clara

n = 40, this is junk. they couldn’t even get 100 people for this?

these were all sampled from 1 company in amsterdam. the differences could be explained by company culture, or local culture, or whatever. more work needed.

here you go:

more can be found like this, @chichi__charlie in any good web browser

it’s an example of simpson’s paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox

a worked example: if england/scotland/wales all use heart ❤️ 49% and use tears of joy 😂 at 51%, and then northern ireland was to use heart ❤️at 100%, you can imagine this would tip the whole uk over

even more freaky, you could make all 4 constituent countries use heart ❤️ at 49%, make each constituent use a different unique emoji 👍😀🥰😼 at 51% each, and then the aggregate would show that heart ❤️ is still the most used across the UK

now consider for each place on this map, they are ranking more than just 2 emojis. the map itself says that tears of joy 😂 is only scoring 5% worldwide, and that’s 1st place. with margins of 5% and under to be deemed winner, it’s no wonder funky effects show up

ok, here’s the context. (click here)

the source of this file, regrettably, is the daily mail. broken clocks and all that. i will link the “article” that the video file was from, but you will need a hazmat suit going in, for both the cookies/trackers and low quality writing

here’s that source now. (click here)

for posters below saying they couldn’t find this, i understand it. we all get different search results, it’s possible you all got hugboxed and were unable to find the clip as a result

also, i don’t care to discuss the topic, i only wanted to link the source, because you were all struggling with it. i like finding sources :)

have a nice day 🥰

here’s one example for you (click here) exploring igbo gender norms

here’s a second report that’s worth reading too (click here)

i don’t have much knowledge about the other cultures suggested, others can provide info for those

yep, you’re entirely right. for your area, it’s more effective to run wells for each person. the frustrating part being that, it implies that the city has been designed so, so badly, that individuals can’t actually share resources, without the per capita price going up if they do so.

even without depopulation, that’s a huge governmental failure. if individuals are having to run all their own utility setups and infrastructure, is that even a “city”? it sounds more like rural living but it’s all vaguely connected. presumably as a result of this low density, you have higher ongoing costs elsewhere? i.e commutes to work, cost of food, etc

if not, then it could be one of those taxpayer-subsidised things, where it feels cheaper for each resident, but the reality is that someone else is paying for it. i’m not good at wording what i mean in this case, but i will pass you to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) to show it instead, he does a better job of explaining what i’m talking about

anyhow… that’s crazy! it’s entirely the thing i’m worried about seeing replicated large scale as a result of a reduction in population

i do get where you’re coming from, population density was less than it was. as a consequence, people had less access to resources. i would argue as a result of this, they also had less quality of life. the reason that urbanization has been a trend over the past 150 years that shows no sign of stopping, is because population urbanization is a multiplier on the effectiveness of quality of life, because it makes the cost to maintain higher quality of life cheaper per unit of life.¹

for example, yes, you can supply a neighbourhood with individual wells, granted. but surely it would be cheaper for your community to build one massive well, and then everyone in the neighbourhood can collect the water at the well? the community could all pay their share to maintain the well, and then the per unit cost of the well would be cheaper to build and maintain.

whilst you’re at it, since there’s only one well, you can put in a really fancy pump and purifier system. a really high quality rig, with low cost to run. that way, you only need to maintain 1 efficient pump and purifier, rather than 20 or 30 less efficient ones that would cost more fuel to run as an aggregate. the unit cost per person of the pump and purifier setup would be cheaper to run and maintain.

if you wanna go really bougie, you could all chip in to collectively install pipes to every house so that your local community doesn’t have to walk to the well. if you build slightly more pipes than you need, this would act as insurance so that if one pipe breaks, you don’t all lose supply, and the water could flow round… other pipes… and… …wait this just sounds like a municipal supply but with extra steps…

i know i’m being facetious, but the reality is that it is just not measurably cheaper to live out in isolated pockets, through supplying individual infrastructure on a per person basis.² economies of scale dictates this relationship.³ it’s inescapable.⁴. it’s inevitable.⁵ by all means, if it’s the only option someone has to provide utilities for themself, they should use it. but let’s not pretend that it’s more expensive to group up, live closer, and share the cost burden through communal resources.

i will trust you are aware of “economies of scale”, but i have linked a video here for those who are not aware, and also don’t want to read papers like a total nerd. ☝️🤓

[1]. (??? what would the units for quality of life per capita be i wonder? joy/kg? lol)

[2]. “The results indicate that cost savings can be achieved by increases in the scale of production…”, from “Productivity growth, economies of scale and scope in the water and sewerage industry: The Chilean case”, by Molinos-Senante and Maziotis, accessible at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162666/

[3]. “…more spread out settlement (“Dispersion”) leads to diseconomies in distribution…”, from “Economies of scale, distribution costs and density effects in urban water supply: a spatial analysis of the role of infrastructure in urban agglomeration”, by Hugh B., accessible at https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/285/

[4]. “…agglomeration economies make firms and workers more productive in dense urban environments than in other locations.”, from “The economics of urban density”, by Duranton and Pupa, accssible at https://diegopuga.org/research.html#density

[5]. “Econometric analysis of the data from the Big Mac price survey revealed a significant positive effect of being in a rural area on the increase in prices.”, from “Identifying the size and geographic scope of short-term rural cost-of-living increases in the United States”, by Díaz-Dapena, Loveridge & Paredes, accessible at “https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00168-023-01244-z”

sure, i’ll try to explain briefly

“infrastructure”, i.e utilities, transport, bureacracy etc is built to support a fixed population within a city. when the population increases, you have to build more infrastructure to support this new population. this part is easy, you expand your cities at their edges, extend the utilities, and set up satellite bureacracy offices if needed

the tricky part is when you lose population. the correct move would be to demolish this infrastructure and scale back. trouble is, not only would this be wasteful, but it would also leave gaps in cities, since population decline doesn’t happen uniformly from a city edge. where exactly, do you demolish the infrastructure?

it would be nice if we live in a theoretical world where, as population decreases, the cities magically shrink at their edges, and suburban residents move closer in to fill the gaps. this is not how populations deplete from an area though (example: detroit, 1950 - 2020)

you will struggle to convince a suburban homeowner at the edge, to sell up and move to one of the gaps left behind by population loss. if we stop short of rewriting laws to force this population transfer, the end result is that you are left with a “swiss cheese” city. houses and settlements will be spread so thinly that becomes impossible for city goverments to provide “infrastructure” without providing it at a loss. your local goverment will then take debt and bankrupt, the infrastructure will collapse through lack of maintenance, and then the remaining population suffers big time

i want to note that i am not using this as an argument to support population growth. i am only stating the big, big problem that needs to be tackled somehow, concerning population loss. some big-brains are going to have to work this problem through, fast!

side note: interestingly, most NA cities are spread out and sprawled so much that they are suffering unaffordable infrastructure bills already, despite not suffering the effects of population loss. goodness knows how these places will fare when population loss actually hits…

it’s the same type of non-performative speech you see when any company says “we value our customer’s complaints”, or “we work hard to have a diverse and inclusive team”, as if by merely saying these things that it magically becomes true

ah but meta has cracked it this time; if they just say “we never sell your info” that means they don’t, right?

yeah it’s pretty messy

there was an original condition called “autism” which referred to the stereotypical, ““low functioning”” case where someone has intellectual disabilities and the rest

then a ““high functioning”” variant was labelled, where the intellectual disability was missing, called “asperger’s syndrome”

then more and more inbetween cases started being labelled like rett syndrome, CDD, PDD-NOS, and so they had to say “fuck it, it’s all “autism spectrum disorder” now”

over time, “autism” has become shorthand for ASD. to avoid confusion, the OG autism sometimes gets described as “classic autism”

honestly it’s all a big mess

opinion time:

the truth is players don’t lose all the time. companies setup the matches to deliver a 50/50 win loss ratio, because if they didn’t do this, then some players would be losing all the time, these players would uninstall, and then they lose money because they can’t sell boxes or whatever they push these days.

however, humans also experience losses worse than wins. the magnitude of a loss emotion is typically greater than an equivalent win emotion. we evolved like this to make sure you didn’t lose your stash of food in the tree somewhere, or perhaps at the back of the cave - if you did, you died, and so those humans who preserved a sense of dread when experiencing loss were more likely to pass on their genetics. this is why playerbases constantly whinge and moan about being on the losing team - you are actually getting 50/50 win/loss, but your brain only pays attention to the losses, it doesn’t remember the wins as well, and so your perception is distorted.

only in some rare brains is this emotion spread dampened - these rare humans are able to tank losses easily. it still feels bad for them, but they can take the hit way easier. these individuals are typically also the professionals in competitive ventures of all strokes. since society sees them as “elite”, this is now seen as a good thing, even though in rougher times, you can’t expect these people to give more than a cursory fuck about the food supply being lost to bears. it’s one of the reasons why you see elite athletes constantly developing drug problems, catching rape charges, and going bankrupt. the loss just isn’t as emotionally bad for them. they can tank it. it’s not psychopathic, it’s just… they have less aversion to losses.

anyway, if a game is equal, balanced and fair, then an overwhelming majority of the playerbase is experiencing more loss emotion than win emotion, on average. this undercurrent of loss emotion is the true cause of the “violent” part of “violent video games”. it’s not the shooting itself, it’s the competition between players that festers these loss emotions, that then causes the aggression.

boomer legislators get this part mixed up and confused all the time, and so they speak reductively of the problem when they demand less bloodsplatter and gun imagery. what they don’t get, is FIFA, Super Smash Bros, Rocket League etc, can also cause this horrible feeling, because they are competitive games. it’s the competition that does it, not the violence. this is the true origin of toxicity in playerbases. no wonder DotA2 players always have 4000+ hours and say “i hate it, but lets go again”. “just 1 more round” it sounds like drugs, doesn’t it? “just 1 more bump brooo”. “cmonnn, just 1 more”.

solution: stop playing competitive matchmaking. it’s not good for you, it’s not healthy. you are feeding your brain a virtual drug. you are chasing the win, just like a gambler. stop feeding your ego, you don’t need to be good at a game to feel valid. overwhelming chances are you don’t have a “winner-style” competitive brain that will help you cope with loss emotions and truly let you enjoy comp/ranked games, so please stop trying. you’re hurting yourself. “top” rank will never be worth your mental health. you have to let it go.❤️

sources: (loss emotion magnitude in dota2, pdf)[https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7348&context=etd].

(elite athletes found to be arrested far more frequently for DV and SA than non-athletes)[https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=honors]

(competitive games, not the “cosmetically violent” games, lead to aggression)[https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/video-games]

and lastly, my own personal experience dealing with this in 2018. most of this post is anecdotal, it’s an opinion piece, and i don’t care to back this up further.

gold skin unlocked: escape 1000 cats

yep i found this one out the hard way when applying for a job in the uk at currys (similar to best buy like in the op)

didn’t get the job of course, that’s fine, whatever, move on and go to next application

what i learnt afterwards though was that, they don’t hire for currys/best buy based on your actual understanding of tech. they hire on your ability to sell the items, and help customers engage in excess consumerism.

the main point being, i obviously wouldn’t sell anyone a $99 gold plated hdmi cable. because firstly, that’s unethical profiteering, and secondly, i know that a $5 would do the same job. i would point a customer to the $5 cable, it’s the correct choice. but this is why i am unhireable for this job.

currys, best buy, euronics, mediamarkt etc need to hire people that can sell the $99 cable. to do that, they counterintuitively have to hire people who don’t know enough about tech. reason being, if you don’t actually know about tech yourself, you will think that the gold cable is better, and you can then do a more convincing job of selling it. plausible deniability. apply this to every item in the store. you want someone who can push 8k tvs, beats headphones and smart fridges. not someone who will guide the consumer to what they actually need for their use case.

it’s the reason why you go into these stores and the staff don’t have a fucking clue about actual tech questions. they were hired precisely because they don’t have a clue.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

ahh you must watch out for the “[fruit] juice” vs “[fruit] juice drink” meme

on the packet somewhere, it will specify, for the example of your case, “apple juice”, or “apple juice drink”

anything that is a “juice drink” is just not the good stuff. a “juice drink” can have basically anything they want in there, with some 0.0001% real fruit to cover themselves legally. always look out for “juice” on it’s own, that’s the 100% real stuff

i say this because i got bitten by buying the cheapest apple “juice” once, to find out it was a “juice drink”, i.e not apple juice.

oh god it’s not just “some people” are influenced, it’s “most people” are influenced?? 💀

it’s no wonder that “influencer” is a job title, yikes!

also, this line made me laugh:

Instead, the autistic shopper focuses on what really matters: ingredients, price, and the necessity of even owning the product. Time and again they select the best product for their needs regardless of how it is displayed.

when they spell out the reasons like this, it’s very funny because it’s written like we’re specimens in a zoo (imagine the david attenborough voice), and that we’re all acting strangely. no, we’re the ones acting rational, you’re the strange ones!

that’s a nice article. glad to see my reasoning validated. thank you for sharing ❤️

get this right, it genuinely shocked me too. some people just… look at the product, and then go “i’ll buy that!” and then they buy it. they are not even making a conscious choice when doing this. their brain intuitively tells them “yes, this one” and they don’t have to think it out.

more often than not, the product that wins is the product with the better or “flashy” packaging and style. that’s one reason why they spend all that money on advertising and branding. to me, it’s sooo strange. why would you not read up on your choice beforehand, or at least investigate each packet to check for food aversions, find out which one is the best $/unit value, etc? why should the packet the food is in, have any substantial bearing on your choice of purchase? (there are edge cases where the packet matters, i know)

to answer your question, yeah there is a lot of risk-takers out there!😱

i see a lot of commenters thinking this is a bot meme. so, i’m gonna explain the joke in excruciatingly painful detail for the normies, who i hope are never required to “get” this meme otherwise.

~

in hospitals, people sometimes decorate the floor with various liquids, sometimes willingly.

as a cleaner, you need to be able to dump a bucket of bleach on this hospital floor, and get scrubbing quickly.

to facilitate this, the floors are made out of a smooth material with minimal pores. you dump bleach, and it just works.

this comes with a side effect of the floor needing to be very, very slippy.

~

psych ward patients must have all their gear removed, this includes shoes and socks.

this is because you can use the laces and elastic to commit sudoku.

but now all your psych patients are at high risk of slips and falls instead.

to counter this, “hospital grip socks” are issued, like the yellow socks in the bottom left of OP’s meme.

these are issued to patients as part of their hospital uniform, to counter the slippy floor problem.

you can now navigate your room safely without slipping and injuring yourself.

these socks are also issued to regular patients like elderly, weak to stand, etc etc. but on the internet, these are “psych ward socks”

~

so, the actual joke is that OP is outing themself as a psych patient by demonstrating knowledge of the uniform.

sidenote: i assume the orange sandals are for bougie in-patients at private facilities? it seems silly tbh, i would want to throw them.

the implication of this, is that algorithms now have actual influence on the natural selection of humans. small influence of course, but, unsettling to think about for too long.