in this thread, does not provide an actual explanation for by far the majority of gun deaths mentioned in the article.
The overwhelming majority of kids killing and killed with guns are associated with criminal gangs,
This is a blatant lie, and it does not get more true just because you repeat it countless times.
Not many are being shot from walking around saying “bang”.
It’s a shared experience. It’s like a lot things in life. Crack doesn’t smoke itself and wives don’t beat themselves up. It’s almost like their are more complicated things than useless reduction rhetoric of a mindless fool.
You’re exactly right. And notice how instead of trying to eradicate crack from the earth, instead we’re treating people that abuse it and trying to stop people from doing so in the first place.
The same is said for alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Don’t get me wrong - harsher restrictions need to be put in place. But as you said, it’s complicated.
“GiveSendGo has clearly abandoned its original mission of ‘funding hope,’ instead becoming a tool for the Christian nationalist purveyors of hatred, disinformation, and political violence,” says Rev. Nathan Empsall, the executive director of Faithful America, a national Christian advocacy organization which launched a petition signed by 34,000 people condemning GiveSendGo’s hosting of extremist fundraisers. “As Christians, we are called to stand against authoritarianism and white supremacy, not give them a platform.”
It's absolute bullshit that an organization as unfathomably, obscenely wealthy as the Catholic Church can break off parts of itself and pretend they're separate entities for the purpose of denying victims their due compensation.
I don’t know if that’s a tesla thing, or just cars in general these days (as I have an old vehicle and don’t ride in many others), but not having a fucking manual door opener seems really, really dumb.
So the pop out handles on evs make a little sense. The goal is to reduce wind drag as much as possible. At least on mine (not a Tesla) you can still interact with the handle without the car exposing it.
Not having a manual way to open from the inside? No way in hell is that ok.
The wind drag on the handles is so negligible youd see a larger performance boost simply washing the bugs off the surface.
Cars aren’t moving fast enough that such short protrusions really matter.
It isn’t until cars start getting to race speeds that aerodynamic forces become … important.
Does it reduce drag? Yes. Is it smart to do so? Not so much. This is like all the cars that pulled out spares to get under the Obama era mpg requirements. Does it increase mileage? Sure. Is it smart to do so?
Aerodynamics are a primary driver of range, which is a major ev selling point. A 12% drag decrease is huge, because you can carry less battery which means you can have a smaller motor, lighter frame, leading to even more range.
The retractable door handle design allows radical aerodynamic designing for the side body panel. Retractable door handles are invisible handles that contribute by about 12% to reduce the drag coefficient of vehicles. Retractable door handles eliminate the issue of airflow bulge creation, air flow turbulence generation, and air flow pressure conservation. The decreased drag coefficient will also contribute to increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles as there will be low drag generation resisting the movement of vehicles through the airflow. Amey Vikram, a lead analyst at Technavio for automotive components research
Engineering stuff in production isn’t peer reviewed the same way new research and discoveries are in academia. Companies usually produce estimates and sell them, and their reputation and trustworthynes is based on the quality of their predictions. I don’t know how trustworthy this research group is in the industry, but it at least seems to be big.
Aerodynamics are a primary driver of range, which is a major ev selling point. A 12% drag decrease is huge, because you can carry less battery which means you can have a smaller motor, lighter frame, leading to even more range.
at the cost of… safety (getting locked inside during a crash… first responders being locked out,), reliability (they break enough to justify a class action); and ease of use… the 12% drag reduction isn’t actually that huge. Particularly when you translate that into range extension. 10% reduction leads to 5% range. in the case of a model s, that’s about 15-20 miles per charge cycle.
And I doubt very much that 12% isn’t inflated. The entire article you linked below is a marketing pitch for the people that make said handles.
If it really was that substantial, you’d have seen cars going to hidden/flush/shaved handles back in the Obama fuel efficiency standards era. You know. When they were removing spare tires to get a little extra MPG. (this is also why EV’s aren’t coming with spares. to squeak out a little bit more range. Compared to the door handles… a lot more range.)
Further, the handles don’t have to be motorized. You can have mechanical latches on flush-mounted handles. The entire design started with aesthetics and “cool” factor. which is why people are getting trapped in them and you know, gettingtrapped and dying. yep. “12%”…but hey, you might die because of it.
oh, by the way, the cost replace on of those over-engineered handles? about a grand. I’d rather sacrifice the range, to have a car whose door actually works reliably. but idunno. maybe I’m just weird.
No. Wind drag on handles is most certainly not negligible. Even small protrusions on an otherwise smooth surface can have a significant effect. That effect is hard to model - you can’t just eyeball it.
Drag is proportional to windspeed squared.
Aero matters to fucking cyclists. It absolutely 100% matters to motor vehicles, especially in the context of EV range anxiety.
Just don’t fucking dunning-kruger, FFS. Surely you realise that automotive engineers have specific education that you don’t have. I don’t mind you being wrong, it’s the arrogance that pisses me off.
There's only a small handful of cars that have primarily electronic door handles. Teslas are the worst because opening the door without power is very different than opening it with power and sometimes breaks the window. I think it was Mercedes or someone who has a power lock but the manual release is part of the same lever, you just pull it out farther.
Also wasn’t there a famous video of BMW showing how to mechanically perform every task on their all electric sports car? From car doors to hood releases to way more niche things 99.9999% of people will never use or even know exists?
It was the I8. The techs were talking about all the little things you can do to break stuff on the car because of how insanely designed it all was. The techs kept breaking the door releases, and you need to jam screwdrivers in the hinge for the hood which requires at least two people to open to avoid breaking or deforming it.
Teslas are just overrated they dont do anything better than other ev cars, they were just first to mass market, which is great but doesn’t mean it’s a good purchase today.
Unsurprising. $78k/yr comes out to $2194/mo take home pay per Smartasset's calculator. Average rent is well over $1k/mo with no signs of going down any time soon. Landlords frequently demand potential renters have an income of 3x the rent. Gotta live somewhere.
Apparently I'm stupid but I'm too tired to fix it rn so I will just leave my shame up here for all to see. My point is being alive is expensive and bad math or no I'm still not surprised to see this.
Edit again because I'm also too stupid to do a strikethrough correctly even with a formatting bar right there. FML and F this phone too, I'm going to bed
They may have taken the "semi-monthly take home pay" to be monthly instead, and the calculator counts after taxes.
So it's twice what they think it is, and four times what average rent is. You can change it to monthly, and it's more like $4,500 depending on where you live.
The calculator defaults to semi-monthly and I think the original commenter didn't change it. Also, it defaults to your current location so the take-home will be different for everyone running the calculator (because taxes). $78k is $6500 a month BEFORE TAXES.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.