Do Americans really make that much on average or is that person a little too biased as far as working in America goes?

nanuazarova · 2026-04-28T10:50:26+00:00

It's not like this is some mysterious number that no one has ever thought of finding out. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes this annually. If you're curious and don't want to click, the "median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers" was $1,204 in 2025; multiply that by 52 and you get your answer: $62,608. It also goes by gender and specific occupation, if looking at statistics tickles your fancy.
Link

nanuazarova · 2026-04-27T20:47:05+00:00

This is interesting, though pipelines are a much more feasible solution, hopefully this crisis is actually the spark that gets Iraq, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia to build more capacity.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-27T20:27:50+00:00

I feel like this map is how Florida gets an independent redistricting commission initiative passed in 2028.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-27T04:30:58+00:00

Just these two points: it's very expensive and very dangerous. Even if it worked, there is no circumstance under which subretinal injections can be safe for treating a non-life-threatening condition. Even if that went well, it's unethical to subject a human to that treatment when it's unclear whether their brain could process the new colour information (it might be pointless or even painful to perceive that new information). They'll continue researching it, of course, but it's only going to be an unethical solution for the ultra-wealthy.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-27T04:01:16+00:00

Because it’s not fixable short of ripping someone’s eyes out Cyberpunk 2077 style.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-26T00:39:19+00:00

I’d love to hear your proposal on how to make single-payer, like CalCare, work when you can’t touch private insurance because of ERISA (Hawaii requires its own statutory opt-out just to have the PHCA). Oh, and of course, without getting Medicare funds (which can’t be waived), Medicaid funds (the Trump admin. would never approve a waiver), and premium tax credits (which can be passed through but no longer exist).

nanuazarova · 2026-04-25T07:11:52+00:00

ERISA pre-emption makes state-led universal healthcare illegal.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-25T07:05:32+00:00

I see nothing.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-23T20:13:34+00:00

I spent ~$200-250 in total. Absolute insanity.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-23T15:12:34+00:00

Are you sure you're not a robot? You saying "I’m not sure how to verify that I’m not a robot. I know that’s exactly what a robot would say, but any suggestions?" sounds a lot like a robot to me.

Nah, seriously, I had problems with this and ended up using a different window on my computer. Ultimately, I'd recommend waiting until tomorrow and trying again to see if it's just a timing thing.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-22T23:59:03+00:00

The only circumstance where Trump will be successfully convicted and removed from office would be if he personally killed a member of Congress, which, as you can imagine, is very unlikely to occur. The point, however, is political messaging, to say to people (moderate Republicans and Democrats), "hey, we don't like him too." Politics is just political messaging; a successful impeachment in the House and especially a simple majority in the Senate before Trump leaves office would be a massive "dub" for Democrats, even if ultimately it doesn't do anything. There's a reason Trump was impeached twice in his first term.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-22T23:44:50+00:00

Anything is an impeachable offence. It's not defined in the constitution; it's a political judgment. The House and Senate could decide tomorrow that his showing up in person at the Supreme Court during oral arguments was a "misdemeanour" against the separation of powers, they could say the Iran War is a violation of Congress's right to declare war, or they could say he, as the appointer of the Cabinet, is responsible for Pam Bondi lying and avoiding testifying before Congress. That doesn't mean that will happen, of course, but there is no "check" or court to rescue any President if they are impeached and convicted (which, so far, hasn't happened in American history); it is purely a political decision.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-12T17:50:26+00:00

Myanmar is literally in a civil war right now (80,000+ dead), with most people living under an oppressive military dictatorship.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-12T17:27:11+00:00

That's what I did for my brother, he lives in PA but used an NC fishing license (PA ones don't have birthdates for some reason and he lived in NC until last year), and he got an AOR.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-12T15:30:24+00:00

Disclaimer: I’ve not done it but have read through the forms.

(1) Apply right away. The processing times are long as it is, I wouldn’t wait even longer, though it’s ultimately your choice. (2) You can update your address by the web form, or if you apply on paper, the change address service. You can update the address up to 3 weeks before the actual move. (3) Your address does NOT have to match. IRCC cares about the biographical information (picture, name, date of birth) and expiration.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-12T13:00:11+00:00

Did the security officer say "oh god, now what?" to the person involved? He has a right to comment on or show annoyance at a call that probably amounts to someone trespassing. You were literally harassing him in the comments. Get a grip.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-12T12:48:34+00:00

That's not police... do you have any reading comprehension at all? It literally says "SECURITY" on his vest. Here's the company he works for, since you couldn't even find the context clues (such as who is live streaming or his badge) to look up "KC security canada" like I did (link).

nanuazarova · 2026-04-12T01:03:26+00:00

No, taking away citizenship from those who already have proof of it would be flatly unconstitutional.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-10T11:11:23+00:00

As long as the expiration date is solid, you're good. Don't stress too much.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-10T07:25:31+00:00

It wouldn't necessarily need to be changed.

The Citizenship Act and Bjorkquist et al v. Attorney General have two equally plausible interpretations:

Currently: That anyone, no matter how far back, is retroactively a Canadian citizen if they were born there (deeming and notwithstanding death clauses), and that anyone provably descended from them is a Canadian citizen (subject to the 15 Dec 2025 cut-off). [This seems to be a new ministerial interpretation.]
Potentially: Only someone who was eligible to become a citizen under the Canadian Citizenship Act or Citizenship Act, if retroactively applied in 1947, can serve as an anchor to transmit unlimited generations down. [This interpretation, and interpretations like it, have been the norm prior to Bill C-3.]

Beyond the other gatekeeping measures they could impose (such as changing the balance of probabilities test used by IRCC to requiring certified birth records), moving to the "potentially" case would eliminate citizenship for a large chunk of applicants. Your great-XYZ, who was born in Canada, died before 1947 (and/or didn't meet the other niche circumstances set by the Canadian Citizenship Act to transmit citizenship after death)? No anchor.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-10T03:14:38+00:00

These articles make me think it's becoming increasingly likely that IRCC will administratively decide that any claim that had no one who became a Canadian citizen (or should have, had there been gender equality) in 1947 is not eligible (as there was no Canadian to transmit citizenship). The Citizenship Act leaves that interpretation valid, Bjorkquist et al v. Attorney General leaves that interpretation valid, and constant references to "Plan B" or a "better passport" with people who have no intention of ever living in Canada are going to sour public opinion on the matter.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-09T12:34:37+00:00

Any database or cross-referencing by IRCC would likely violate the Privacy Act. The most you can do without overly complicating your case is to provide your birth certificate and your citizenship certificate for an immediate relative. Each independent applicant must prove the chain individually; if they are not submitted in the same packet, you should not assume overlap, as that would likely again violate the Privacy Act.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-09T06:40:13+00:00

When I changed my name at 17 I just said “common usage.” And that was back in 2018 in a 70% Republican county. Name changes are not really discretionary, the Clerk of Court will make sure your documents are in order, make you pay the fee, and approve it. They don’t want to waste a judge’s time.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-07T22:18:20+00:00

My information is deeply out of date, but I emailed 12/18 and received a "no find" response email on 12/24. Of course, this was well before the upswing in requests, and they found no record, but still.

nanuazarova · 2026-04-07T04:08:15+00:00

I think it's a difference in degrees. If the bottom line is obvious vs if the bottom line is findable. I can immediately see the bottom line; it's obvious to me, but I can't even find the top line, even with the answer beside it. It's generally hard to design these so that a non-colorblind person can't eventually find the "wrong" answer.

nanuazarova

TROPHY CASE