Yes, but it’s included in the proportion to which you buy those things. So if you’re spending a lot less on other things, but more on housing, it’s a wash for your overall expenses.

I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't spending a greater percentage on housing necessitate spending less on other things? Someone who spends 50% of their earnings on shelter has to make more careful budgeting decisions than someone who only spends 30% on shelter. With a smaller portion of income to spend on anything else, people will put off purchases that they can't afford. Using that proportional difference to claim "it's a wash" sounds like circular reasoning. At least, it doesn't seem to account for all the purchases people would have made if they weren't putting such a high percentage toward this one basic need?

I don't have any suggestions, I just wanted to thank you for introducing me to a new phrase. I had to look up what "NB" meant in this context.

(For others who are unfamiliar, it stands for the Latin phrase "nota bene.")

Not OP, but for me a window popped up and asked for my email, without any button or other option to opt out/make it go away. I got around it by using “Reader” Mode.

The thumbnail above conveniently censors the naughty bits, allowing this article to be SFW.

For real. The fact that all of these are just more Republican lies is extremely disappointing:

“She’s committed to banning fracking, phasing out internal combustion engines, and rolling out the most progressive Green New Deal yet,” another section of the Progress 2028 plan reads.

“will support a nationwide gun buy-back program that will take dangerous weapons off our streets"

“Let’s remove barriers for undocumented immigrants who are undocumented!” one ad states, adding, “Access to affordable housing, driver licenses, and fair wages creates a stronger America for everyone.”

Republicans are so detached from the American people that they think these ideas would scare us. It's no surprise they suck at parody, but by putting these words into Harris's mouth they run the ironic risk of pushing undecided Independents or seemingly-ignored Progressives to vote for her.

That is poetry.

It's definitely possible, I mean...

If you directly translated them, a lot of the time you’d get like “cabbage the horse wheel” or something.

That reminds me of the "Password Strength" comic by xkcd. All right, it's settled. Next time I need new password, I'm feeding random names into a phonetic name translator.

he told his supporters "to go out and vote on 'January 5th’”

Yes, listen to your dear leader. Mark your calendars and make sure to visit the polls in January. We all know Trump is always right and knows exactly what he’s saying, which is why it’s so important to only follow what he says to do. Don’t listen to any of the liberal lies about when election day supposedly is. They’re just trying to confuse you with more FAKE NEWS.

And I’ve never known a vegan who wasn’t driven solely by cruelty to animals.

There are a lot of reasons that people go vegan. My ex went vegan for environmental reasons. Some people do it primarily for their own health. Some just plain aren't fans of meat and animal products, through either taste or texture or both.

But you're probably right about the correlation with a lack of empathy. When it's considered "masculine" to not care about hurting others, a lot of folks who only know about the "animal cruelty" aspect probably won't consider any deeper reasons. They and their ilk stick to surface-level appearances, making it not only important that they keep eating meat, but that they make a big deal about it whenever around someone who doesn't eat meat.

Hey, me too! This election is giving me too much anxiety to just sit around doing nothing. I live close to a swing state and spent last weekend canvassing there. At this stage in the campaign, the "convincing people" part is over - the focus is now on "get out the vote." It was encouraging to talk to level-headed people who'd made plans to vote or who'd already dropped off their mail-in ballots.

Still, we can't afford complacency. If anyone else feels the restless need to do something, but you don't live in/near a swing state, you can volunteer for phone banking.

That election anxiety is there for a reason - let it empower you to leave your comfort zone for a few hours and make a difference where it counts.

“However, I did make it with a hot alien babe. And in the end, is that not what man has dreamt of since first he looked up at the stars?”

I wrote that comment on my lunch break at work and, of the immediate links that came up when I searched for a supporting article, Snopes was the most readily available and reliable source I had at hand. It's a site with a long history of debunking claims via thorough research, and yes, they cite their sources. Just scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Sources." It's just above the author's credit.

If you've found any evidence of Geico dropping coverage of all Cybertrucks (not just individual vehicles/owners, whom may be dropped for a myriad of reasons), I'm eager to hear it. In the meantime, enjoy checking any of these links that all say the same thing - that the author reached out to Geico, and Geico confirmed to them that they do cover the Cybertruck.

Of course, there's always the option of just calling Geico for yourself. But debunking the same rumor over and over again is exhausting, and I feel bad for whoever is having to answer all these calls. At this point, Geico said their part. The burden of proof is now on those making the "dropping coverage" claim.

the truth is that we are all subject to and fooled by misleading content.

A perfect example of this is that recent claim that Geico stopped providing insurance for the Tesla “Cybertruck.” Tons of people, including many here on Lemmy, were quick to believe and share this story. A handful of users pointed out that the source couldn’t be verified, but those comments were drowned out by all the “Ha, take that, Musk!” comments.

It just goes to show that everyone is vulnerable to misinformation. If we want to claim to be well-informed, we have to question everything - even (or especially) the stories that reinforce our existing beliefs.

This is exactly what spurs me to wash my dishes right after using them. It's much less stressful to clean a single plate & fork now, than to return to a sink full of dirty dishes later. I'd rather just get it over with while it's still easy to do.

The storm was mainly weakened by wind shear.

Here are some key points:

Wind shear is defined as the change in wind speed, wind direction, or both, over some distance.

Hurricanes thrive in environments where their vertical structure is as symmetrical as possible. The more symmetrical the hurricane is, the faster the storm can rotate, like a skater pulling in her arms to spin.

Too much vertical wind shear, however, can offset the top of the storm. This weakens the wind circulation, as well as the transport of heat and moisture needed to fuel the storm. The result can tear a hurricane apart.

Source: What is Wind Shear, and How Does it Shape Hurricanes

As to the destruction being less than the worst-case scenario predicted, that's because the storm ended up making landfall south of Tampa Bay:

Tampa Bay remained in the hurricane’s northern eyewall, which meant that winds blew from the east—offshore—during the worst of the storm. Not only did these offshore winds spare the region the worst of the surge, but Tampa actually experienced an “anti-surge” as the storm made landfall. Strong winds pushed more than a metre of water out of Tampa Bay and into the Gulf of Mexico.

Source: How Hurricane Milton's Destructive Surge Mostly Spared Tampa Bay

The poster above you didn't put the entire article. Their post was merely the snippet from the end of it.

Earlier on, the article stated:

The Atlantic is a heterodox place, staffed by freethinkers, and for some of us, Kamala Harris’s policy views are too centrist, while for others they’re too liberal.

In other words, this endorsement is the decision of more than one person. It isn't contradictory for different people to want different things. The whole point was that multiple people have found multiple reasons to come to the same conclusion.

But the article isn't behind a paywall, and the link is right there. In the search to make sense of an extracted quote, the original source is a good place to start.

I noticed that a link to the segment hasn't been shared yet. For those who want to watch - VP Kamala Harris Shares A Miller High Life With Stephen Colbert

Republicans know a lot of women are voting to restore abortion rights, full stop. Compared to the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars that it would take for us to travel out-of-state to receive abortion care, $47 is nothing. You can’t buy my vote, let alone for such a pathetically low-balled price. I’d rather lose money and reinstate Roe V Wade than gain money and leave people to suffer.

It’s not just Japan, and it doesn’t just apply to women. K pop has the same situation, and boy bands are no exception.

Although modern media allows for much less privacy, this idea is far from new. Back when The Beatles were a fresh, new band in the early 1960s, John Lennon had to hide his first marriage from the public. Long before Yoko Ono, there was Cynthia Lennon. John was pressured to hide his relationship for the same reasons that K pop and J pop idols do - in order to create the illusion of “attainability” among fans.

Times have changed in the west, where celebrity couples have found greater public acceptance. I’m not well-versed in Japanese and Korean celebrity cultures, so I’m not sure why this prohibition on dating/marriage still occurs there. All I know is, this situation is not unique.