booly @ booly @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

489

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's already happened to Facebook. And it's happening to Twitter. And Reddit. This stuff takes time, but the character and feel of each service has shifted considerably.

Even if you're using metric units, area of land times height of water is a common calculation. If you have a 200 hectare plot of land that you want to plant wheat on, and know that wheat needs about 35cm of rain to thrive, but a drought comes in where you only get 10cm, then you'll want to irrigate with 25 cm times 200 hectares = 5000 hectare cm of water. If you irrigate that volume from a 5000 hectare lake you can expect to deplete it by 1 cm, which would replenish with 0.1cm of rain if the watershed feeding that lake happens to be 50000 hectares itself. Or you could do it with square kilometers. Or square meters. The conversion itself just happens to want to stick with the area for ease of analysis, whenever talking about water use from rain or rivers or lakes.

See also the calorie (non-SI unit of energy that is still convenient for certain calculations), electron volt (non-SI unit of energy useful in quantum physics), or the watt hour (non-SI unit of energy useful for electricity use or battery capacity). These are all metric derived, but different units of the same thing (energy) based on ease of conversion in different calculations.

It's the amount of water to fill an acre sized area with 1 foot of water.

Acre inches and acre feet are used in a lot of land use and water use analyses. If a crop needs a certain number of inches per year of rain, or calculating the depth of flooding a certain amount of rain will cause, or how much water can be diverted from a river while fulfilling obligations to downstream rights owners, etc.

It's like watt hours or calories or light years or electron volts: not exactly an SI base unit but sometimes an easier unit for certain types of conversions and formulas.

Any quiet firing will tend to selectively get rid of more good workers than bad workers. The stars with good resumes and reputations in the industry can find good work elsewhere, and on the margins shittier work conditions will cause them to leave. The ones who can't get another job are the ones that stay, and aren't going to be as productive.

I'm going to answer from the perspective of U.S. law, because that's what I know.

age is a protected class

The idea of protected classes comes from whether Congress or a state legislature protected that class by passing a valid law prohibiting that kind of discrimination. We can describe that generally with protected classes, as a broad summary, but if you're actually going to get into the weeds of whether some kind of discrimination is legal or not you have to figure out the specific laws.

First, you have to ask what the context is. Is this employment discrimination? Public accommodations discrimination? Housing discrimination? Education discrimination? Each is governed by its own laws. For example Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VI has the same protected classes, but applies in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance (like universities and hospitals and others). The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination in providing credit on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex (like the Civil Rights Act) and adds on marital status, age, receipt of public assistance.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act add protections for discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against those over 40 on the basis of age.

So if you're talking about neighborhoods, you're only looking at housing discrimination, and not public accomodations or employment or schooling or anything like that. The Fair Housing Act doesn't prohibit housing discrimination on age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act doesn't apply to housing discrimination (and is one of the few that only goes one way, in protecting only people above 40).

How is that not the same as an “active white living” community that bans other races?

Because the Fair Housing Act prohibits whites-only neighborhoods, or any other kind of race discrimination in housing.

On a side note, there's also constitutional Equal Protection claims for governmental discrimination that comes from the Constitution rather than any law passed by Congress. Those aren't discussed in terms of "protected" class, but rather in "suspect class," where non-equal treatment on the basis of race, color, or religion is reviewed by the courts with "strict scrutiny" (and almost always struck down). Unequal treatment on the basis of sex or citizenship is subject to "intermediate scrutiny," which sometimes survives court review. Unequal treatment on the basis of pretty much anything else, though, gets "rational basis" review and basically survives if the government can come up with any rational reason for the rule.

Using scientific terminology in colloquial speech is weird and creepy in most contexts. Calling kids "juveniles" and women "females" carries certain connotations, most of them bad.

The scammers, which is to say most people at upper level positions in these companies, they just don't respect human life at all, and they'll take money wherever they can get it.

I think a lot of the profiteers in this space believe their positions are important and improve health outcomes, and that what's good for the world is good for the company. Pfizer will tell their investors that inventing a life saving drug (e.g., a COVID vaccine) will be good for health, and that the shareholder therefore deserve to make a hefty profit from it.

Same with the hospital execs. They'll pat each other on the back about how much good their hospital does, and see the very expensive billing department as an important function in their war against insurers.

And actual scammers, who bill for services not actually rendered, order unnecessary procedures, and prescribe the drugs the pretty rep is pushing, tend not to think they're doing anything wrong or that they're not hurting people.

People in each of these groups are saying in hushed tones that the insurance companies had it coming, and kinda sorta cheering the death of the United guy with their caveats ("well I'm not saying murder is OK but I'm not shedding tears," etc.).

We only had enough trash to sustain a dumpster fire for one year but by some miracle it's been stretched to 8 years.

The providers (hospitals, clinics, labs, doctor practices), insurers/payers (whether for profit like United, nonprofit like most Blue Cross Blue Shields, or government like Medicare), and pharmaceutical/medical device companies fight each other the whole time to make the most money off of the patients/beneficiaries/taxpayers. Big Pharma runs up prices and persuades doctors to prescribe their treatments, while doctors themselves have a profit motive in running up unnecessary treatments, all while insurers try not to pay for stuff, necessary or not.

It's a broken system, but it's also worth pointing out that the scammers in each camp hate the other camps just as much as the public does. There are hospital execs and pharma execs basically cheering on the anger at insurers, who will turn around and rip off the same victims in a different way.

Your whole baseline assumption in this thread is that most people are raised in an environment where they are likely to reach their full genetic potential. That's an assumption that isn't true in most populations.

If you have a population that has poor childhood nutrition, they won't grow to be as tall as if they had proper access to good food. If you have a heterogenous population where some have access to good nutrition and some don't, then the distribution of heights in that population will be less genetically determined than if they were all equally fed good nutrition.

Or, for another example, we know the number of fingers a person has is coded in their genes. But if you actually go perform a survey of the population to see how many fingers they have, and you collect their genomes, you wouldn't be able to correlate those observed outcomes to genomes, because pretty much everyone who has a number of fingers other than 10 got that way through something environmental (perhaps prenatal development, often an industrial accident or something). So the heritability of the number of fingers is actually close to zero.

Same with sports or fitness: rank the population by how fast they can run 5k, and you'll find out basically nothing about their genetics from those results. The variance in outcomes is utterly dominated by how much they actually run and train, not their genetic potential.

Turning to intelligence, that same phenomenon plays out. Childhood lead exposure, childhood nutrition, access to education (including mentorship and social support for learning), family stability, external stressors (and the accompanying internal changes to one's endocrine system and brain development in high stress environments), all contribute to intelligence. And certain traits that do affect intelligence are less heritable than others (e.g., certain cognitive conditions). All those factors put together in the real world "experiment" of how humans grow up differently mean that even if intelligence were highly heritable in a homogenous environment, the differences in people's environments would still get a wide distribution of outcomes due to non-genetic factors.

Yeah it's a somewhat standard reporting structure, of an intro paragraph about the stat, 4 paragraphs about a specific person's journey from unemployed college grad living with parents and mowing lawns for extra cash to becoming a CFO in the span of 15 years, and then a longer description of what the stats show, then placement of those stats in context comparing to Gen X and Boomers, and important caveats in what the stats actually mean (unclear whether this makes millennials better off when they're expected to face higher lifetime costs on housing and healthcare). Then it dives back into the anecdotes, including how most rich millennials perceive the fragility of their own financial position.

Here's an archive.is link:
https://archive.is/Gr6qG

I've read the article. It goes into detail in the stats across the entire generation. It talks about the big rise in both median and average household wealth for millennials between 2019 and 2022. It also acknowledges that the gap between 20th percentile and 80th percentile for millennials has grown to the largest in history for any generation.

It's the rise in house prices and the stock market. For millennials who already owned that stuff before the pandemic, and in a position to take advantage of the huge salary gains from the great resignation, the last 5 years have been a financial boon.

At the same time, if a bank goes under, that means they owe more than they own, so "ownership" of that entity is basically worthless. In those cases, a bailout of the customers does nothing for the owners, because the owners still get wiped out.

The GM bailout in 2009 also involved wiping out all the shareholders, the government taking ownership of the new company, and the government spinning off the newly issued stock.

AIG required the company basically issue new stock to dilute owners down to 20% of the company, while the government owned the other 80%, and the government made a big profit when they exited that transaction and sold the stock off to the public.

So it's not super unusual. Government can take ownership of companies as a condition of a bailout. What we generally don't necessarily want is the government owning a company long term, because there's some conflict of interest between its role as regulator and its interest as a shareholder.

They're killing the middle class though

Some schools might be, but not places like Chicago or Harvard. At least not through their tuition policies. They give financial aid to those up to a pretty high income threshold.

UChicago, for example, gives free tuition to anyone who is the first in their family to attend college, or makes less than $125k a year. Harvard, as I mentioned, essentially gives free tuition up to $150k. MIT's threshold is $200k. Families in these income ranges are doing pretty well for themselves.

And then when students graduate from these schools they have a pretty easy path to being rich themselves. The degree, the connections, and possibly the education itself provided a pathway towards six figure jobs, maybe $200k+, before the age of 30.

So no, I think these schools are a pretty good value proposition for even the middle class. Upper middle class has to pay the highest percentage of their own income, but it's still worth the cost for them.

All the schools rip off the rich to subsidize the middle class. You're essentially subsidizing a bunch of students who are paying close to nothing.m, because you can afford $70k tuition.

As another example, Harvard is free for anyone whose family makes less than $85k per year. Not just the tuition ($56k per year), but also the housing (worth $13k), food ($8k), health insurance ($1600), books, and a modest living stipend designed to cover things like a computer, commuting/travel, other expenses.

And those who make up to $150k per year are capped at 10% of their income to pay for all that. In the end, the average cost of Harvard for the typical student is about $15,000 per year including housing and food.

In other words, attending Harvard is cheaper than not attending school for anyone whose families make less than $150k, which is basically 75% of the nation. So if you're actually paying full tuition, you're probably pretty rich.

The hilarious thing was that she was actually acquitted of scamming patients. She was only convicted of scamming investors for claiming that patients could be treated using false tests.

I'm more than willing to buy products elsewhere, but it's so easy to default to Amazon.

One of the practices that the FTC sued Amazon over was their requirement that sellers list their lowest prices on Amazon and outsource fulfillment (and give up a huge cut) to Amazon in order to qualify for Prime and good search results.

The result is that even though most sellers can afford to sell on their own store and keep a larger percentage of the sales revenue, they're not allowed to actually undercut Amazon's prices. And so Amazon has shielded itself from price competition, despite engaging in pretty expensive practices (free 2 day shipping for most items and places, free 1-day or even same day shipping for some items in some places). And they did it with contracts instead of actually competing.

Hiroshima's bomb was Little Boy, which contained 64 kg of uranium, which at 19.1 g/cm^3 would be about 3.3 liters, significantly larger than a cricket ball.

But Nagasaki's Fat Man used about 6.2 kg of plutonium, which has roughly the same density as uranium, although the implosion mechanism to initiate the chain reaction compressed it to about half the volume. So that's closer to a cricket ball.

But also to add even more nuance, the plutonium in Fat Man used a uranium tamper to reflect neutrons, and estimates are that about 30% of the explosion yield was due to fission of the uranium too. So it's hard to really draw the line on what was or wasn't the "explosive" in that bomb.

Ok, I see where your source went wrong. Par for the course for Investopedia, which tends to get a lot of little details wrong (and sometimes misses the mark on the applicable scope of data that someone else has reported). But they've cited the Economic Policy Institute study of 2021 incomes, which looks at the average (mean) earnings within that group, rather than the actual amount that represents the boundary of that group. So it's not that it takes $3.1 million to be in the top 0.1%, it's that all the people of the top 1% average out to $3.1 million per year. Which, for the type of power distribution for household or individual incomes, is skewed heavily by the people who have the highest amounts.

And looking at the mean within that group can be fine, for certain purposes, but they've gone with the incorrect headline of saying "how much income puts you in the top 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%?" So it's a headline that is wrong, that reports on a different number within the data.

And your own comment, saying that reaching each percentile "starts at" the reported number, is also wrong.

Because holy shit does "dqydj.com" look sketchy as fuck.

It just stands for "don't quit your day job" and I've found that it's a reliable resource for statistical data that's widely available (like the ASEC numbers published by the Census Bureau and left to other people to actual turn into data visualization). It's up to date, and the data matches the summary report on the Census website, so what's the problem? The summary only reports the 90th and 95th percentiles, though, so I needed to find someone who actually reported on the thresholds for 99 (and not the averages within the top 1%).

Not sure where you're getting your income percentiles from.

This site shows that 90th percentile (top 10%) household starts at $230k and 99th percentile (top 1%) starts at $631k.

For individuals the same site shows that the 10% starts at $150k and the 1% starts at $430k.