MrConfusion @ MrConfusion @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

7

Joined

2 yr. ago

What you are referring to is absolute poverty. However, even if you can cover the very basics, such as rent, food and healthcare, if you have a lot less than most people that is known as relative poverty. Both are important to combat. I am assuming the definition is made as it is because it is quite simple to compute. Finding a good measure for cost of living is a lot more complex and easy to get stuck arguing what is an acceptable standard of living.

I don't understand why you claim it would be impossible to reach the definition?

A simple constructed example: if the median income is € 20 by hour. A minimum wage of, say, € 15 would be considered safe. Why is that impossible?

A quick Google search shows me Destatis.de claims the median wage in April 2023 was € 24.59. Then 60% of that would be € 14.75. I would assume the median has increased a bit from 2023, and will increase further towards 2027, but I would from these numbers expect € 16 to for example be high enough to be considered safe from poverty, which isn't that much higher than the proposed number.

The neat thing about using the median instead of the mean is that increasing the minimum wage only affects those earning the least, and thus doesn't directly affect the median.

I wish we had 3 phase, but the fact is many European homes only have 1 phase. The distribution is 3-phase, but the residential wiring is only set up to use only 1 phase and upgrading the whole electrical system of our home is simply too expensive. This is in Norway, but it's similar in many countries.

We recently installed a charger, and the electrician put in a 32A breaker. He told us you should never run continuous draw above 80% of the breaker, which gives us 25A * 230V = 5.75 kW as our max charging speed. Not fantastic by any means, but means we can go from 10 to 80% overnight, which is good enough for us. If we need a fast charge, the local gas station has a 250 kW charger anyways, so we could top of if need be - though we have never needed that so far.

What are you talking about? The BBC article references the research paper directly?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4503401/

The goal of pasteurization is to kill of harmful pathogens. If you do this early and package and store the milk in the right conditions it can be stable and safe for a long time.

If you don't pasteurize the milk and leave it for a long time, pathogens in the milk, such as bacteria, can potentially produce toxins. Boiling it at that point might not help, no, as it kills the bacteria, but can leave behind the toxins.

So pasteurization is very effective if done early, but you can't do whatever you want to the milk and then pasteurize it right before using it and everything is good.

The ad is from the Israeli real estate company Harey Zahav. They posted this on their Instagram account. After criticism and backlash they claimed it was posted as a joke.

The Norwegian journalist collaborative fact checking service Faktisk.no has done a deep dive on this ad with a lot of detail if you want to check it out. You can read it using google translate (or similar tools) you are interested.

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdplr/kraftige-reaksjoner-etter-spok-om-boligprosjekt-i-gaza

Some interesting facts from the article: the ad text says they are working to prepare for a return to Gush Katif, an earlier Israeli settlement in Gaza. The company is responsible for the development of settlements on the West Bank. The owner of the company lives in Moscow and seems to be an oligarch.

So based on the info in the linked in the article the ad is very real. And while the company behind it claims it was all a joke, that does seem a lot like damage control.

They are talking about .gov websites. Any website operated by the US government should, at least according to their own standards, develop for and test for users using Firefox. If this is followed in practice the article doesn't really cover.