Joanna Cherry:"Alex Salmond secured a concession that nothing in Scotland Act would preclude the people of Scotland from subsequently choosing an independent future. This is recorded in Hansard during second reading of Referendums (Scotland & Wales) Bill, May 21, 1997."
More from Society
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures
these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.
this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.
let's look.
above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.
we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.
this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.
barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.
there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.
everyone got the same R
these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.
this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.
let's look.
above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.
we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.
this is devastating to the case for NPI.
clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.
barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.
this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.
there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.
this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.
everyone got the same R
this methodology is a little complex, so let me explain what i did.
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) May 30, 2020
a few EU countries provide real day of death data. this lets us plot meaningful curves to show rate of disease change.
what struck me is how similar all the curves were.
everyone got the same shape. pic.twitter.com/bN0hILzoSl
You May Also Like
Joe Rogan's podcast is now is listened to 1.5+ billion times per year at around $50-100M/year revenue.
Independent and 100% owned by Joe, no networks, no middle men and a 100M+ people audience.
👏
https://t.co/RywAiBxA3s
Joe is the #1 / #2 podcast (depends per week) of all podcasts
120 million plays per month source https://t.co/k7L1LfDdcM
https://t.co/aGcYnVDpMu
Independent and 100% owned by Joe, no networks, no middle men and a 100M+ people audience.
👏
https://t.co/RywAiBxA3s
Joe is the #1 / #2 podcast (depends per week) of all podcasts
120 million plays per month source https://t.co/k7L1LfDdcM
https://t.co/aGcYnVDpMu
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
