What’s the point you’re trying to actually make?
the last statement in the meme is kinda meh and sticks out among the others.
If it sticks out you’re missing the point of the chain of statements.
It’s not that the other statements are or are not statistically justified, it’s that making comments to people that are clearly being made because of their race and perceptions about their race is something that tends to happen regularly to black people and other minorities, and not so much to others.
It is more common for black fathers to be absent according to certain demographic measures.
However: race is not the only factor to the statistic, and the statistic in not defined well through time.
At one point “divorced or never married mother” was the basis for the statistic. Shifting it to “father lives in a separate home” is better but still misses that you can live in a separate home and still be there for your kid. That’s before you get to adoptive fathers and all the other non-biological support roles.
For all those measures, economics is a better predictor than race. Race serving as an indirect measure of economics is its own can of worms and bias.
Finally, a question can be statistically valid and still be biased, inappropriate, or just rude.
“You’re black, so I don’t want to assume your child’s father is around” is all of those.
They werent allowed to disclose location and times
That makes it wholly unsuitable for a dragnet surveillance system.
Further, a business can aquire data that a police agency can’t gather without a warrant.
Notable advantage in a lot of beginner and intermediate level sports. By the time you get beyond that everyone knows how to compensate for left handedness.
Easier for you to assault a castle with spiral staircases while using a sword.
Accessing that location data isn’t trivial. The data is typically held by various private companies who put up at least token legal resistance to cover themselves from lawsuits.
Intelligence agencies have their own avenue for getting the data, and on paper they’re not allowed to share it with police agencies.
Police agencies typically need to specify the individual in question, or the specific location and time to get a warrant. This is because they’re not supposed to be able to blanket surveil an otherwise private piece of information without having a good reason.
The classic example is not being able to listen to every call on a payphone they know drug dealers use because they’ll listen to people who have not done anything illegal.
Intelligence agencies are an entirely different thing with weird special rules and minimal and strange oversight.
This is all relevant because the government doesn’t actually know who’s allowed to be here or not.
Most people in the country without proper documentation entered legally and then just stayed outside the terms of their entry. The terms can be difficult to verify remotely, which is why you’re not actually here illegally until you go in front of a judge, they deport you, and then you return again.
Finally, there are significant chunks of the country where location tracking via cell tower is imprecise enough to get the country wrong, and a lot of people live there. So any dragnet surveillance setup is going to have to exclude some pretty large population centers to avoid constantly investigating people in Windsor sometimes quickly teleporting into Detroit.
That one also has the aspect of avoiding a deliberate insult. Desecrate the corpse and you risk turning it into a Thing™ that people might rally around.
killing him does that too, but people rally a little less around a relatively restrained killing of a valid military target and unremarkable handling of the body.
The worst person in the world, while living, looses all consideration for how they’re treated. At that point, it’s not about what they deserve as much as it’s about living up to our own standards for how we compose ourselves.
We don’t feed evil people to rabid hogs not because they don’t deserve it, but because we respect ourselves more than that.
Likewise, everyone deserves a baseline level of dignity in death because that’s a standard we hold ourselves to.
It’s not for them.
It’s a failure of empathy. People hate and/or fear what they don’t understand.
They can’t empathize with someone not feeling right in their own skin like that, so all their rationalizations for things like “why would they want to use that bathroom” end up stemming from what they have left, which is unsavory intent, making them threatening.
Their hosting is a couple million a year, and they have $80 million in cash, not $250.
Their cash flow from donations after expenses is about $6 million.
They absolutely cannot keep running for 400 years without further funding.
If nothing else, people are needed to run the servers and actually manage the basic operations of the foundation.
They’re definitely not in a dire financial situation, but they’re not centuries of hands off operation by any means.
NAS. Most things sit in downloads indefinitely, and I’ll randomly decide the folder is gross and unmanageable and put things into appropriate folders. Usually Documents gets the most sub-categories, with various significant life docs sorted by category and year. Pictures gets random art I made in a folder, pictures, memes and funny shit, etc also get their own folders.
Media downloads go straight to the NAS where they’re organized by Format/Category/Series/Name. As in Video/Movies/John wick/John wick 1. TV gets a season level in there.
And they’re delicious. ~Although usually not just plain meat, but filled with wonderful spices~
you can’t refute my main point that…
This is the part where you’re dense as fuck. As I said from the get go, I wasn’t trying to do that, you absolute insecure buffoon.
Go back and re-read the first comment, and try not being insecure and combative. I was literally, as you say, correcting a typo (Although then using that typo in math makes me feel like it was a misunderstanding of the numbers and not a typo).
You can keep ranting about irrelevant details and then agreeing with my original conclusion.
“Wikipedia has a half billion cash and is evil for asking for more” is really different from “Wikipedia isn’t in as bad a situation as you might think, and donation isn’t as crucial as they might lead you to believe”.
Your first comment is grossly misleading. I don’t really give a shit about your conclusion, since I’m ambivalent about donating. See also: the paragraphs I quoted from your second article I liked.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s like I’ve been saying and you refuse to accept: I’m not trying to “gotcha” you, I just actually cared about accurate numbers. If you actually care about accurate numbers for drawing conclusions, like a person who goes and reads financial audits might, then perhaps they aren’t “irrelevant details”. Or, as I like to call them: A $320 million dollar error.
You’re the one who can’t accept that someone saying “hey, their financials are by no means weak but they don’t have decades of cash saved up” isn’t a disagreement with your main point.
Then you went off on insane ad hominem tangents and refused to believe that maybe someone isn’t attacking you.
given that I’ve roundly quashed all of your efforts here
You really haven’t. If you’ll recall: “what the fuck are you even talking about”? Insecure gibberish isn’t the masterful debate strategy you think it is. You aren’t coming across as cleverly as you seem to think you are.
You’re a surprisingly dense person. You’ve managed to mistake a news article for a financial audit, misread a number of comments, misinterpret numbers, think that the phrase “article I agree with” means I don’t agree with it, and somehow take “hey, your number’s wrong” to mean “your numbers are wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and everything you say is wrong”.
I wrote assets, because I was talking about total assets
Except, you didn’t. And neither did the article I said was inaccurate where you plainly pulled that number from.
Maybe go actually read the second article you shared, which doesn’t get their cash or assets wrong or make grossly inaccurate assertions about their financial status.
Also, congrats on actually running with “bold of you to assume I can read”.
You’re confusing cash with assets. $80 million is nowhere near $400 million cash.
dozens of accurate numbers from two articles, one of those many numbers in one of those articles you have picked out to focus on
Except $300 million cash isn’t in the article I said was a good article.
“Dozens” of good numbers don’t really matter when the one you use to make your point isn’t one of them.
They don’t have $400 million dollars cash, so they can’t run for 40 years just on cash on hand. Which is the entire thing I was talking about.
I sort of assumed that basic literacy meant you could understand that a question doesn’t have to end in a question mark. For example: I’m curious what you think I’m making up.
Note how that doesn’t end in a question mark, but is clearly a request for information.
And, for pedantic ness: “what the fuck are you talking about?”
What “mistakes” are you correcting? I’m referencing their financial audit. Where do you think those news articles you’re not understanding get their numbers?
You can’t just pick a number off a page, say “yeah, that one’s big, it’s how much cash they have”, then round up and add $100 million dollars and wave it off as a typo. At best, it’s a typo compounding a gross misunderstanding of the financials.
So again, what “mistakes” are you correcting? You keep saying you’re correcting some mistakes, but … You’re not. You haven’t actually done anything other than share some bad data and be offended someone would point that out.
We colloquially call a lot of things I’ve cream that aren’t labeled ice cream, and aren’t legally ice cream.
The US has tediously long definitions for different foods, and ice cream needs specific proportions of milk products, as well as limits on other physical properties.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=135.140
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=135.110
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=135
So while I might pick up some sherbet and say “I got ice cream”, and people would know what I meant, it would never be labeled ice cream.
I also like oat milk ice cream, but it’s actually labeled “frozen dessert” because it doesn’t contain dairy.
The company isn’t allowed to use a term that might mislead a unwitting or uninformed consumer, but the consumer is free to have a more relaxed definition, and stores can put things where you would expect.
From your source: "After a decade of professional fund-raising, it has now amassed $400 million of cash as of March”.
From you: “they have at least 400 million in reserves now”.
Their financial audit, that I linked to, shows that they have nowhere near that much cash. They don’t even have that much total assets if you count their endowment, real estate, and computer hardware.
The entire reason for my comment was that I read that number, thought “wow, that number seems preposterous”, and looked up their financial report which shows that indeed, it’s a totally bogus number detached from reality.
You seem deeply upset that someone might not just accept your opinion at face value, and it seems to be making you respond like an asshole instead of “not responding because you don’t care”, or actually giving some sort of response.
Har har har.
I’m honestly curious what point you think I’m responding to that you didn’t make.
You did actually use grossly inaccurate financial data when the tax documents were publicly available.
What are you even talking about?
From what we know about real hitmen, they tend to be unsettling, since a willingness to murder people is at minimum a sign of an indifference towards life.
They often buy not always have personality traits in common with serial killers.