Ok. Did some digging and found:

BLS built hedonic models for goods and services in several areas including apparel, electronics, and housing for CPI and for computers and, more recently, broadband services for PPI.

So the “price” includes adjustments to imagine what a 50" flat panel might have cost of it had been possible back then. So a $200 dollar 50" flat TV that a single person can carry is extrapolated to be worth $10,000 back then, which at least in that case I can say sure. The minimum viable TV of 2000 no longer has anyone making that crappy, so you don’t see TVs under $10 new.

But it does mean that many of these rates might be “nicer” than presented.

Was never going to happen. The most efficient plane uses way more fuel than even a “gas guzzler”. The common driver is dangerous enough with a land vehicle between mistakes operating and slack maintenance, imagine if that population were all flying around.

Stop making yourself autistic with that Tylenol. Everything else seems on the up and up.

It’s a bit more taboo for men to seek that care, for one.

Nah, I can’t afford to spare $1k to rent that for a week to wear.

Note this concept was about a hypothetical design and infrastructure. That coupling would be horizontal and occurring while moving and using train designs that didn’t yet exist.

I said interesting, not necessarily practical. It’s something we might have tried to do if we didn’t have direct flights as a viable option.

There was a concept I thought was neat. Imagine around stops you had a parallel set of tracks with cars that would connect to the train and passengers would have X number of minutes to transfer between the parallel trains before they decouple.

So a ‘fast lane’ train wouldn’t actually stop, it would just couple to another train that does pretty much nothing but transfer passengers to and from the stop.

Though the reality is that would require a lot of work when the counter argument can be “fly a plane direct instead”

Note that having one house, even occupied is already taxed pretty much universally.

In some jurisdictions, it might make sense, but in rural areas, it generally doesn’t. My parents bought a house to live in that happened to come with a second house on the land in the middle of nowhere. No one wants that second house.

The “productive empty land” could be a nightmare, lots of deforestation to ensue in areas that can ill afford it. There’s enough dead commercial properties to reclaim before we need to start going after “empty land”.

That’s one pair of philosophies that creep me out both ways. Both the anti natalists and pro natalists.

Deciding for yourself is one thing, imposing your choice on others is maddening.

I don’t know if the comment quite raises to the level of anti natalist though. Maybe it’s grading on a curve of reading some more hard core anti natalists, but that comment felt tame and felt like they wouldn’t necessarily object to a couple having one child or even two, being somewhat below the replacement level…

If a protest of a billion people happens, then it cannot be ignored by the media.

I know, it was hyperbole, but the point is that if 12 million people are on the street, it’s not that the 12 million people need to get people’s attention, they are indicative that the people already have that perspective and are showing it in the streets.

A small protest has a goal of getting attention on a problem that people may lack awareness. A multi-million person protest isn’t about a need to raise awareness anymore, it’s about showing the awareness and commitment that is already there. For whatever volume of people actively protest, you can be sure there’s a singnificant multiple of that number of people who agree with the protestors but didn’t take it to the streets for one reason or another.

Well I meant the more rhetorical “pushing”, but yes, some of the activity of the claimed non-violence seems a bit violent.

I would say that I doubt you can have millions of people protest and manage to be completely non-violent. Some folks will take it to violence in the name of the cause, some will opportunisticly do it under the cover of the movement, and finally some might “false flag” to try to discredit the movement.

On the one hand, most of those incidents cited were in the face of a regime that also didn’t want to care. Just hard to ignore circumstances if 3.5% of your people are out on the streets and likely most of the people off the streets agree with them.

On the other hand, they base this on very few instances, so it’s hardly a statistical slam dunk, it’s vaguely supportive of some concepts, but anyone taking note of specific numbers is really overextending the research beyond what it can possibly say.

I think it’s not “3.5% of people want an outcome” but “protests of significant magnitude to have 3.5% actively on the streets pushing” correlate with a very very large population that agrees, but not enough to be out on the streets.

So even if 40 million people want single payer, there are not 12 million in the streets.

But again, this is based on a scant handful of “movements”, so it’s pretty useless on specifics. Most I can see as a takeaway is perhaps that a violent movement may be too high stakes for people and a largely non-violent movement can attract more people and more people usually matter more than more violence.

Based on the article “no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed” has the caveat of “we only look at 3 of them, and those 3 worked”.

So their overall sample size is small, and the 3.5% sample size is just 3. Further, those 3 had no idea someone in the vague future would retroactively measure their participation to declare it a rock solid threshold.

I think the broader takeaway is that number of people seems to matter more than degree of violence, and violence seems to alienate people that might have otherwise participated.

While that’s true, even Trump will throw a few hollow words in support of other Republicans and declare himself a Republican and knows the result is his life is easier with Republicans victories.

In a hypothetical cheating scenario, it’s not like Trump directly did the cheating, some broad conspiracy across multiple states would require a number of players, coordinated since the “evidence” is similar dropoff across many states. Any such conspiracy would doubtless recognize the strategic value of allies also winning, even if they didn’t care about the allies directly. Such a conspiracy would be keyed into the same sentiment that wants to do everything they can to install conservative loyalists across the executive and judicial branches as quickly as they can. There’s no way such a conspiracy would neglect legislators and state governments if they had given themselves that opportunity.

The drop offs could be explained much more simply that MAGA is only about Trump and not about Republicans. If Trump only cares about Trump, the same can be said if his followers. Most of them will vote R as long as they are filling out a ballot anyway, but they barely even show up for Trump loyalists in the midterms. So it’s quite reasonable to expect a bunch of Trump people to just go in for the one thing they care about and ignore the rest.

The governor is easy to explain, the Republican candidate was never well liked, and then it came out that he specifically called himself a black Nazi and the Republican party threw him under the bus.

The lieutenant governor and attorney general remain odd, but that’s NC for you. They sometimes just vote Democrat for statewide State races and then vote republican federal.

I suppose the counter question would be if they were manipulating the votes directly, why not also rig the down ballot election?

The number of fatal incidents is probably more informative for most conclusions. We rarely have a passenger airliner incident and this year we had one. That really moves number of deaths statistics despite not having a particularly informative different cause than other aviation accidents.

The point is there is certainly some intent for visualizing and sharing the data, and a nuanced understanding of the circumstances make it obvious that, as yet, the number of fatalities while tragic, is not indicative of any trend yet. If you went by “number of fatal incidents” the graph would look less anomalous. We’ve had many years without any passenger liner incidents, and this year we have had one.

So it’s a graph that wants to be suggestive of something but ultimately shouldn’t be considered suggestive of any comparative significance. It’s data that is precisely what it purports to be, but there are intended inferences that have to be answered.

I don’t see why any level, even knowing “furry” would find these particular designs “objectionable” and worthy of rejecting. They aren’t even vaguely fetishized.

There’s some self selecting bias there, going to a ‘furry convention’ is a rather steeper level of engagement than just, say, looking at a webcomic featuring art like this mascot here.

Those more hard core sexual furries scare off casual furries as well as folks a bit timid about being associated with the most… Forthcoming portion of the fandom.

It’s rough on some as they want to engage without sexual interest in the aesthetic, but as a result get grouped in with those with a sexual interest. They want to identify as something, and furry is closest, but they aren’t into the sexual facet and struggle with that broad association.