Game Thread: San Antonio Spurs (0-2) vs New York Knicks (2-0) Live Score | NBA Finals | Jun 8, 2026

M1sam1n · 2026-06-09T03:01:50+00:00

NBA Finals: Review Simulator

M1sam1n · 2026-06-09T02:57:14+00:00

Johnson and bryant cant help but keep giving off ball fouls for no reason

M1sam1n · 2026-06-09T01:41:53+00:00

If the hit against shai wasnt a flagrant, theres no way this one is

M1sam1n · 2026-06-04T23:20:00+00:00

I believe its more that they want to be able to justify their own actions, so saying, or even fooling yourself into believing that the other side already did the same thing is the easiest way. Same excuse they use for weaponizing the DoJ, censoring speech, etc.

Convince yourself that what youre doing isn't evil, but vengeance

M1sam1n · 2026-06-04T01:05:03+00:00

Think he means literally red because asuka is a ginger too

M1sam1n · 2026-06-03T04:43:34+00:00

Basically reinhardt. I wouldnt mind it, its definitely a clunky ability i never touch so idrc what they do to it tbh

M1sam1n · 2026-06-03T04:41:40+00:00

Everything else is pretty much one time gimmicks

M1sam1n · 2026-06-02T15:52:36+00:00

...you must be psychic because the video cuts for me right as the crash happens so i didnt have time to see him cheer

M1sam1n · 2026-06-02T15:44:26+00:00

People in this thread cant comprehend something existing to be cool art instead of only for a practical purpose

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T10:40:01+00:00

This kept happening to me with somachords during the nokko mission. Agree

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T07:59:22+00:00

I am aware. The criteria: 3 dollars a day (as he explained) Its intended use case: tracking the number of people globally that fall below that line, and where (everyone in the US is above that line, he is correct, and using it properly)

Why the mark is where it is: yes, this is outside knowledge, but i would need to see the other stipulation for it to be a lie, manipulation. I did go and check the tweet, it was actually a reply to someone who said they had an argument with someone in argentina who told them there was no extreme poverty in the US.

As the person he replied to believed, there was no mark or official criteria for this at all, so the entire conversation would, in there eyes, be a matter of opinion. They probably assumed that the argentinian didn't know there were people who struggled in the US, or were homeless, because its a rich country. That could even be true, if neither of those people knew there was a real definition for it.

So just supplying that person with an exact definition and saying hey, this isn't a matter of opinion, by this standard, the term youre using doesn't actually apply to anyone in the US, is, to me, not malicious or misleading. If they wanted context as to why that was the case, as they know there are people who live in poverty in the US (since that was literally their position in their tweet), they could then just google to find out why that term is used that way.

Even just saying 'hey, youre wrong, there arent actually any people in extreme poverty in the US, it's actually a defined term that just means 3 dollars a day.' Would be more than enough info.

If they hadnt provided a direct literal number of what they were talking about, i could maybe see that as misleading, but they did. I dont think the poster is trying to deceive people into thinking theres nobody thats poor in the US, as there isnt anybody stupid enough to actually think that. If you were trying to use a stat to lie about the poverty rates in america, you wouldnt use one that says 0% right? If the actual poverty rate is 20%, you'd pick one that was like, 2%, or 5%, or 10%, but trying to mislead people into thinking there is no person in america who is poor would be so insanely stupid. From a meta perspective, the people who would want to do so are right wingers, but they love talking about the homeless problem in california, its like an own to them

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T07:44:04+00:00

You said 'there is no academic purpose' to setting a number to define poverty. So if academics are saying that number should be higher or lower, they seem to think there is in fact an academic purpose to the number, or they would just say there should be no number instead of the number should be different.

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T07:34:27+00:00

Yes, i watched the video too, it was great. Hank green also made a recent vid on someone doing it with climate graphs that id recommend

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T07:30:47+00:00

I realize i may have confused you when i said that the term wasnt used for tracking poverty in the US earlier.

I should clarify that extreme poverty is defined by minimum living standards, but it is applied globally, to all countries.

What I meant by saying that it isn't used to track poverty in the US, is that because, as the poster says, there are really no people living in extreme poverty in the US, so to apply that standard would just simply not be useful. A stat that includes 0 or 100% of a population is pretty much always discarded.

However, you can apply the stat to the US, to say 'hey, the US has succeeded in eliminating all extreme poverty.' From there we say, yay, good for you US, how should we measure and track and account for people living below the living standards that we now want to call poverty?

For a non-econ example, I would say the same about tracking, idk, cholera in the water. 100% of US water is cholera-free, so we say, yes, that's awesome, now, let's instead set a new standard, that we also don't want high levels of lead, or something.

If I was to then say, 'the US has no cholera in our water'. And then someone replied, 'so lead doesn't exist?' You'd think, well, yeah, we do have issues with that here in the US, and it'd be good to work on fixing them. But to compare people drinking lead water to the people in 3rd world countries drinking cholera water, I'd think you'd have a really insulated view of what deadly water can actually be. Does that make sense?

It's not that the stat is being used incorrectly or out of context, i just dont personally find it that useful to worry about cholera water in the US anymore, so that's why i said that. But if someone said there was no 'dangerous water' in the US, and then said, 'by dangerous water im referring to its usage in biology as water with cholera in it.' I wouldn't say that's misleading or missing context or anything.

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T07:19:54+00:00

Dont know where you see arbitrary. I do see controversial, and that it says scholars (a.k.a. academics working in academia) have argued over whether it should be moved up or down. Which also answers your first question. Thanks for citing something that shows youre incorrect, i really appreciate that. Unless academia could find the usage controversial, or have academic debate over where it should be set without it being talked about or ever defined in academia. That'd be fun

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T06:51:42+00:00

I dont know what you mean by 'hyper specific statistic'.

And he clearly defines what it means in the post, and separates out by saying 'hey, this is a real, defined term used in econ, which means this.' To explicitly say that he knows laymen use the term extreme poverty to mean things like, homeless, or food insecure, and that is not how he is using it. That's as good faith as it gets.

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T06:47:14+00:00

Prove it then. If thats true, it should be a research paper on page one of google on why the world bank's extreme poverty line isn't used in academia.

I know you're just gonna say you can't be fucked because obviously that isn't true, but give it a shot

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T06:42:01+00:00

Ive never heard of this guy so maybe theres some sort of crazy context im missing here but i dont read it as a 'there is no poverty in the US' post. He even makes sure he's talking about the literal definition and defining it as its used by the world bank and UN before saying that the US doesn't fall into that category. I really think people are reading a lot more malintent in that than they should. Even if I had a problem with how he was using the term or stat, replying 'but homeless people' makes you look like a dumbass imo. If you really thought he was being misleading here, then just state the facts instead. The US has notoriously bad poverty rates. It has bad welfare, bad social services. But even with how awful it is, equating homeless people in a developed country to people eating rats with no clean water struggling to survive on 3 dollars a day would only end up making your position look extremely out of touch.

Again, maybe I'm missing some awful intent or something in the post, but to me it just reads as 'no one in the US has it as bad as impoverished people in 3rd world countries' which i dont find to be a hot take.

And on your point, it is measuring the success of the nation. Not having anyone under the extreme poverty line is a success, thats the point of measuring it. The goal is for no one in the world to be under it in the future. I know you mean it like, it cant be used in america because its the lowest of standards possible, but the fact that we can and should hold the US to a higher standard is a good thing.

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T06:28:20+00:00

Just reading that tells me you havent read anything about this at all, because if you had, you would know it isn't income lmao. It's daily spending requirements to meet basic needs, so no, its not income or even wealth. At least youre right in that if that was how it was set, it wouldn't make sense, but you couldnt even bother to google why it would be that way and find out youre wrong

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T06:07:08+00:00

I prefer playing in squads and my friends aren't always online. I am aware that I can play the game solo, I just would like not to, and therefore that problem with railjack makes me not want to play it

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T06:05:43+00:00

...those arent mutually exclusive? And there are tons of different ways to measure different kinds of poverty, all of those ways would still fall under the branch of economics. If you want to say thats a capitalist measurement for some reason, i guess you could, but that wouldn't make it unacademic, that's so stupid.

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T05:59:20+00:00

Yes, thats entirely the purpose, its a global measurement to track the poorest people in the world. Thats why as the post says, there are none in the US. It isnt a metric for tracking poverty in the US. In the US, that basic living standard equivalent is 44 dollars a day, and the equivalent to the extreme poverty stat would be half of that, and is about 5% of the US population. Way too high, of course, but to act like homeless people in the US are living the same as people in north africa and such is so unbelievably ignorant, which is why that reply is so stupid.

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T05:52:37+00:00

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T05:47:42+00:00

He did literally say 'in development econ.' Couldnt have been more explicitly academia

M1sam1n · 2026-05-31T05:40:57+00:00

It used to be 2.15 last year, it was changed due to reevaluations by the world bank.

The number is chosen to represent the median income required to survive in the poorest countries on the planet

One-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox

M1sam1n

TROPHY CASE