unicorn

In California, fast food workers earn a minimum of $20 an hour. Everyone else gets a minimum of $16 an hour, or more depending on the city. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/minimum_wage.htm#:~:text=Fast Food Minimum Wage Effective,at least %2420.00 per hour. Even the burger flipper at McDonald's has access to a 401(k) retirement plan: https://www.mccourtesy.com/content/careers/benefits-pay/employee-benefits I lived modestly during my working years so I could maximize my retirement plan contributions and live a care-free retirement.

It's probably fairly foolish to retire on social security alone, but in the US it comes up to $3822 if one starts collecting at 67. If one waits until one is 70 to collect (as I plan to do, assuming continued good health), then one can collect $4873 per month. Of course, these amounts usually increase each year, and I suspect it will be at least $5000 a month when I turn 70. https://www.bankrate.com/retirement/maximum-social-security-benefit/#:~:text=Here's an explanation for how,age is %243%2C822 per month. "Your maximum Social Security benefit depends significantly on the age you file for your benefit, among other factors such as your contributions to the program: Your maximum benefit if you file at age 62 – the youngest possible age – is $2,710 per month. Your maximum benefit if you file at full retirement age – between 66 and 67 – is $3,822 per month. Your maximum benefit if you file at age 70 – the age when extra benefits stop accruing – is $4,873 per month."

What kind of an idiot retires on a pension of US$18,000 a year? That looks more like my monthly pension payment (well, not quite). And that doesn't include the income from my retirement accounts. Nor does it include my social security, which, when I start collecting it, alone will be more than twice that. Did he go through his entire working life not saving anything for retirement? His plan was to retire first, then start saving money????

No, I'm not. You're lying here. I never said they are more or not more frequent perps. I have no idea. What I said is that you should not make such a claim yourself without more solid evidence. Well, you do have a point there about his mysterious sources, and about his usually being loony and incomprehensible. Complete obfuscation. My comment obviously referred to your insinuation that trans women are more dangerous than cis (or other), not to the fact that murders are more dangerous than those who don't murder, which is also pretty obvious. Duh.

You're the one making the claim that trans women are "frequent perpetrators," not me. Therefore, you're the one with the burden of proof (and reporting about a single individual certainly does not meet that burden of proof), not me. That being said, @Riobard's prior post seems to refute your claim. Posting statistics showing a heightened danger regarding trans women could be helpful (if it were truthful, of course). Reporting a single incident involving a faceless trans woman is not. I agree with being cautious regarding "being aware of unsolicited physical advances leading to theft," in general. However, your original post is not helpful in distinguishing the more from the less dangerous. It might be helpful with respect to the one person were the photo displayed, but your post did not. Maligning an entire community based on one person simply constitutes stereotyping. Trump would be proud.

I still don't get how posting the name, but not the photo, of the suspect is at all helpful. Even if a member were to click the link to the article, the photo of the suspect is blurred and therefore unrecognizable. Or are you saying that trans women should be under increased suspicion? You certainly don't provide any statistics to back up that assertion.

Why are you reporting crimes by trans individuals and not those crimes by cis individuals?

Australian boomer

Although @Riobard can certainly be nutty on this forum, in this instance he's right. This, and other of your posts, @reader, unnecessarily impugns criminality on the trans community, while entirely failing to show a factual (statistical) link. I find it rather offensive.

I must commend Dustin Lance Black for not feeling jealous or protective...

Daniel Goodfellow

Some photos with Uber-stud Tom Daley:

Beautiful diver Matty Lee:

The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the US (and this doesn't even count those with vitamin D insufficiency) has been measured at 41.6%. Obviously, for places with less sunlight, such as Canada, Russia, and most of Europe, it's likely to be significantly higher. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/#:~:text=The overall prevalence rate of,followed by Hispanics (69.2%). "...The overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency [in the US] was 41.6%, with the highest rate seen in blacks (82.1%), followed by Hispanics (69.2%)...". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34004105/ "...In regions that represent a geographically representative sample of regions of the Russian Federation with a high risk of developing low levels of vitamin D, it's deficiency was noted in 55.96%, and the level of deficiency and insufficiency was recorded in 84.01%...". https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/sunbeds_co7a_en.pdf "...Between 70% and 97% of Canadians demonstrate vitamin D insufficiency. Furthermore, studies assessing 25(OH)D levels of vitamin D at 25–40 nmol/l reveal that many Canadians have profoundly deficient levels...".

You're the one who made the wacky claim, so you have the onus of finding such a study, not me. The best you could come up with was an observational study which looked at people who took massive, long-term overdoses of both vitamins A and D, orders of magnitude above recommended doses (even then, it couldn't even establish an association, since only two people developed completely unrelated cancers during the study period). On this forum, posting bogus, unscientific statements, based on lack of understanding of how to interpret studies, has the potential to harm people. In particular, scaring people away from safe and effective supplementation of vitamin D, the most common vitamin deficiency in most temperate countries, has the potential to increase the risk of serious fractures. Your misstatements regarding vitamin D and supplementation are Trumponian in magnitude. Statements don't become real because of fanciful imaginations. This issue has been studied. While, ideally, one will direct therapy according to the results of lab tests, the addition of 2000-3000 IU of vitamin D will not lead to vitamin D toxicity. In the absence of sun exposure, one will not get the vitamin D from one's diet, even if one ate rainbow trout and/or salmon daily--and certainly not from caviar, which adds negligible quantities. You have no idea what you're talking about, and should not be dispensing medical advice. Amazing that people believe Trump's outright lies. Hopefully, readers on this site won't believe yours.