Quick Google for the Census Bureau only turns up median rather than mean:
Median is probably a better value here since it’s going to reduce outlier effects.
Looks to me that median rent in most states in 1990 was closer to $300-400 per month than $500.
I really enjoyed Weird West. It mashed up immersive sim elements with Divinity-inspired isometric sandbox combat. Lots of really cool world building.
Rough around the edges in a few places and probably a little ambitious in scope for the size of their team, but overall a pretty solid and fun title for a new indie studio.
tl;dr definitely interested in seeing what they do next.
Clover is so beneficial that pre-WW2, grass seed mixes almost always explicitly advertised clover content. If you look up 19th or early 20th century catalogs, etc, listings for grass seed will nearly always not only mention that they contain a clover mix, but tout its benefits.
As you note, it was only post-war with the creation of modern herbicides that clover stopped being the norm. There was more or less a DeBeers-style PR campaign to convince people that clover is a “weed” since it can’t survive weed killers.
The spots that our dogs have destroyed clover, they had destroyed the grass anyway. And that’s under an old magnolia tree where everything struggles anyway. The rest of the back yard is fine.
dork enlightenment
I have no idea how I’ve never seen this up to now, but good god that’s the perfect encapsulation of that particular sect of morons.
The entire system is deeply corrupt beyond false positives.
We know for a fact that Russia was systematically cheating testing and the grand sum of the punishment they faced for it was having to compete as “Olympic Athletes from Russia” for two years.
It also helps that their attempts to redirect back mostly serve to highlight their weird preoccupations.
Things are happening like a former Trump speechwriter posting “Emmett Till was weird” on Twitter because they can’t comprehend just how unhinged and generally weird saying something like that is to a normal person.
Or they think they’re being clever flipping the script and ranting about “boys saying they’re girls is weird.” “Why do you spend so much time obsessing over what children have in their pants? That’s really weird.”
It all puts them in a bind. If they try to defend what they’re saying as normal, it’s very clear that it isn’t. If they try to deflect with what they think is weird, it just shows how detached they are from normal reality. It’s a surprisingly effective line of attack that largely neutralizes their normal gish galloping.
I’d be in favor of more. 26 is just because I think there’s a very easy argument to make for “every circuit gets direct representation on SCOTUS” and it’s not a huge leap to go to two per circuit from there.
Increasing throughput is definitely one of the reasons I’d support doing this as well. Thanks for highlighting that since I didn’t.
The problem is that the process for amending the Constitution is heavily, structurally biased in favor of the Republicans now. The GOP would absolutely rally around this issue because it’s one of the primary things allowing them to hang on to power right now.
I don’t believe in engaging in theatrics with a zero percent chance of success when there are real, feasible steps that could be taken to make things better.
Article III only lays out there there will be a supreme court and a Chief justice and makes Congress responsible for establishing them. It does not lay out the makeup or structure of that court. The current body of 9 justices is set by federal statute and could be changed by a simple act of Congress.
Article III also explicitly states that whatever Justices are appointed hold their office as long as they maintain good behavior (I e., as long as they haven’t been impeached) and that Congress cannot reduce their pay.
Term limits are explicitly unconstitutional.
Setting the number of judges is explicitly within Congress’ constitutional powers.
Randomized panels would probably be challenged just because it’s never been tested, but the language in the Constitution re: Congress establishing the Supreme Court is vague. That said, Congress has already established inferior Federal courts that operate in this manner, so there’s precedent.
I think you’re missing the point.
As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there’s a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That’s an absolutely massive problem.
The point is that you’re less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual’s brand of crazy when there’s only a ~1 in 3 chance they’ll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That’s a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.
No, it doesn’t solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it’d help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications
Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you’ve gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.
This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.
There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.
But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.
Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.
SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there’s no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.
our last “just war” that was even a little cut and dry was world war two.
The Balkans were pretty cut and dry in justified intent.
It was an intervention into the worst genocide in Europe since WW2. We’re talking not only wholesale slaughter of civilians, but even the establishment of literal rape camps as part of an organized, systemic campaign of ethnic cleansing. What was happening in the former Yugoslavia was absolutely horrific and the US and NATO stepping in to put an end to it was an unequivocally good thing.
That said, there were still questionable incidents like the “accidental” bombing of the Chinese embassy or the numerous cases of civilians killed by NATO bombs. But that mostly emphasizes the fact that there’s no such thing as a clean war. War is always going to leave blood on your hands, even if it’s being fought for the right reasons.
Crowdstrike is very entrenched in healthcare. Hospitals were routinely at capacity in 2020.
The outage this weekend probably killed some people due to disruptions in delivering care. It definitely would have then.
80%+ of severe injury and death on a bicycle is caused by motor vehicles, or complications of motor vehicle involvement.
Which would mean ~1 in 5 have absolutely nothing to do with a motor vehicle. That’s significant.
There is considerable evidence that everyone wearing a helmet in a car would save vastly more lives and prevent severe head injury
Then that should be an easy [citation needed] for you because my searches are coming up blank for actual studies. Lots of assertions of it, but I’m not finding anything in terms of actual data.
It’s very easy, on the other hand, to find comprehensive meta analyses on the efficacy of helmet use.
It’s also worth noting that the introduction makes a point of calling out another common online assertion that you repeated – that helmets make people engage in more risk-taking behavior – as false:
There has already been an extensive peer-reviewed literature review conducted by Esmaeilikia et al.5, which found little to no support for increased risk-taking when cyclists use helmets and if anything, they cycled with more caution.
I don’t feel those people should be called stupid for their choice.
I don’t think they’re stupid. I think they’re bad at risk analysis. That’s a pretty inherent feature of humans. It’s the reason I want to see actual data.
A helmet is only needed if you intend to spend significant time in traffic.
The worst wreck I’ve ever had on a bike was without a single car in sight. Pinch flat while carrying speed through a steep downhill curve. I split an expensive MIPS helmet in two and still hit hard enough that I had a minor concussion, road rash up one side of my body, and cracked the face of a week old watch just to pour salt in the (metaphorical) wound. I mostly landed on my head and that helmet is the reason I didn’t have drastically more severe head injuries.
Helmets aren’t just for traffic.
This comment is kind of fascinating because it’s essentially reinventing Slashdot’s metamoderation system 25 years later.
It was good then. No reason it wouldn’t work again today.
When I was a teenager in the early 2000s, typical retail price for a game was $50.
That’s equivalent to about $85 today.
The vast majority of the games I buy today are well under $50.
Like how Ferrari cars are designed for 20 year olds but only 80 year olds can afford to buy them.
I mean, making the comparison to motorsports just emphasizes how cheap gaming is as a hobby.
Autocross is as entry level as you can get and a typical ~$50 entry fee gets you maybe 10 minutes of seat time and it’s typical to need to drive 2-3 hours each way for an event. That’s before you start adding in things like the fact that a $1500 set of tires will last you a season or two at most, suspension and brake upgrades easily running a couple of thousand dollars, etc.
Start dipping into actual track time and fees jump to more like $250-750 plus around that much again for track insurance per event. And the upgrades needed for the car to hold up on track are even more expensive still. And this is all ignoring the purchase price of the car and potentially needing to trailer a dedicated track car.
I’ve almost certainly spent far less on PC gaming in the last 5 years combined than I have on motorsports in the past 3 months. I’m on the upper end of spending for most gamers and a dabbler at best when it comes to the cars.
The insanity of the GPU market since covid has put some upward pressure on things but A. the proliferation of great indie titles means you can get incredible value without breaking bank on the highest end equipment and B. even then, the money I spent literally tonight ordering just brake pads and rotors would buy you a 4070 all day long. And I went cheaper than I could have.
Gaming dollars go a long, long way. It’s a hobby that was affordable even when I was younger and broke. It’s still relatively affordable compared to many, many other hobbies.
We also have real world examples like Alabama passing a voter ID law and then almost immediately turning around and closing DMV offices in poor, black counties, making getting an ID even more difficult for at-risk communities:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-01/alabama-closes-dmv-offices-a-year-after-voter-id-law-kicks-in
Voter ID laws are very much about cloaking intentional disenfranchisement of legal citizens in a veil of preventing virtually non-existent voter fraud.