VGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gZ2VudWluZSBpbnRlbGxpZ2VuY2UgLCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhcnRpZmljaWFsIHN0dXBpZGl0eS4NClRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIHNlcmVuaXR5LCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhbnhpZXR5Lg0KVGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcGVhY2UsIHRoZXJlIGlzIHR1cm1vaWwuDQpUaGVyZSBpcyBubyBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUsIHRoZXJlIGlzIHBvcnJpZGdlLg0KVGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gb3JkZXIsIHRoZXJlIGlzIGNoYW9zLg==

  • 2 Posts
  • 413 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 14th, 2024

help-circle


  • The distribution will also give you a specific dollar value corresponding to that percentile, and then you can use the cost of living statistics to interpret it. If you say that 20% of households earn less than 35 k$ is that 35 big or small? The income distribution alone won’t tell you that. In relation to the rest of the population, it’s small, but what can you actually buy with that? Interpretation requires digging into the cost of living statistics. Once you combine the two, you’ll be able to tell that the lowest 20% are struggling.

    Percentile based classification is good because it is simple and it won’t do the interpreting for you. If you can afford to eat, but you’re not eating meat every week, is that really poverty or not? If you can travel, but you’re not doing that driving a Ferrari or sitting on a private jet, are you really rich at that point? These are the kinds of questions the percentile approach avoids.

    BTW the 2/3 median approach is really weird. The number of people it involves changes every year, but at least it’s tied to a median which actually tells you something. Using the highest income as a benchmark makes even less sense, because that number changes radically every year based on what a few billionaires are doing. It won’t tell you anything about the rest of the population. Using a wild number like that as a basis of any kind is pretty much useless. Besides, the highest income of the population is really far from the rest, because the distribution has an extremely long tail.



  • I would say it’s probably close to zero, depending on what physics actually allows. If FTL travel turns out to be completely impossible, then it’s exactly zero. If some sort of FTL travel is possible, it’s slightly above zero. If you can travel faster than 10^9 c, that’s when distances stop being a huge problem. Before that though, distance ruins my dreams.



  • chaosCruiser@futurology.todaytoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Do you believe in aliens?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    But the other planets are probably absurdly far away. The space happens to be expanding as well, so that distance is also growing rapidly. If FTL travel isn’t possible, nobody will ever visit those worlds, and they can’t visit us. Just travelling at 1c or even 1000c won’t be much help either. The distances sure truly vast.













  • Everything needs to have a place: box, drawer, hook, jar, bin, anything. If it doesn’t have a place, it’s just going to end up randomly anywhere and everywhere.

    You need to decide a fixed place for everything. There needs to be a fixed place for yarns, maybe multiple places for different types of yarn. There should be a specific location for fabrics. If there’s not enough floor space, start using the walls. Even the ceiling is a place where you can attach hooks, loops and whatnot.

    You just need to make a hundred little decisions while organizing everything, but once that’s done you can skip the burdensome decisions in the future and simply follow the system you built earlier. Once there’s a system, don’t deviate from it, and that requires some discipline. If following it becomes a routine, you no longer have to spend much mental energy in sustaining it.