Well, I wouldn't want to claim that every small town paper would keep going regardless of profits. Just that a fair number of considerations exist other than profit. Consider why Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, for example.
That said, my small town's paper is going strong - it serves two cities of 12,000 and 3,000 people in a county of a little less than 100K.
Social mobility is not the same thing. Internal-vs-external locus of control is probably pretty correlated between parents and kids for reasons of both nature and nurture. The point is that what successful parents pass down to their kids is not cash, but attitudes that are highly adaptive to making fat stacks.
I do want to stress that I didn't suggest any major cash transfer above -- for one reason, most 30-40-something "million dollar" couples probably haven't had their 20-30 year-older parents pass away and leave them any "inheritance" yet, if any is coming.
What I said was: get a job at dad's business. Some similar situational advantages: buy parent's not-a-lemon old car at a sweetheart rate, get a little help with tuition, live for a few years low rent or no rent with family, get a job at a friend of the family's business, get a referral from a connected family member or friend of the family, grow up in a neighborhood with lots of green space, play sports and hang out with kids whose parents are comparatively rich, be white and have had orthodontics and health care for your childhood, have the time and energy to do extracurriculars as a teenager, have a decent school music program, or a good local library, take time to do a "travel year", have the security to know if you fail at a business, you can 'just move home', etc.
The point here is, the list of "legs up" some people get that they don't necessarily recognize, let alone control, is very, very long, and every one of these is a mild additive push toward relative life success.
Having an internal locus of control is certainly beneficial in dealing with the things life throws at you and in seizing opportunities, but I contend that one's surface area of luck is not made up solely or even mostly by attitude.
I didn't even list any of the negative things that might totally derail an otherwise focused, high potential kid above, and that list is probably much longer.
Funny “study” presents a lot of factoids without giving a real picture of who these people are.
The profession breakdown gives a clue: teachers being highly represented suggests the population is largely people at retirement age who had stable employment and invested in tax advantaged retirement accounts for their entire adulthood.
Being set up for carefree old age is the American dream, but it’s not what we imagine as wealthy.
Evolution is slow or fast depending on the reproductive cycle of the species. Redwoods: many millenia. Viruses: measured in months - which Covid variant are we on?
I'm sure you agree that this doesn't make his argument any more cogent! It's not like having viruses and bacteria evolve more quickly than food is going to be a good thing...
I doubt most cannot be articulated, but I think it quite likely there is valuable knowledge that is expensive to articulate, sometimes to the point of complete impracticality, and in that sense "can't". Instances of actual inability to articulate, due to Godel incompleteness or similar, seem rare. Technology applied to knowledge can change the expense.
The government will spend to protect the port and the city, it’s the surroundings that will go to hell. That said, the defenses they built are sinking a little faster than they thought
Unlike Dr. Friedman, I believe that reaching judgements based on evidence and explicit values is orthogonal to libertarianism: I grew up in a similar intellectual environment, but where the economic political leaning was european style democratic socialist.
In those pre-internet times, it also surfaced a problem with that environment: a sibling who vehemently averred to facts they did not have. They have since matured to be sufficiently tethered to reality to be an excellent parent and employee, but now cherry pick the internet for justification of social policy preferences.
I'm having trouble following the algorithm for the month number.
From the article:
The Month-Item. — If it begins or ends with a vowel, subtract the number, denoting its place in the year, from 10. This, plus its number of days, gives the item for the following month. The item for January is ‘0’; for February or March (the 3rd month), ‘3’; for December (the 12th month), ’12.’ [So, for clarity, the required final numbers after division by 7 are January, 0; February, 3; March, 3; April, 6; May, 1; June, 4; July, 6; August 2; September, 5; October, 0; November, 3; and December, 5.]
My attempt to implement:
For January, the preceding month is December, which neither begins nor ends with a vowel, so I do not subtract 10. The days in December are 31, so 12+31 = 43 mod 7 = 1, not the 0 of the article.
For February, the preceding month is January, which ends in a vowel, so I subtract 1 from 10, giving 9, add the days in January 1+31 = 32 mod 7 = 4, not the 3 of the article.
For March, the preceding month is February, which ends in a vowel, so I subtract 2 from 10 giving 8 and add February's 28 days 8+28 = 36 mod 7 = 1, not the 3 of the article. Had I used a leap year 29 for the days in February at this step the result would be 2, which still does not match the article result. Since the article has a constant result for March, it is either always using 28 or always using 29 days in February.
For April, the preceding month is March, which neither begins nor ends in a vowel so I do not subtract it from 10. 31 days in March gives 3+31 = 34 mod 7 = 6, which does match the article result.
For May, the preceding month is April, which starts with a vowel, so I subtract its position from 10, 10-4 = 6, add April's 30 days 6+30 = 36 mod 7 = 1 which does match the article.
For June, the preceding month is May, ending in a vowel, so I subtract May's 5 from 10, and adding May's 31 days gives 5+31= 36 mod 7 = 1 which does not match the article.
This should suffice to illustrate my misunderstanding; what have I got wrong?
February, March -- The item ... for February or March (the 3rd month), ‘3’ = 3
December -- The item ... for December (the 12th month), ’12.’
So these all use fixed values.
The `(10-place)+days mod 7` logic works for May, July, September, and November using the previous month's values -- effectively every other month. The vowel trick is likely a nmemonic for not having to remember which months to do this for.
The other months are the previous month's `item+days mod 7`, although it is unclear where this interpretation is deduced. -- The "If it begins or ends with a vowel, subtract the number, denoting its place in the year, from 10." text does not apply, so I would have assumed that is was 0 not the calculated item value. Thus, I would have expected it to just use the days in month.
I struggled with this too. The best understanding I've been able to come to is this:
1. Every month's item number can be calculated from the preceding month's item number by the method given. I.e. add the number of days in the preceding month to the preceding month's item number then take mod 7.
2. For January we take it that there is no preceding month. Therefore the numbers in such a calculation are all zero, so we end up with zero.
3. For later months you don't need to start at January and go month by month to the month you want; you can start at a month with a start- or end-vowel and use the shortcut that such a month's item number is ten minus the month number.
4. For the purposes of 3, 'y' does not count as a vowel.
Perhaps if someone who gets the language did it for today's date, we'd both get some clarity. I've tried working backwards but the labyrinthine explanation doesn't project
Once we learn that one of the investigating officers, Reiss, was convicted of possession of child pornography, it becomes understandable - enraging, but understandable.
I had to go back and read the article properly instead of skimming through it,
"These would be the last public comments Reiss made about the case. On 26 May 2021 he was arrested on suspicion of possessing images of child sexual abuse. Two images had been uploaded to his Gmail account, and detectives had traced them to his IP address. When they raided his home and seized his electronic devices, they found more than 1,700 images and videos depicting children, including 84 of toddlers and infants. Reiss pleaded guilty in March 2022, and was later sentenced to 11 and a half to 23 months in jail. To use Weintraub’s language, if anyone was “preying on juveniles”, it was the police officer who led the investigation."
Damn! It's usually the case that the most mentally insane people are the ones who try to hold others to unreasonable high standards of made-up "morality". Anyone who has been given a prison sentence where this officer was involved should have their case reviewed, whether they request it or not. The odds of this asshole ruining people's live throughout his career are very high.
I think they imply that the officer had access to private photos stored on seized media. And some of the photos might be intimate and thus of interest of the said officer.
My own town (60,000+) lost its paper more than ten years ago.
Was that not the general experience?
reply