https://www.supermoney.com/how-many-people-make-over-100k

https://spendmenot.com/how-many-people-make-over-100k/

https://www.fool.com/money/personal-finance/articles/heres-how-many-families-make-100k-or-more-per-year/

These links cite out-of-date numbers. The latest numbers are significantly higher.

Roughly 40% of households are currently over $100K, which is not that different than the 45% of travelers who are over $100K.

https://www.marketingscoop.com/small-business/how-many-people-make-over-100k/ only 15.5% of households earn between $100,000 and $150,000 annually. Including those making $150k or above, the percentage rises to 34.1%. That means a full 85.5% of US households get by on less than a six-figure income.

This person needs to check their math...

In the US, median household income was $80,610 in 2023. So it's not surprising that 55% of holiday travelers have household income under $100K.

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are not black or brown, not African, and not Muslim.

Every proposal regarding climate change involves numerous assumptions.

Superconductors and Bose-Einstein condensates are both macroscopic phenomena that result from coherent matter waves.

To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables

The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be less than $5b/yr, which includes R&D. In other words, this is something that the government of New York City (annual budget: >$100b) could easily do alone without any international support, even in the face of significant opposition.

In contrast, ending fossil fuel use requires significant international cooperation and is regularly stymied by opposing interests. NYC obviously cannot do it by itself.

So from a pragmatic perspective, geoengineering is definitely the easiest solution. In fact IMO the lack of progress on emission reduction makes it inevitable, at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

Don't confuse the Gulf Stream and the AMOC. The Gulf Stream might collapse due to climate change, and the results would be very bad.

But the AMOC is primarily driven by the rotation of the Earth. It can be altered by climate change but it cannot collapse.

Honest question: has the USA or NATO ever attempted to invade the USSR or Russia?

07 Sep. 2023 18:25

OCTOBER 12, 2023 7:09 PM CET

LOL you really thought nobody was going to check the dates on those articles? Hmm, I wonder if anything happened in Palestine since last October.

Gift link: https://econ.st/3OoMJzz

Exactly.

In fact the purpose of the paper is to examine the effect of groundwater pumping on sea level. There are two competing hypotheses: (1) pumping decreases sea level by sequestering water, and (2) pumping increases sea level for complex reasons.

The authors noted that these hypotheses would imply different small changes in axis tilt. They measured axis tilt and found it supports hypothesis 2. The small change in axis tilt is simply a clever way to answer the question, it has no other impact on our life.

Sea level rise is certainly significant. But your title implies that it is caused by axis tilt. That's incorrect. It is caused by groundwater pumping, which is also causing axis tilt. In other words, if axis tilt were magically reversed it wouldn't make any difference on sea level.

Axis tilt is an effect, not a cause. You should read the original article, it's less confusing than the summary you linked.

Really.

Did you read the original article? The axis tilt was actually hard to detect because it's dwarfed by all the other things that normally cause polar drift. (Yes, the axis tilt changes even in the absence of human activity).

Your title is misleading. The article does not say that the 31.5 inch axis tilt is having a huge impact on our planet. It says groundwater pumping is causing changes in sea level and also causing a change in the axis tilt.

The axis tilt itself is an effect, not a cause.

As I said, he's unlikely to be impeached. But it's not impossible, if his deport+tariff plan sparks a Depression scale stock market crash and his popularity plummets. In that case, the oligarchs and populists of the GOP might agree they prefer Vance.

This time they have to decide who among them will take his mantle in 2028. Whoever it is needs to be ready in 2027, so the hunger games are starting sooner than you think.

Of course they do. To name just one example, in Bush v Gore the SCOTUS overturned a ruling made by the Florida Supreme Court.

What makes you think this is over?

This is exactly what you'd expect if the judge wants to sentence Trump to jail. He can't do it now, it would be immediately overturned by the SCOTUS.

So he has no choice but to wait until 2029 (or possibly sooner, in the unlikely event that Trump is impeached again).

Technically, no. "Do no harm" was the motto of a 19th century French physician and later made its way into medical textbooks, but it is not found in the Hippocratic oath.

I think a fair number of people voted for him because they thought higher tariffs and fewer immigrants would increase blue collar wages. Which is not necessarily wrong, but it ignores a lot of additional potentially catastrophic effects on the economy.