[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 49 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think that, more likely, they'll plump up healthcare services for only themselves. Boomers don't vote against big government social services for everyone, they only oppose it when it's not for themselves. That's why both Republicans and Democrats defend Social Security and medicare for the elderly. Even DeSantis is campaigning on defending SS.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 43 points 10 months ago

Is there a punchline to this I’m missing?

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 51 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I see people on the internet often criticize the sample size of studies, but I think this is a misunderstanding. Due in part to the central limit theorem, sample sizes can be surprisingly small, provided the sample is actually representative. And if the sample isn’t representative, then a larger sample won’t necessarily help.

For example, there are about 60 million 18-29 yr olds in the US. With a sample size of 300, and a confidence interval of 95%, that gives us a margin of error of just ~5%.

Edit: to clarify, the study might still be wrong because the sample is biased, but not because the sample is too small. And it might also be wrong by chance, despite no methodological problems. 95% is still a 1 in 20 chance of a long tail result. D&D players know: critical failures happen!

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 44 points 11 months ago

Agreed. It’s a vicious feedback loop. Failing institutions leads to lack of public support for those institutions, which leads to even worse institutions. I think it’s still possible to get out of this nose dive, but I’m concerned.

There are other conceivable sorts of disagreements that might cause a shut down, some much more reasonable. I think it’s fair to call this particular shutdown out for being the result of extremist elements in the Republican Party making absurd demands.

It’s so extreme that even most Republicans outside of the freedom caucus don’t seem to want a shutdown, to the point where the last speaker sacrificed his career to try to avoid one.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They also do all those things much worse than transitioning away from car dependence.

And they give people an excuse to not move away from cars.

And they are so much heavier and deadlier than ICE cars at the same speed that they may actually actively discourage other modes, like walking or cycling.

edit: Look, I think every car should be an EV. And I also think there shouldn't be many cars because cars still suck. Both can be true.

In the reality where people can be raptured, what is logically incoherent about rapture causing slight discoloration of furniture? For me, if there’s difficulty in suspension of disbelief, it’s in the former part, not the latter.

What the hell. Can people please cancel en masse already? Why are consumers putting up with this? The price increases stop once it’s not profitable anymore.

“If you cancel” implies that the “immediately” refers to the act of canceling. If your interpretation is right, it feels more like downright lying.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This ranking is bonkers. Turkey, India, and China are in the top 3. The bottom 3 are Norway, UK, and finally Japan. Mexicans work some of the longest hours in the world, but has a ranking similar to Sweden. Norway and Sweden are some of the happiest countries in the world, with some of the strongest safety nets and worker protections. Why do their “employee well being” scores not reflect this? I don’t trust this ranking at all.

Edit: misread Netherlands for Norway. Still, the Netherlands actually ranks even higher on happiness than Norway, so my point stands.

I wouldn’t be celebrating this. The reason why he’s not getting traction is because he didn’t help overthrow the US government. That’s a terrifying reason for him to lose.

Taxing corporations does not just raise prices for consumers!! This is a hyper conservative worldview, and very convenient to corporations that don’t want their taxes raised. It is also contradicted by literally any first year economics textbook, so I don’t understand why it keeps getting repeated.

Tax changes to encourage rental construction have been advocated by urban economists for years. This particular measure was proposed by the NDP. An affordable rental market actually puts downward pressure on the overall real estate market.

That said, I agree the Liberals aren’t doing enough.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

SkepticalButOpenMinded

joined 1 year ago