With the new tech, that is mostly true, the 70s tech is like the first of any tech: unwieldy, hard to control and very inefficient in both production and retirement.
Compare the first x-ray machine to a modern PET-scanner. The former caused cancer in fetuses and caused radiation poisoning through walls, the latter is a clean cellular resolution scanner that can be serviced and recycled as well as most anything.
Interesting, in my part of Europe this coincides with developing and dynamic regions (a lot of employment, culture and progress).
Wonder if movement or birth rates affect the percentage the most?
But price increases of cereals ( bread, pasta, grains, etc.) increased by about 7,5 % last year alone, which is more than the inflation, and more than the increase after inflation.
That’s where people might complain. They still can’t afford food, as food prices increase faster than overall inflation
I appreciate a data supported argument, and love that you actually linked sources.
One thing that I feel is missing in most of the linked analyses is that inflation has also hit unevenly, and the price of basic goods has increased significantly more than overall inflation. Which would explain why households still have less disposable income, also the mean debt burden is much higher leading to loan costs being more common.
Or brought up by a neurodivergent parent, or sibling, or have an ND partner
What a well reasoned and well described set of posts. You are a credit to our community!
Yeah, it’s quite interesting, but it measures encounters without defining them, and it’s very hard to get anything specifically useful for Texas.
The data does more to show that Texas are being whiny about it, than what their criterion for invasion is. I fully expect a ComiCon or similar to drive as much tourists as the whole illegal immigration thing, and that Texans travel in similar sized crowds for any holiday. But there aren’t any clear data on either, pointing to dangerous ineptitude, and emotionally motivated (or “hysterical” as it was called in the olden days) governance.
Texas is about the size of Ukraine or France, not the whole continent.
True, but it might get you far enough that you aren’t “home”, and might be “invading” a neighbouring city.
But I agree, it’s a weakly relevant datapoint, but the only other travel data I could find was that 250k texans fly for Thanksgiving, which was even less useful.
I’m honestly baffled, how do you set policy, have informed debate or even identify business opportunities with so little reliable data?
I can’t find direct data on how many illegal immigrations are happening in Texas every year, but the undocumented population is estimated to be about 1,5 million, and stable. [source]
Between 2022 and 2023, the legal migrant population increased by 10k, and eligible migrants decreased by 50k. If we assume that the whole difference is only due to illegal immigrants naturalizing, that would mean that the Texas yearly influx of immigrants is 60k. [source]
That would mean that the “invasion” requiring armed self defence/martial law is for 60k civilians.
About 10 million Texans yearly travel over 50 miles, [source], does that mean Texas is invading most of the US annually?
(also, it’s ridiculous that you don’t have clear data and statistics on this exact question. Sometimes I love living in the EU)
Ah, but you’re just saying that as a professional troll.
Now compare that to: I think you’re mistaken, intent matters, and I believe extending trust that both parties want to convey something, rather than just dismiss others, is necessary for a discussion, and also for a communal discourse. If we’re just shouting into the void, no trust is needed, but for interactions and building a sense of community, we will need both trust and norms of collaboration.
Baselessly ascribing malicious intent is moreso a way to sow distrust and kill off discussion.
And besides, unless local regulations expressly forbid it, the income statements of those companies are after any fines and after any profit reducing measures (e.g. Amazon famously use investment schemes to reduce taxation), they do make the money to cover them in the shorter interval, or even shorter.
Oh no, with Amazon only having a 3,5 % margin (after fines), it would take them all of 48 hours to make up the losses.
The point still stands: the fines are ridiculously low for these companies, and they have no incentive to change based on current fines.
Oof, it reads like paragraph wise AI-generated marketing copy.
After skimming it, I’m leaning towards a human having written it as it is too bad to be acceptable by any machine. But I can’t say what it is other than than hype and banalities.
Also quite useful for places short on water, or daylight, or clement weather, or low-value ecosystems, or where transportation is unfeasible due to accessibility, environmental conditions, market access.
Also quite good to alleviate food deserts, securing strategic supply chains, and supporting urbanisation for greenification, food supply, lowering transport and food security (with growing food also having positive mental and psychosocial effects).
When the options are between having the choice or not, voting Republican is clearly being complicit.
The other side isn’t forcing abortions, it’s giving the possibility.
Oh, we need both for sure, and renewables as well.
That’s assuming a lot of ifs resolve our way, and without power needs increasing. It’s more sustainable than coal/gas/oil for sure, but with current energy development needs it’s barely long term (IIRC about 60-140 years)
Also, on centuries timescale, we will need to find more fissiles in space. And according to our current understanding of the universe, they should be quite rare, especially compared to hydrogen.
Basically, figuring out fusion power would solve our needs for the first level on the Kardashev scale, and has the potential to be portable fuel for the rest of the lifespan of the universe.
Progress is always incremental, except in hindsight
Modern nuclear plants take about 1 Mt of fuel per ton of waste, and energy production is about 70-90% effective. Modern systems also dispose about 80-90 % of spent fuel at decay times that leave only a percent of radiation every 20 years.
Nuclear is however indeed a dead end, with current exponentially increasing energy needs we probably only have 150 years of Uranium before we need to figure out an alternative. At current energy levels, we have about 550 years.
150 years of very low pollution, stable energy is however a better, cleaner, cheaper and safer energy source than fossil oil has been throughout human history, and safer than current wind, solar and hydroelectric power.