![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/913b482d-9012-449f-bc87-b1f4463e7154.jpeg)
Assuming the same density, about three times as much gravity.
Gravity scales linearly with volume which scales with the cube of the width, (3/2)³ is about 3,4.
Assuming the same density, about three times as much gravity.
Gravity scales linearly with volume which scales with the cube of the width, (3/2)³ is about 3,4.
But price increases of cereals ( bread, pasta, grains, etc.) increased by about 7,5 % last year alone, which is more than the inflation, and more than the increase after inflation.
That’s where people might complain. They still can’t afford food, as food prices increase faster than overall inflation
I appreciate a data supported argument, and love that you actually linked sources.
One thing that I feel is missing in most of the linked analyses is that inflation has also hit unevenly, and the price of basic goods has increased significantly more than overall inflation. Which would explain why households still have less disposable income, also the mean debt burden is much higher leading to loan costs being more common.
Or brought up by a neurodivergent parent, or sibling, or have an ND partner
Have you seen the numbers? Could you link them?
The only thing I’ve been able to find is 2,2 million “encounters” in a high year, over the whole country.
Germany takes in a million immigrants per year by itself, and has at least a handful of encounters per immigrant to process them. Also has a bunch of encounters with illegal immigrants.
Germany is smaller than Texas.
To be fair, those $46 million will buy quite a few avocodo toasts and lattes
deleted by creator
Ah, but you’re just saying that as a professional troll.
Now compare that to: I think you’re mistaken, intent matters, and I believe extending trust that both parties want to convey something, rather than just dismiss others, is necessary for a discussion, and also for a communal discourse. If we’re just shouting into the void, no trust is needed, but for interactions and building a sense of community, we will need both trust and norms of collaboration.
Baselessly ascribing malicious intent is moreso a way to sow distrust and kill off discussion.
And besides, unless local regulations expressly forbid it, the income statements of those companies are after any fines and after any profit reducing measures (e.g. Amazon famously use investment schemes to reduce taxation), they do make the money to cover them in the shorter interval, or even shorter.
Oh no, with Amazon only having a 3,5 % margin (after fines), it would take them all of 48 hours to make up the losses.
The point still stands: the fines are ridiculously low for these companies, and they have no incentive to change based on current fines.
Oh, that’s easy, for Russia it’s crucial for reasons… it was something about de-nazification, or was it to stop NATO expanding? No, no, it’s to defend against the aggression of The West!
That’s why Russia has to occupy Ukraine!
For Ukraine, they mostly seem to have a bee up their butt about Russian troops occupying, torturing, kidnapping, displacing and murdering Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil.
From the video it seems they were spotted by drones on the way to the deployment site and were under drone surveillance during setup, during which artillery hit.
I have a hard time imagining that the observation drones are that sneaky, so I’d guess it’s another issue of poor battlefield command structure forcing the compromised position
Shh, they’re trying to catch up
Also quite useful for places short on water, or daylight, or clement weather, or low-value ecosystems, or where transportation is unfeasible due to accessibility, environmental conditions, market access.
Also quite good to alleviate food deserts, securing strategic supply chains, and supporting urbanisation for greenification, food supply, lowering transport and food security (with growing food also having positive mental and psychosocial effects).
Eggselln’t
Because countering Russia has been the US’ primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years
Because countering Russia has been the US’ primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years?
I’m guessing because a lot of them aren’t clearly marked “Russian state war chest part 12”, but rather things like “Gazprom reserve fund” or “Oligarchs discretionary fund” which would muddy the border between state and private assets.
State assets might be fine to seize to cover state costs, but the legality of seizing the others’ might by grayer.
Check out the Nordics, that’s how they do it over there.
It already has?