gridlockd

Perhaps we should also be looking at population density:

Stockholm: 11,802/sqm

Oslo: 4,268/sqm

Helsinki: 3,670/sqm

If you compare it to its more sparsely populated immediate neighbors, sure, Sweden looks bad.

If you compare it to UK, France, Spain, Italy, who all did a severe lockdown, Sweden does not look bad.

Of course "others" can too, if by that you mean other countries with a population that is affluent enough to demand green politics. The problem is that these countries only have a small share in global carbon emissions, so even setting lofty goals there will accomplish very little in the big picture.

On the other hand, all the emergent economies have no (internal) political pressure to do much about pollution, much less about CO2 emission. However, what they tend to have in common is that they export a lot products to these affluent countries.

Maintainers aren't going to keep outdated packages around forever, even if you "work with them". In effect, there is some ongoing maintenance there either way. If I just maintain my own dependencies, then I don't have to work with maintainers from a dozen distributions.

Why would anybody care what Denmark does with its own money in order to suppress its already minuscule impact on CO2 emissions?

It would probably be more effective if affluent countries levied import taxes on countries that emit too much CO2. That way it feels like "someone else is paying for it", and there would be a real economic incentive for emerging economies to do something about their infrastructure.

> Mere mention of a fact like obesity differences in population doesn't imply personal responsibility.

If there is no personal responsibility whatsoever in obesity, then this statement is true.

> US has a market, culture, and educational system that's as much to blame as individual choices.

If this statement is true, then there is still some personal responsibility in obesity.

Both statements can not be true at the same time. Also, culture and education doesn't absolve anyone from personal responsibility.

That is my point, higher prevalence should lead to higher excess mortality, of course. Of all EU countries, only Spain comes close to the US in prevalence. Many countries have far lower prevalence but still comparable mortality.

That tells me that when controlled for prevalence, the US actually deals far better with COVID than Europe - most likely because fewer old people got infected. Also, a lot of people died early in the pandemic, when there weren't so many tests.

It doesn't matter, because the headline is the talking point, even if the article itself is so nuanced that it puts the headline into question.

I wouldn't say the article itself is bad, it shows you that the difference between EU countries is enormous (Figure 1).

Insinuating that there might something like personal responsibility affecting disease outcome is dangerous business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBJpYIfDF3A

This is how it is done on Windows, which is a far more successful game platform than Linux. Obviously you need to dynamically link to OS interfaces, but you either statically link or ship with your dependencies.

On Linux, relying on system provided dependencies, especially C++ ones, is guaranteed to break over time and over different distributions. So you would have to maintain your Linux version either way, shipping with your dependencies is just less insane.

There are still too many people out there who think (or even insist) that you should ship your game on Linux. This has never been the case and never will be the case.

Another total misrepresentation of the paper, worse even than the one in BI the other day. Literally fake news.

Do yourself a favor and read the paper, but first read up on how GDP is calculated.

If somebody just almost died on my property and in the heat of the moment I had the nerve to ask them to pay for the damage, I would expect that kind of reaction. As a third party, I wouldn't disapprove either.

Anyway, this seems to be the hill you want to die on. You shall have it.

Having the floor collapse under you and then being expected to pay for it seems like a situation where angry shouting and waving would not be considered inappropriate in many cultures.

On the other hand, some cultures may suppress even severe anger.

> I have no reason not to believe them.

It's not that these people are lying, but it is common that people's subjective experience is biased by their expectation.

If I expect that dark themes are easier on the eye, I'm likely to experience any eye strain that might be caused by a bright theme in an exaggerated fashion.

Similarly, if I were to buy into this "the Pulfrich effect will slow you down" hypothesis, I might subjectively experience a benefit from switching to a light theme.

I don't buy into the hypothesis, so I'm sticking with a dark theme (as well as f.lux cranked up to eleven).

Some people complain about afterimage on high contrast dark themes. I'm definitely in your camp though.

My levels were more than sufficient, definitely in the high range, but I don't know them off the top of my head.

None of this contradicts what I said.

In your example, labor supply for the first country has effectively increased while demand has not. In effect, wages must fall in that country.

However, there is now increased demand on that cheaper labor, so those wages must rise, given a limited supply.

> then storing it in large mylar bags

May I suggest “Hindenburg” as a brand name?

Do not forget that batteries are expensive and that somebody has to actually pay the negative prices. If prices were to go negative too much, the production would become unprofitable, it would then be cheaper to just give it up.

> The 99th percentile leaves out the income of the top 1 percent.

Again, you could use table 2a, which specifies the top 1%. You would have to come to the same conclusion, if you do the math.

Of course the top 1% did disproportionately grow their income relative to GDP growth, it's just not enough to redistribute to make everyone else fall in line with GDP growth. Not even close.

> And, in any event, none of these graphs are really representing the size of each slice of the pie for a group of people, they're just looking at the income at that level.

The tables give you all the information you need to infer the slice of the pie. Just add up all the incomes for every percentile and you have the size of the pie, add up the incomes for a percentile group and you have the size of the slice.

For table 2a, the size of the pie is $8,529,000. The bottom 25% earn $375,000, or less than 5% of that. The top 1% on the other hand earn 13% of it. I'm not questioning the existence of income inequality. That's not the point.

The point is that this income inequality is not the reason for why GDP growth is so detached from income growth. Incomes didn't grow in tandem with GDP for almost every income group. For those income groups that did surpass GDP growth, it didn't surpass by the amount necessary to make up for lack of growth for everyone else. Yet, this is the conclusion that the BI insider wants to draw. The paper doesn't draw this conclusion, probably because it is obviously wrong.

> I don't find the paper very informative, but I find the BI article to be an accurate representation of what the author is trying to say.

It's a misrepresentation. Do the math!

There can't be a recommended daily dose for everyone, every body is different. I quote:

"... in a correct analysis of the data used by the Institute of Medicine, it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L."

That just means there are some people who need a very high dose. For comparison, 4000IU/d gets me well over 50nmol/L, this is also the "generally considered safe" upper limit. There was a case reported on HN where 5000IU/daily caused issues with calcium levels. You gotta get your bloodwork done.

Vitamin D supplements can raise your serum levels well beyond what you can get from sunshine. You really need to get your blood tested to figure out your dose.

> My questioned is motivated by the common knowledge that vitamins tend To be flushed through out of the body during urination.

That's true for Vitamin C but probably not for most vitamins, they are all quite different. Vitamin A for instance can accumulate to hazardous levels and take a long time to go back to normal.

> That's a political statement, not a law of nature.

That's the way it works in our system, which finds wages through supply and demand, which is a law of nature. You may nitpick and find a couple of salaries or other types of income that are not priced in this way, but it is generally true for the average person.

Whether that system is the best system is indeed a political question, but that's besides the point.

> Moving the mean of a distribution to "less than 20% higher" than the median is huge!

Perhaps, but it's nowhere near the 100% change that the article promises.

> In your calculation using that table you are leaving out the income of the top 1%. The 99%ile represents the income of the top of "the 99%". In table 2.b, in the main article, you get a taste of the size of the 1% income, which is on average twice the 99%ile.

I am not leaving anything out, I am using the same table that the BI article used, the one with the $102,000 counterfactual representing "Full-Year, Full-Time, Prime-Aged Workers". The one you mentioned yourself.

If I were to instead use Table 2b, the median counterfactual would only be $57,000 and I would be making the same argument with different numbers.

> In the paper I didn't find figures that I could use to reconstruct how much money would have to end up in someone else's hands to achieve the counterfactual.

All the figures are there. Just take the delta for every percentile and add it all up. If the sum is negative, you can't achieve the counterfactual by income redistribution. (Spoiler: The sum is negative)

Why the huge disparity? It's because the GDP and income are only loosely related. The US has collectively been spending more than it earned for decades, and all that spending goes into the GDP.

> I think BI properly quoted the article, but there would be a lot of work to do to contextualize the whole thing.

They may have "properly quoted" the article, but they came to a wrong conclusion that feeds into the popular "the rich are taking all our money" narrative.

I don't see anything wrong with the paper, just with the conclusion of the BI article.

If you look at table C1b, to keep up with 118% GDP growth, you would have to be in the top 1%, in which case your income growth would've been 138.8%.

We can then see that redistribution of those extra 20% among the bottom 99% could not possibly turn a median of $50,000 into a median of $102,000.

I'd rather ask you why and then clear out some misconceptions you may have.

Wages grow as demand for labor grows and increased economic activity should increase demand for labor. So far so good.

However, that's about as far as the relation goes. Technological improvement can both reduce the demand for labor and increase GDP. If there is no reason for demand for labor to increase, wages won't rise.

The narrative that a small percentage of people is earning so much and therefore everyone else must earn far less is popular, but mostly wrong. I gave you the source that says perfect income redistribution would cause only a wage increase of less than 20% to the current median. That's the real impact of income inequality, it's not more than 100% like this article would like you to believe.

It's not the same concept at all, it's an undue conflation of GDP growth, income and income inequality. (See my other reply)

The headline is a non-sequitur of the finding, which says that if GDP growth was equal to salary growth, the median salary would be $102,000.

That has nothing to do with income inequality. GDP itself is a problematic figure, but its relation to income is rather loose.

If everybody earned the mean income, that would be perfect income equality. For the US, mean household income is around $72,000, whereas median household income is around $62,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...