For some people, those aren’t their high beams. No, that doesn’t make it any better.
Shiggles
joined 2 years ago
Just in case you’re not aware, you can hop into camp at literally any time, you only consume supplies when taking a rest.
It’s easy to be cynical about human nature when the extreme negatives are so amplified and given so much publicity. You have to remember the vast majority of people do still possess empathy.
Or don’t and just do
~100 calories for a medium pancake
~0.36 calories per pushup(all of this is googled and blindly trusted)
=277 pushups per pancake.
Totally worth it!
Certain departments specifically have IQ tests, in order to ensure you aren’t smart enough to easily get a better job elsewhere.
It’s okay, most* games have good wikis that do an alright impression.
*Less so now that we have the plague that is fextralife and similar doing their damndest to elbow out useful wikis for any and every game.
That’s very likely true for insects and other creatures that don’t actually have lungs, and dubiously true for things with lungs. It certainly may have influenced their size to some extent but scientists far smarter than me have no reason to suspect they wouldn’t be able to breathe today.
That’s almost as bad as the geniuses that build luxury properties right next to race tracks, then petition to have the race tracks shut down for lowering property values.
Unless the bar somehow snuck up on you?
Common Scandinavian union W
Sure, and the child could have an extremely expensive form of ass cancer. Unless you mean routine costs, which were covered by the article I yanked that number from without reading
sourceless quick google
It could be including childcare, increased housing costs for larger housing, any myriad of things.
This was the article at the top of google. Looks like yeah childcare + housing are the majority of the costs.
The article is paywalled, but is there are talk about the testing methodology used? Because if I really wanted to, I could find the poorest american cities, survey people there, and then use statistics about the country as a whole to make them look “unable to grasp objective facts”. It’s foolish to blindly trust statistics without understanding how they were gathered.
I get looking at things like that goes against the blinding arrogance of a neoliberal philosophy, but does it really stand up to reason that people wouldn’t know if they’ve become wealthier, if you’re even bothering to ensure they’re defining wealth in the same way your statistics are?