Search

I wonder what cultural changes that kind of majority levels will provide.

I hope we get a new, better system out of it.

Came to make a smartass comment like "at least they'll grow out of it when they become adults, right???" but the more I stared at the chart and thought about what it was saying it started to hurt a bit.

I had a bad time largely growing up, and still to this day struggle a lot with depression. I'm front about the happiest time period on this chart.

I went and looked up the study, and there's over 40 pages of charts similar to this one. All the things about depression seem up, and participation in school, activities, and dating/sex/drugs are all down considerably. It doesn't sound like anything is better for kids.

I didn't have children, mostly due to the bad time I had, so I'm curious to go back and read the study, though I didnt see any obvious conclusions skimming through. I feel my perception of if things are bad today is skewed due to my issues, so is the world really worse these days, or is something else going on?

I suspect there is a correlation with tech adoption. This chart isn't the end-all-be-all, but it's a start. (The years aren't consistent on the attached chart, btw.)

How many people are entering the house?

In this case, it was three armed home intruders, plus a getaway driver.

Are they all Jason Bourne like fanatics who are willing to commit suicide in the process of killing you?

If they are, then you have done something seriously horrific and they are most likely justified in seeking your end.

...That's quite a stretch, don't you think? Bluntly, if anyone breaks into my home while I'm home, I'm going to assume that they're intent on causing harm to me, because I'm sure as shit not going to politely ask them to fill out a questionnaire before acting.

I guess you could technically argue that the linked article promotes an anti-gun stance so it could be labelled propaganda (though I suspect you mean something more specific than just promoting a political stance).

However the graph itself is just the raw data displayed nicely so it's hard to argue that's propaganda or misleading. The graph is a little out of date but you can verify the current data by checking the source listed, the only thing that isn't displayed publicly on that page is the subdivision of the now 27 instances where a bystander shot the attacker. Edit: This does also include knife and gun violence, though.

Your assertion that more guns would make the results "vastly different" isn't based in any evidence, while the counter-argument that stronger gun controls and less gun-centric culture prevents mass shootings can be clearly demonstrated by simply looking at literally any other country. According to Wikipedia there have been only 45 mass shooting deaths (including attackers) in total in the UK this century. When a shooting happens here it's always newsworthy.

I don't know much about long rifles. But Wikipedia at least defines AR-15s as "lightweight assault rifles". And the OP talked about AR-15s specifically.

I can see it getting hard to read.

A bystander subdued the attacker 42 times

Cops seem pretty jumpy

Come on, it's not like a cop would yell "SHOTS FIRED" because of a falling acorn and proceed to empty his clip, would it?

So in short, in the 433 cases, 12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.

So by the statistic provided we should give everyone massive balls instead of gun to stop gun violence.

Interesting. Hey, Jamie, overlay a map of indigenous populations...

(Correlates less the further east and south you get, though)

Interesting, crossposting to [email protected]

The hardest working states are the ones right down the middle, from North Dakota to Texas. The least hardworking are generally the northeast (excepting the redder states of NH and ME) and west coast.

Somewhat unsurprising if you realize that most of the states down the middle have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation--e.g., North Dakota has an unemployment rate under 2%, whereas states like California, Washington, and New York have some of the highest.

Hardest working also factors in rates of overtime or multiple jobs (i.e., average hours worked per week), so realistically you want to be somewhere like Mass or Vermont (and others) that have both low unemployment and reasonable weekly hours.

That makes those states less "hardworking," but I would bet the standard of living/happiness indices are higher in those states. Regardless, by these metrics and in general, red states do work more hours and have more of their state's people gainfully employed.

It's basically where people exercise more and/or have an outdoors-y culture.

Levels of sedentary lifestyle by state:

If that map was more granular, I bet it would match very closely.

Lazy ass Rhode Islanders.

I saw an explanation that this is effectively mapping White and Latino populations.

Which also led me to learn about the Hispanic Health Paradox, which was a very interesting read.

Trust the audience to be literate

But really, that depends on the intended audience.

If the difference is switching to cannabis, men do tend to be heavier users.

(Side note: one article I saw while looking for this referred to it as the "grass ceiling" lol)

As a non-drinker that seems like a lot, OTOH, I have spent a lot on liquor for cooking so...