“Journal”, “it’s”, and “because” are all mispelled in the original.
“Journal”, “it’s”, and “because” are all mispelled in the original.
Referenced study, from 2013, requires journal access: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12359
The problem is there isn’t anything “useful” for understanding humans [in evolutionary psychology]. Yes we can come up with plausible evolutionary justifications for behavior like cooperation, but they are basically untestable and useless for predictions.
Edited to clarify I mean specifically evolutionary psychology.
For anyone wondering, this doesn’t actually work, because the bananas will realize they are upside-down.
I think transforming “it’s possible to think without language” into “language is not a tool for thought” is an overreach. Definitely a lot of our internal voice is post-thought, but crystalizing those thoughts into words can provide footholds for further thought. Some would argue it’s not possible to think through a complex issue without writing:
It’s a general rule of wine pairing that the wine should be sweeter than the food
The “SSH” picture would work for SSH tunneling
In this context “well regulated” means like a smoothly-running clock, with the implication being that militia members will need weapons for training and practice.
Interlibrary loans are a wonder of the world and a glory of civilization
-Jo Walton, Among Others
who the fuck invented strong overhead lighting
Well, in the beginning…
I guess the argument is that they will raise rent by the maximum, even at excessive risk of losing tenants? Because if the tenants will pay that much, why wouldn’t the landlord charge that anyway?
Definite agree with the core of what you’re saying, though for US and EU (and to a lesser degree “High income countries”), the numbers are quite close, as clean grid energy is significantly outpacing electric vehicle adoption (and EVs rely on a clean grid to be clean).
If you return the tax to everyone as a dividend, then it becomes progressive, while still encouraging less polluting options
To be fair, it would be more effective to build a handful of mid-rises rather than clear-cutting space for a new exurb
The antecedent of “its” is America, not the drug
Effective systemic change requires changing the systems, not individual people or companies. If we want less virgin plastic or gasoline burning, it needs to be less profitable to extract oil, process it, and sell it to people who want it, otherwise somebody is going to do that.
That is why in California, bees are fish
The report describes living comfortably as spending no more than 30% of one’s income on rent.
This is abusing a crude, outdated rule of thumb that never worked in HCOL areas [1]. Put simply, if your rent goes up by $10K annually and all other costs remain the same, you only need $10K more per year to be just as “comfortable”, not $33.33K.
Granted, $35.1K is a lot (that would be 100% of minimum wage in Los Angeles). The median rent for a **1BR ** is $2.2K [2], so 26K per year (i.e. still too much).
In short, minimum wage isn’t enough to afford rent in L.A., but you certainly don’t need to be making $100K.
Is this p-hacking?