It isn't like anyone would be unable to afford food, because a welfare state would imply a standing agreement to buy everyone food at the taxpayer's expense if required. And it is entirely reasonable for prices to go up when there is a shortage, the people who built up stockpiles in advance need to be compensated for their foresight. Someone has to be stockpiling food.

There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someone out and say "this person will give me food next month, they've got a stockpile for this drought".

Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed.

> The world is bigger than your relatives.

I offer no commentary on the size of my relatives vs. the rest of the world :)

And what would you rather happen? If they don't store up a surplus then everyone will run out of food and prices will go up anyway. If there is less food because of a drought, prices are going up. If corporations start building up a stockpile then prices aren't going to go up as much as if there were no reserves.

TLDR; Yes. Good. It is a great day when there is food available at the local supermarket.

Which makes it clearly distinct from leadership, because it is very hard to lead something that isn't alive. It is hard to lead a server.

Assuming the ratio of answers per question remains the same (or drops because the answer quality raises) this is the sort of thing I would suspect.

It wouldn't even be theoretically surprising if the number of Qs & As on MathOverflow trend down purely because all the easy questions get answered. Wouldn't necessarily expect that, but because we can't really anticipate whether questions should trend up/down/sideways I don't think analysing MathOverflow is really all that interesting. Like the writer observes, kids these days are probably all over on Discord.

It can, capital depreciated continuously and there'd be an annual budget for replacing panels. If the new panels are much more expensive, we'd expect the cost to start rising.

Obviously everyone would rather be using solar rather than oil if there is going to be a war because the feedback loop is slower, but it is still affected by foreign events.

> This is in process now, but there are efforts by the fossil fuel industry to prevent that.

Maybe, but the environmentalists have been flailing and failing to stop the fossil fuel industry for decades, because people want cheap energy. If renewables actually work the fossil fuel industry will have about as much success stopping them, ie, none whatever. There wasn't ever strong enough political support for renewables to escape economics, but there is even less for fossil fuels. Nobody is in favour of them on an ideological basis.

> In addition to being cheaper...

It might even be cheaper, we're looking for the tipping point. But if it is actually cheaper to get power from solar energy, people will just switch to it at high speed. The reason the world runs on something like 80% fossil fuel is because solar has, so far, manifestly not been a cheaper source of energy than fossil fuels.

If you ignore the fact that people would have to go without energy then sure, it'd be great. But the practical reality is the downsides of oil are much smaller than the downsides of not having cheap, accessible energy. Which is why the world persists in using coal and oil.

Much like how you can hire a programmer based on that you think their work is good or they made a lot of money programming, rather than just limiting yourself to the people who went to some fancy university. If you don't feel competent at assessing programmer quality then you can exclusively hire ex-Google or MIT programmers or what have you and pay an absurd premium for the most credentialed US developers. But most people don't need to do that.

People don't need a government body to tell them to check for credentials. If people care they can ask (I had to give a copy of my degree certificate thingo to my employer a job or two ago, they cared that I was qualified). The whole and only point of mandating licensing is to raise prices for consumers.

EDIT

Just while I'm thinking about it, the law is expected to be easy enough for everyone to follow while simultaneously there is is an absurd legal fiction that only a licensed professional can talk sensibly about the law. It is internally inconsistent that lawyers would require a license.

The thing that makes communism (and fascism to a lesser extent) anti-capitalist are that it rejects the idea people should be allowed to own and control capital. So there is a clear incompatibility with communism even if the exact nature of capitalism isn't clear.

In the study they seem put the P value of the taxi driver outcome at <0.01 (in Table 2, although I admit I haven't read the thing especially closely). For 400 data points, we expect there to be around 4 values with a P value less than <0.01.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul...

The whole thing is marketing, they have to do some level of morality theatre to placate the pearl-clutchers.

The UK was an amazing leader on liberty in the days when absolute monarchies were the assumed default government, but their free speech standards are a long way from exemplary in modern times.

It turns out that there is a profession with a lowest risk of getting Alzheimer's (duh, one had to exist) and it looks like a slight outlier (it's the lowest, we'd expect that one to look like a slight outlier). As outliers go it isn't that impressive, it looks like it is part of a fairly boring distribution. We just plotted 400 data points on the graph, the 1/400 chance weird data point is going to look a little weird. We're actually just reading a lot into the fact that the 2nd data point in ambulance drivers which isn't all that convincing.

Not to knock the study, I'm sure it is a great study. Lots of science done. They do good graphs and all that. But the study appears to be telling me that Alzheimer's is random with respect to occupation and ideally don't spend so much time on the road if you want to live to see old age.

Besides, the point is a good one. There are a lot of professions. If we glance at the underlying study [0] Figure 1 suggests that we'd probably expect to see an outlier or two in that mess just through chance, we're expecting a few p<0.01. Taxi drivers doing unusually well doesn't seem especially impressive in that light, especially since it is one of the professions that seem to die off rather young and we might expect one of those professions to do rather well on Alzheimers.

[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj-2024-082194

If the fear is kids communicating with people, I might suggest giving them a phone and an internet connection is a poor start whatever happens next. They're communication tools. They're going to use them to communicate.

I think the more baby-steps approach to western cognitive dissonance is to at least get them to be consistent about when it is a good idea to go to war. I'm more than happy to get downvoted pointing out that killing 100s of thousands of Russians and welding them strategically to China was a terrible policy, uniting Asian manufacturing and resource giants is catastrophic for western power. But people were grumpy and didn't want to talk about realpolitik because the Russians are so evil.

Now we have the US attacking Persians in Persia for trying to govern Persia because the US sphere of influence covers the whole world and doing serious damage to the West's access to global oil markets and we have this muted and philosophical response from the powers that be. It isn't just immoral, it is also actively stupid - if we can tolerate this behaviour from the US, why can't we also tolerate Russia on a far smaller and easier to understand scale? How are all the sanctions and weapons deliveries to Ukraine actually justified in the minds of the people making the decisions? It clearly isn't a moral calculation and it seems to be stupid strategy.

If we got some thoughtful and transparent thinkers in power there'd probably just be less wars, they seem to be the fast path to poverty and the upside is hard to spot. There are serious questions about why any of the major conflicts right now looked like a good idea to the people in Washington and wherever NATO is in Europe. Brussels I suppose. Can we try peace and prosperity as a strategy?