Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)HT
Posts
0
Comments
161
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Meh, please don't quote unusual statistics without giving any context for how to interpet them.

    For this value, it is calculated by:

    Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $25,000 annually before taxes.

    24.3% is not that out of the ordinary - you can see historical data back to like, 1995 here.

    Not saying this stat is useless, but the way you've chosen to use it is intentionally and inaccurately inflammatory.

  • I am not so sure - i think that many many young folk are both more open to it and are disenchanted with the democrat party - and this will continue to grow with the old guard insisting on shooting themselves in the foot by stubbornly resisting Mamdani in new york immediatelt after 3 "Vote Blue No Matter Who" campaigns for the in the last few presidential elections.

  • Beyond the clear use of the word "person" - go ahead and tell me how you know if someone is not an citizen before you rescind your own requirement for due process?

    Or, how many citizens should lose due process because you decide to skip it?

    If you decide to provide exceptions, you will inevitably have a substantial error rate.

    Of course, i suspect that is considered a bonus to these nazis.

  • Supreme Court is still an important source of perceived legitimacy. The further authoritarians can push the Supreme Court to rubber stamp their power, the weaker public response will be.

    Its similar to a form of "divine right" really.

    Of course, the Supreme Court has to have its own trust and perceived legitimacy in order to convder it.

  • The lack of specificty is also a strategy used to bolster support for deregulation.

    Simply say "we are eliminating regulations" , and dont ever talk about what you are deregulating, because actually many regulations are a net good for society and were implemented for a reason. Preventing companies from dumping poison is a regulation.

  • Im going to say the Harvard estimate is probably pretty close. It is probably a bit higher than what you would need on a day to day basis for survival, but enough to help your body maintain some muscle over the long term.

    Its not enough for someone wanting to be fit or muscular though.

  • That diet doctor recommendation feels wildly high for a "what is actually necessary" request. Like 2 g/kg is near the target for bodybuilders.

    It might be a good idea for many people to hit that to maximize muscle development in preparation for aging (where muscle deterioration is chief concern), but not a good estimate for anyone who isnt worried about that.

    They also say two further things which ding their credibility:

    First is this comment: "Because there appears to be a limited amount of protein that can be absorbed at a meal, it may be best to evenly space out your protein throughout the day, if possible."

    This is not really a concern even for bodybuilders. You dont need to overthink spacing.

    Second is the comment about vegetarians/vegans. Protein intake is not a huge concern for the average vegetarian, if you are not aiming for that unnecessarily high target - as long as they are regularly including some protein in their meals (soy, beans, nuts, eggs). Even for non-vegetarians, that higher target requires you to monitor of your protein intake to hit it regularly with overeating.

  • In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of "density" that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.

    There is a pretty crazy amount of "density" in well bit, low rise structures - though actually I dont personally hate on towers as a concept.

    Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.