I interpreted that as for soups and stews. Peel the clove and plop it in. Once the cooking is done, take it out, like you would do with a bay leaf.
I personally would never use garlic that way. I absolutely put it crushed into my stews. But that’s how I read the image.
That would only be true if what people had to spend their money on stayed the same, and the author goes through great detail showing that the individual components of what people have to spend their money on to “exist” (i.e. a minimum cost of economic participation) have changed drastically in 60 years. Not only that, some of those pieces (child care, health care, higher education) have increased in cost breathtakingly faster than inflation. Sure, you could reduce that to a statement that “therefore the inflation metric is wrong,” but the author goes on to show what a better, more representative metric would look like and tell us about the economy, and that’s a good discussion mostly orthogonal to whether the inflation calculation is correct.
This is an amazing breakdown of how catastrophically bad the definition of the federal poverty line is in the modern economy. They use sound logic and data to calculate that the value should not be around $31,000, but in fact closer to $140,000.
With this foundation, they revisit common graphs that economists trot out to “prove” life has objectively improved for the majority of Americans in the last 60 years, and show that they actually show the opposite. Those graphs are built on top of the poverty line, and that calculation is bunk, so the whole argument crumbles.
The obvious next step would be to calculate the improved poverty line at key points in America’s last 6 decades and generate corrected graphs, but that seems like a monumental effort. I feel like someone could make that into a dissertation.
It always bothered me in class that they said the magnetic field of light was just too weak to have any significant effect compared to the electric field, but I just accepted it because I was still learning. Good to know my intuition wasn’t too far off.
There’s no “how” explained in this article. It’s a few paragraphs saying very vague, abstract things, with just one somewhat concrete example in the lightsabre that I didn’t really get because they didn’t go into any real explanation. Is this article written by a movie critic for an audience of movie critics? Because I definitely don’t seem to be the target audience.