Is tax evasion distributed differently by income level? How do you control for it just being more complicated to file as income increases? My experience in the lower rungs is that middle class people pay taxes faithfully out of great fear of consequences for not doing so, while lower income and poor friends often cheat or don’t bother with taxes at all (or bank accounts for that matter). I’ve met and known tax cheats but none of them white color workers. I would love to see data. I would predict a u shape, with tax evasion lowest in the middle, and higher for both low income blue color workers (including waitresses), and higher for the upper classes and those who own homes, other major wealth.
Didn’t read the study but I don’t think 50% of Swedes having a whatever the name was savings account is “representative” but I’m not a Swede. I would think that 50% is not randomly distributed. Like could that 50% be older and lower income, more likely to be recent migrants, etc… at least in America people who play the lottery are below average.
I could read the paper, but I’m dubious it or any other study can answer this question to any degree of confidence, with much generalizability.
The government is controlled by the government, not voters. The government has incentives to stay the course. Every single government employee wants to keep their job, managers want to keep their teams/projects/products. The government downsizing itself amounts to hundreds of thousands of individuals collectively deciding to act against their own interests on behalf of some abstract notion of what’s best for hypothesized future citizens. Not going to happen. Workers are workers. The government is first and foremost a workforce.
Bankruptcy. Not for the elderly person, because elderly have protected federal income. But bankruptcy for the children who are on the hook due to filial responsibility laws in most states.
Just think about it abstractly. Variation decreases as n count increases. Large organizations will tend to be similar. As you note most large private systems end up behaving similarly to large public systems in terms of corruption, inefficiency etc….
But notice that it’s driven by the n size. If you look across smaller systems, you’ll notice they are more diverse. Like startups. Smaller n means more variation. Occasionally a small variation or mutation will push evolution forward. Public systems are generally to large and risk averse for that sort of evolutionary adaptation. At least at present. Maybe we can make public sector more like startups by changing how tax dollars are spent, not necessarily changing the amount spent, but the way it’s spent? I don’t think we’re there yet.
“ Recent trends in college admissions include increased numbers of applications, increased interest by students in foreign countries in applying to American universities,[10] more students applying by an early method,[8] applications submitted by Internet-based methods ”
So 25%, which is well above the 15% effect I’ve seen, but you could just be an outlier. Also possible that such research suffers from self reporting problems, and many who claim they’ve made lifestyle changes are not reliable in those self reports. Fwiw, my experience is similar to yours. Lifestyle changes (weight loss moreso than diet) improved my “bad” cholesterol and glucose.
>” How to prevent this? The obvious way is to just not use dataframes, at least not while doing aggregation. Rather than allocating a huge dataframe and loading our partial results into its columns bit by bit, we can just store our partial results in a plain list.”
A lot to be said for not defaulting to data frames, in both r and python. Or, if you must, using something like r data.table or python’s polars if you don’t think in other data structures easily or just want convenience.
Oh wow, it sounds like my understanding is off considerably. I was under the impression only 15% decrease is possible with lifestyle changes!
Can you provide any basic literature on how large of an effect can be achieved through lifestyle alone? It sounds like my vaguely recalled ~15% is way, way off.
(I do wonder how statins are so easily justified if lifestyle is so effective, but pharma profits/lobbying may explain that.)
I wonder if you asked people their feelings about 1) Wayland, and 2) systemd, whether or not sentiment would be highly correlated. My first impression of both was when I had a problem.
I guess that’s a good way to think of Federora, forward looking. I always liked it for other reasons, but they do have just the right amount of forward focus. Ubuntu has a very different community to try and satisfy, so has to move slower.
Human change does not require Darwinian selection. Look across cultures. That people might tolerate or be most comfortable in noisier environments could vary for non-heritable reasons. Some people like less stimulation, some more. Autism rates have changed faster than our genetics also.
I do. The data would be computer sales to businesses. The data indicates computer use is now a regular part of many jobs, whereas very few jobs in 1970 involved working on a computer, based on computer sales data.
Leetcode so you can get big bucks working as a programmer? Teachers put in extra hours because they see a kid in their class who will suffer through life if they don’t intervene. Compare your motivations to those of teachers, and leave the comparison at that.
Salary varies a lot by location. I think median salary for teacher in California is ~90k. But teacher salary is not the only cost of running a school district. Multiple buildings to manage, maybe busses, various staff, etc…
Because we work in different ways now than we did in 1975? The work people do is also different. And, the people themselves have also changed. A person born in 1980s may be more used to 24/7 noise from tv and devices. A 30 year old worker in 1975 grew up in a quieter home.
Very persuasive when stated that way! It’s a good question. Why not just allow this small added feature which you don’t have to use?
That’s a great general question that can be asked in many places that software dwells. My answer and thinking is therefore general as well. It’s a trap. What would the great Stallman say about touchscreens in the cockpit? He would be correct too. It’s a Trojan horse, once they get the touchscreen there it’s a matter of years before driving involves watching ads to offset fuel tax costs or whatever else the leadersip has decided the world must do now.
No. I don’t have a lot of money, and am skeptical they or other shiny new tech toys can save the planet via consumerism. I’m pro-Tesla on net. Everyone in the upper middle class were buying Lexus’ and Suburbans before Tesla came along, so I imagine many thousands of tons less pollution than the counter-factual. But probably buying a brand new Tesla isn’t cooling the atmosphere appreciably. In any case, I’m not that counter-factual. To the extent I like cars, and I kind of do, I like those with character and manual gears. I try to limit my driving, but when I have to drive, I enjoy the full experience.
I won’t own a car with a touchscreen. Ever. If I were given such a vehicle, I would get rid of it quickly.
My last car purchase it was not easy to find a newer vehicle without that junk. I see such things as signs of low quality. I don’t want to spend thousands of dollars on anything connected to some cheap Chinese touch pad. It ruins the entire experience.
If I wanted navigation I’d use my phone. Any car I have to configure, I will loath deeply.
Did people actually rely on the bluechecks anyway in the first place? For me it was at best a slight help if I was trying to find a celebrity that had impersonators. I would be surprised if I’m a very typical user of course. But still I had the impression the bluecheck system was fondly replaced.
I assumed the 2007 year would be the same “1 night in January” method. But it occurs to me, reading your comment that maybe they didn’t mean 2007 was the second highest count, just that the collection only goes back to 2007. Again, terrible journalism.
In January of 2007? The crisis hit a bit later, if you’re thinking about foreclosures. Housing prices were still up, and the housing market was tight. It may suggest that homeless is driven by real estate speculation. In other words hot economies cause homelessness to increase, not the converse.