Ok?

In the post I replied to you said you can’t find used cars for less than 10k.

Now you’re saying people are too time/money poor to buy a $1k car, which is true for some, but that’s way different than your last point.

At some point you’re too poor to buy a car, and that sucks. Not sure how cheap people expect a 2000lb hunk of engineered metal, glass, and a combustion engine that can propel you 300 miles should be, but I think $1k is cheap for that and it sucks if you can’t buy it. Either way.

But sitting here and complaining that the cheapest car you can find is $10k in your area is dumb, because what that tells me is all you’re doing is going to look at nice stuff at carvana or CarMax.

Craigslist. Local auction. Random crap for sale at the curb in neighborhoods.

I guarantee you can go on Craigslist for your area right now and find cars that run for like $1k or less.

Probably all hoopdie ass shitboxes, but wait a couple months and keep an eye and you’ll find something that runs from the 2000s that’s not a total piece of shit for like $3k, with around 300-350k miles.

Are they great? No. Cheap as hell to insure? Yes. Cost the same price as 5 months of a car payment, and last for years with basic maintenance costs and worse gas mileage? Very likely yes.

Non native English speakers really struggle with at, on, and in. Don’t feel bad for being confused it’s super, super common, and most non native speakers will struggle with this no matter how fluent they become.

For general example, if somebody is sitting inside an airplane, you can say they’re on the plane, or they’re in the plane. You could also say they’re at the plane, but that’s really only used in certain contexts.

In the context you’re asking about, “at the port” at and in are synonymous, essentially. The article isn’t specific enough so it’s reasonable to assume that somewhere within the port’s boundary area, fence line perhaps, there was a temporary facility that was bombed.

Since they used the term “at” though, it COULD mean that it was directly outside the port boundaries. Like right outside the fence, perhaps.

Sorry. Not sure if any of this helps.

Until ads are responsible and don’t carry risks of injecting malware and trackers, I will block them without prejudice.

Even back in the day they would try to hijack your browser, redirect you to some random page, destroy ability of your back button to take you out, and throw up a ton of popups.

I don’t think blocking them is an asshole move until ads are served responsibly, without threatening my security or privacy. When, and if, that day ever arrives I will stop blocking them because I understand that most sites subsist solely off ad revenue, at least in this current Internet model we live with.

Honestly? Without evidence, they’re both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.

It’s just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.

Beans, mf

Fucking BEANS is the answer

And onion, garlic, tomato, Bell pepper

But LOTS OF BEANS is the most correct answer

I’ve never heard or seen any of that. Can you provide sources?