This is interesting to me though. Didn’t most people (at least in developed countries) take tests in school? Get grades? I would think if you did below average on those you kind of…should know that you’re in the bottom half?
I get that it’s possible to make changes after schooling, and grades are only somewhat reliable (in that they also rely on effort) but still.
Okay but this isn’t what happens. When using services like instacart they will batch only maybe two or three orders in a car. Unless there are other services that I’m not aware of that will batch more?
I don’t think grocery translates well to mass delivery because it increases rates of spoilage and damaged produce.
A delivery huh? I wonder by what mode if transport that would be delivered…
Yes I think it’s very possible that if you were to graph a population’s Intelligence using a some empirical score, then it has a high probability to NOT look exactly like a normal distribution.
For example, let’s say that there was some score called “intelligence score” that scores people’s intelligence from 0-100. Do you think that if you were to graph a given population’s “intelligence score” that it would be EXACTLY centered around 50 in a Normal distribution? I think that’s unlikely. It’s more likely that there would be local maximums or minimums, or various skews in the graph. There could be a small peak at score 75, or a trough at 85. There could be all sorts of distributions.
And guess what? Given this hypothetical distribution, you could STILL draw lines somewhere on the graph showing quartiles. Those lines might not be at 25-50-75. They might not even be the same distance apart from each other. But you CAN draw them somewhere to split the scores. Just because a graph “has quartiles” does not mean it will always look like the OP.
Spendrill is not misunderstanding the OP. He’s just saying that if intelligence could be measured by a better metric, then distribution of that metric among the population would not look as smooth as the one in the OP.
Lol. People read your comment and think you didn’t understand the original post. When in reality they are the ones who didn’t understand your comment.
Are you serious? Look at that map. Those yellow areas are absolutely massive. It includes huge swathes of suburban areas, not “dense cities”. I mean look at Dallas, Atlanta, or SoCal in that pic. My point is that in those suburban areas most people are not within a reasonable walking distance of a grocery store.
Just because they’re centered around a major metro area doesn’t mean the people living there are close to one. I live in on of those cities in what someone would consider an “urban/suburban” area. For me to walk to my closest grocery store it would take me 30 minutes each way according to Google maps. That’s not reasonable. Keep in mind that you’ve got to actually carry the groceries on the way back. And I’m probably in a denser area than most.
EDIT: According to the USDA, americans are on average 2.2 miles from a SNAP authorized store. That’s a 45 minute walk each way. No Americans are not just “lazy” for not walking to the store. It just isn’t a reasonable think to do at all.
In the US fraternities and sororities are not usually financial assistance organizations as you’re describing. The main focus is just as a social organization. A quick and easy way to get 50 friends to hang out with. They also do sometimes provide connections or help with studying.
Also the EU is way less powerful over the individual EU countries than the US federal government is over the states.
Not so sure about this…maybe you could find two states that have very differing laws compared to France-Germany, but on the whole it’s probably not true. Kind of hard to quantify that though.
It differes based on the sport. The NFL is the most “equal” between teams. It’s nice because you don’t have the same teams winning year after year. The worst teams get the best picks in the next draft, so theoretically they should get a boost (although some teams still manage to screw it up). In baseball, and to a lesser extent basketball, the “big market” cities tend to dominate the sport. Which sucks when you’re rooting for a small market team that is always getting destroyed by the NY Yankees or the LA Dodgers.
I mean you don’t walk…
If you were to walk it could literally be an hour walk or more for some people.
“most Americans” don’t live in a city that dense and certainly drive to the store for groceries. But when I say “to the store” it’s not the same as what Europeans think. It’s not a little corner store where you get your groceries for the day. It’s a giant Walmart/Kroger where you load up for the whole week so you don’t have to go as often.
I don’t agree with your third point at all.
I don’t think I’ve met any Americans that use their ancestry as a sense of “self worth” in any meaningful amount. For the vast majority of people it’s just a interesting quirk people like to share about their ancestry. Taking that and criticizing it because “last time we did it, nazism happened” is quite a stretch.
Your description isn’t how it works in most places really. The “districts” aren’t usually that far apart. It would be common to find single family homes close by a school, or an apartment building right next to an office building.
Zoning is useful in scenarios like industrial vs residential buildings. You wouldn’t want to have an apartment building next to a railroad hub for example. The railroad would be very loud/dirty, and industrial business would benefit more from being closer to the rail hub.
I don’t think sarcastic comments like this help the opposing argument very much.
As I stated in the very first sentence: to rent it out.
I suppose your response will be “but renting it out is bad! We should make that illegal because you’re extracting wealth from the tenant!”
Then I will say to you “fine, I suppose I will not build that house at all”
This is how you get a take a housing shortage in the US and make it far, far worse.
Buying land for the purpose of building property is bad? I think any policy that discourages development of additional housing is probably not going to be great for house prices. Or if you’re handing out houses in a lottery system, it won’t be great for housing supply at least.
What if I build a house on a piece of land I own and want to rent it out?
The second construction is completed I’m all of a sudden a scumbag for privatizing someone else’s right to shelter? Even though it’s a house I built on my land? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
See I don’t buy into this. To me, this is getting into seriously conspiracy theory stuff. I don’t think that there is some grand plan to keep people stupid so that they don’t cause trouble.
I think the system just fails at educating students well due to a variety of factors.