k3d

why are you trying to apply your irrelevant experiences with other groups even as you complain about americans doing so to you?

The thing is "a little" might be on the order of 10 bucks a month.

literally none of that meaningfully indicates that "most [american] poor people actually have high incomes".

minimum wage means nothing without considering cost of living which outpaces a 40 hour work week at 7.25 (or even the potentially higher state minimum wage) basically everywhere in the country [1]

as per your article, a) car ownership is dropping, b) a household having a car can mean sharing it with a number of other people c) 90% of households having a car is not relevant to a discussion only about those in poverty and d) in most non-urban environments, having a car is a necessity, not a luxury, if you want to be able to, y'know, get to work and the grocery store [2][3]

sure, some cities are more affordable than others. what percentage of the country lives in those cities? do you expect everyone to move there? if so, do you think those affordable rents will stay affordable? additionally, please explain, in detail, your full plan for moving when you have no savings, and for mitigating the effects of leaving your job, the place you know, as well as all your friends and family who provide a vital safety net in case of emergency.

i literally do not know what you're trying to say with the malnutrition deaths note- do you think that having access to a social safety network in the form of foodstamps means you're not poor or something? lol

[1] https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/09/mapping-the-difference-... [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2018/march/distance-to-... [3] https://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/PovertyBrief.pdf

most poor people actually have high incomes

what is your evidence for this? take america as a "developed country"

It's absolutely fatuous to assume that this has to be a symmetrical relationship. No inherent contradiction exists between the two statements.

If a feature is working in reverse it's probably a bug though- it might be intended to force independent thinking, but in reality all it does is serve as a gameable goalpost, no thought required.

For folks who are interested in the what went into designing it, the devs published their emails over the course of development. It's a pretty neat glimpse into how a game's design evolves, as well as the effort it takes to come up with a clean, "simple" mechanic: http://asherv.com/threes/threemails/

How do you know that this is a massive health issue? What pure logic brought you to that conclusion?

There are countries where it's normal and expected to pay bribes to every governmental official you interact with, America the worst offender nor is not unique in any respect.

It’s clear that the environment we evolved in lacked much penicillin, therefore studies showing use of penicillin is healthy should be taken with a grain of salt.

Hunger is not perfectly tied to caloric intake- part of the problem with, say, sugary sodas is that they won't fill you up no matter how much you drink.

I might be misinterpreting you, but Opus Magnum is "alchemy"- it makes no attempt to reflect real chemistry, the components are simply abstractions. I can't tell if that would be a pro or a con in your book, but it's a pretty good game.

she

defrauding isn't synonymous with stealing- he did take the money under false pretenses. if I come to you for investment in my cool new startup that does distributed crypto machine learning ai for entertaining bored housecats on the blockchain and come back a year later having sextupled your investment in money from illegal arms smuggling, you've still been defrauded.

Is it possible that you perhaps have an engineering or physics background (or one sympathetic to the same- say mathematics or computer science) and pay more attention to others who are like yourself? Would you make similar statements regarding people from, say art backgrounds who make great contributions in engineering, physics and other sciences-Morse, Hedy Lamarr, Santiago Cajal to name a few? I think it's pretty common for clever people who do well in one field and decide to switch to do well in another, no matter what the two fields are.

I do not generally measure the effective "success" of a scientist by their brand name recognition.

It's amazing -- well not at all amazing really! -- that the most successful people in any scientific field come from an engineering and physics background.

This seems like a pretty wild claim to me- what is your basis for it?

Have you tried out weighted blankets?