1,261 karma · joined November 1, 2012
If we are so rich, why can't we provide for the kind of programs that would deal with so many early deaths? Money should be able to deal with the issues at the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy.
Interesting question though. Someone's probably thought of this already and it's just not in wide use. Maybe something like annual income in dollars cut by average life expectancy?
The article casually dismisses the counterpoint that the US trades high income for a lower social safety net.
The average French person has a life expectancy of 82. In Mississippi it’s 74.9, on par with Lithuania. Even Vietnam and Cuba have significantly higher average life expectancy than that.
Conservative groups have sued to get religious exemptions to Bostock (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/religious-g...) which is particularly pernicious given the number of religious organizations that operate large employers like hospitals.
Just one Tucker Carlson clip (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6324164359112) shows how American conservatives are continually frothing at the mouth about trans rights. There is a related wave of anti-trans laws being pushed through by conservative elected officials at the state level right now. They're specifically attacking trans children and school policy, as the soft underbelly that gets conservative parents riled up for a culture war and which is legally more vulnerable.
De-regulating downtown zoning for conversion and tax breaks (https://sfstandard.com/business/mayor-breed-introduces-tax-b...) are both likely to be tried, though what impact it will have seems limited in the near term.
If it does rebound, it might not be until the next generation of startups reaches mid to late stage on the other side of the current lending crunch, presuming they don't exclusively work remote or choose NYC as their primary hub.
My entire point is that’s the morally and legally correct framework, because we shouldn’t be using scientific determinism to make decisions about how individuals with free will and rights can express themselves. The article is correct to have the disclaimer, in this light.
The question isn't "is gendered behavior rooted in biology?" it's "how much / to what degree?" and the honest answer is, we don't really know with confidence, especially when it comes to humans. The fact that Western culture seems to be currently undergoing a Cambrian explosion when it comes to gender expression contributes to how hard it is to answer this question. Unfortunately that's also why people are anxious and waging culture wars about it.
The problem is there are a ton of people who try to use that fact to justify forcing everyone to fit the typical trend. "Most people are right hand dominant, so everyone should learn to write right handed or be punished" is the milder historical example. The worst case scenario is "it's legally defensible to murder someone because they don't conform to expected gender roles" https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/member-...
Conservatives trying to use biology to argue that gender and sex are fully equivalent is akin to 19th and 20th century attempts to use evolutionary theory to support racist social policies. It's not only wrong morally, it's bad science.
I was mostly reacting to the hypocrisy of the kind of Western liberal who would crucify a trophy hunter online, but who flies all over the world for vacation and buys Shein hauls to post on TikTok. The personal consumption choices of rich people are still driving a lot of environmental degradation. Hating hunters is more of a liberal tribal shibboleth than a meaningful way to have impact on global biodiversity.
You're completely right that the desire to hunt a tiger isn't really logical or necessary, I'm just pointing out that it is not psychologically aberrant that some people (mostly men) would find it satisfying to do things like that as a thrill-seeking activity.
What's actually bizarre is that the billions of modern humans who would find it sickening to kill any animal personally have no issue thoughtlessly living a lifestyle whose need for ever-expanding consumption of living space, energy, and other resources is directly contributing to a human-caused mass extinction.
Note that I said the decline is multi-factorial though. A significant part of it isn’t even outward migration, but excess deaths due to COVID combined with a low birth rate and a lack of inward migration. (Here again though, who do you think has the most opportunity to move to a new state and what kind of tax policy deters them?)
Oregon decriminalized personal possession of basically all of these drugs in 2021. As of today, a large swathe of downtown Portland is basically one highly dangerous open air drug market. It’s going to end up like the Tenderloin and Civic Center in SF. The cannabis tax money flooding into addiction treatment businesses seems to be not making a dent. Between lower quality of life and some of the highest tax burdens in the US, Oregon is decreasing in population every year now.
The original comment was "Nothing comparable exists in the US". Given that the entire West Coast and other key beach recreation states like North Carolina and Hawaii have stellar laws on public access, the root comment was simply not true.
Making it t-shirt worthy to say you loved NY was a major turnaround for the popular image of the city. No one thinks it singlehandedly saved NYC, but it's one of the most famous ad campaigns ever for good reason.
Saying we should tolerate the influence of a totalitarian state over a major communication platform (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/10/21/more-americ...) in the name of the First Amendment and democratic values is setting up our democracy to be weakened and fragmented even more than it already is.
We already know that domestically-controlled networks like Facebook directly contributed to electing a demagogue President who tried to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. We'd be morons to accept the same thing but under the influence of an autocratic country which has clear intentions to erode American influence and power.
Just notes: It’s not trying to be a programmable networked knowledge engine or a no code app builder or a toaster.
Not ugly: You can technically change fonts and crap but it uses clean system styles out of the box, so even as a font snob I don’t get distracted changing formatting instead of writing.
Free, or at least really cheap if you have a lot of stuff in iCloud
“While recreational hunting for feral swine is popular in many states, it is generally not considered an effective management option. Significant population reductions typically do not occur and feral swine behaviors or movements may be altered such that they impede other removal operations (e.g., trapping). Hunters usually target large males instead of females, which has little impact on overall population reduction. Additionally, recreational hunting creates incentives to maintain feral swine on the landscape and move feral swine to new areas for increased hunting opportunities, which has largely been attributed to the expansion of feral swine across the United States. Although controversial, several states have outlawed hunting in attempts to better manage feral swine populations. Research has shown that feral swine removal via hunting is often negated by the use of bait to attract feral swine. The supplemental food source increases fecundity and population growth despite hunter harvest.”
It’s widely accepted among wildlife ecologists that hunting has minimal control effect and might actually be causing more spread.
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/reports/Wildlife%...