If you don't live in the city, you're going to have to live without $30 ham and cheese sandwiches. Think you can handle that? No, you can't. Stay in the city.

Hahahahaha. (Note: Eli is the owner)

Hell yeah, we shrinkin' 🥳🎉

Today I learned that more than ¼ of Daily Poor subscribers love science and the USDA. 😭

Exposing your finger to water heated to a temperature of 165°F, even for a fleeting moment, absent any mitigating factors, will invariably result in a burn. Similarly, submerging your finger in water maintained at 130°F for a minute will also cause a burn. However, if the exposure to water at 130°F is constrained to a brief period of a few seconds, your finger will emerge unscathed, with no burn injuries.

The USDA, in mandating a minimum internal temperature of 165°F for the safe consumption of chicken, is essentially proclaiming that water at 130°F is incapable of inflicting burns because it does not occur instantaneously upon contact. The USDA's position implies that if a specific temperature fails to eradicate harmful bacteria within a matter of seconds, it is deemed categorically unsafe. However, this stance is unsubstantiated and fails to consider the temporal dimension. If a particular temperature requires a full minute to effectively eliminate bacteria, then the paramount consideration should be whether the food item was maintained at that temperature for the requisite duration. Analogously, if the process necessitates an hour-long exposure, it would be misguided to simply deem it "unsafe" without evaluating whether the food was subjected to the specified temperature for the appropriate time period.

Pathogenic bacteria remain vulnerable to thermal inactivation at the lower temperatures employed in cooking chicken to a medium-rare doneness; the process merely necessitates a more prolonged exposure compared to the higher temperature of 165°F. Consequently, the consumption of medium-rare chicken can be rendered safe, provided that the meat is held at the appropriate lower temperature for a sufficiently extended period of time.

Americans have always and will always love distorting the truth for political ends. The "Boston Massacre" is a great and early example. Leftists getting riled up and rioting over some lie is practically in our blood. It's American as can be.

On the 2nd of March, 1770, a soldier asking for employment at Gray’s rope-walk was refused in coarse language. He insisted on having a boxing-match with one of the workmen, and was beaten. He returned with some companions and was driven off, and a larger number coming to fight with clubs and cutlasses were also driven off. On the night of the 5th there was much disturbance in the streets; the soldiers were swaggering and threatening, and the citizens and boys replying to them in language equally abusive. The mob, armed with clubs, balls of ice, and stones inside of snow-balls, finally pressed upon a picket guard of eight men, daring them to fire. The soldiers restrained themselves for some time, until one, receiving a blow, fired his musket, and immediately six of the others fired. Three citizens were killed and eight wounded.

There was at once great excitement in the town. The bells were rung; the cry was spread, “The soldiers are rising,” and many believed that a general attack by the citizens on the soldiery was narrowly averted. The next day a town meeting was called. A committee, of which Samuel Adams was chairman, urged Governor Hutchinson to remove all the soldiers from the town to preserve the peace and prevent an attack by the people, who would soon be swarming in from the country. After some hesitation Hutchinson agreed that the soldiers should be sent down the harbor to the castle. This was, from one point of view, a wise and creditable expedient to prevent violence. But we must also remember that it was a yielding on the part of England to the demands of the colonists, with the redoubtable rebel Sam Adams at their head.

The captain of the guard and the eight men had been immediately arrested. They were turned over to the civil authorities of the colony, regularly tried, defended by John Adams and Josiah Quincy, and the captain and six of the men acquitted. The remaining two were brought in guilty of manslaughter, and slightly punished. This trial reflected the greatest credit not only on the jury, but on Adams and Quincy, who were patriot leaders; and the verdict of the jury showed that the soldiers had not been seriously to blame. But most of the patriot party seized upon the occurrence for their own purposes. They called it the “Boston Massacre,” and Paul Revere prepared a colored engraving of the scene, calling it the “Bloody Massacre.” They exaggerated it into a ferocious and unprovoked assault by brutal soldiers upon a defenceless people, and the eagerness with which this exaggeration was encouraged showed whither events were tending.

Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Flint, Detroit.

Lmao

How tall do you guys think Matthew and Tim are?