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.

I believe the argument being used is roughly analogous to lending something to someone.

If you borrow a lawnmower, it doesn’t get auctioned off when you go bankrupt. You get to use it however you like and if you commit a crime with it you’re responsible. It’s still ultimately owned by the person who leant it to you.

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.

The sushi I see sold in the stores near me is usually restocked a few times during the day since they keep smaller quantities on hand, usually early morning, late morning and late afternoon, to get people for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
I also think it’s a pretty high margin food. You usually just need a little veggies and some rice, and optionally a pretty small amount of fish for the price you pay.
One person can then prepare two or three rolls at once in a couple of minutes.

It’s not great sushi usually, but it’s at least better than the majority of grab and go foods.

Smurf yeah we can.

U.S. Representative John Duarte, a Republican and fourth-generation farmer in California’s Central Valley, said farms in the area depend on immigrants in the U.S. illegally and that small towns would collapse if those workers were deported. Duarte’s congressional seat is one of a handful of close races where a winner has yet to be declared. Duarte said the Trump administration should pledge that immigrant workers in the country for five years or longer with no criminal record will not be targeted and look at avenues to permanent legal status.

Wow, it’s almost like when faced with the consequences of your profoundly cruel and destructive rhetoric, suddenly some form of tempered, compassionate approach seems like a good idea. 🙄

Assholes.

They might have gotten their approval before getting roped in, or they might have gotten it during the time before the financial meltdown when bankers had no incentive to ever deny a mortgage request.

a single nuke in orbit would emp a whole continent and destabilize climate

That’s a bit overblown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

We’ve done orbital tests before and while the effects are more than we expected, they are not continent crippling or climate destabilizing.

about 900 miles (1,450 km) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms, and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian Islands.

It’s definitely not good, and there’s a reason we all agreed not to do that anymore, but it’s really more about the damage it does to satellites that hurts everyone, and the damage being too unstructured to be worth investigating too far.

Worth bearing in mind that we never actually retaliated against the power most closely tied to the attackers.
Most of the people involved were Saudi and they may have had Saudi assistance. Instead we invaded Afghanistan where he was for a period of time, and Iraq who had nothing to do with anything.

So Russia attacking the US could plausibly result in us suspending habeus corpus, abolishing the FDA and spending a decade embroiled in a land war in Azerbaijan.

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.

Didn’t you hear? The past was always better, and Now is always the low ebb in the decline of our civilization until we return to the values that made yesterday great.

If the past is somehow to blame for the problems of today, that might mean there was something wrong with the past. If that’s the case, then maybe other things from the past have problems, including things that I like or benefit me personally, or that changing would imply a lot of big scary changes that I’m not ready for.

That’s why attempts to talk about little mistakes from the past like chattel slavery, indigenous genocide, phillipino genocide or endemic discrimination and institutionalized racism are just attempts by bad people to tear down perfection and keep us from returning to a simpler, better time where those mistakes never happened.

More like cereal infiltrating your bowl of cereal after being poured out of an unlabeled clear bag.

“You’re never gonna believe this, but someone snuck Cheerios into my bowl while I was pouring from this sack! The container wasn’t labeled, so I couldn’t possibly have known what was inside, despite it being plainly visible and entirely out in the open”

Why the fuck do we care what musk thinks about anything? Jesus fuck just ignore the asshole. His endorsement means nothing.

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.

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.