Yeah, a lot of popular webcomics seem to try to mine personal experiences (especially around introversion or social awkwardness) for relatability: Sarah's Scribbles, Pizzacake, etc.
exasperation
joined 11 months ago
Your links, especially the WEF link, support the correlation, but explicitly describe a confounding variable as being household work (especially childcare). And that's consistent with the observation that the motherhood penalty has a different magnitude for different countries and different industries. All that suggests that a combination of household division of labor, parental leave policies (either employer policies or government regulations), and workplace accommodations generally can make a big difference.
None of this is inevitable or immutable. We can learn from the countries and the industries where the motherhood penalty is lower, or doesn't last as long.
No, the Mediterranean diet has plenty of evidence in favor, including actual interventions where groups were switched to the diet and studied compared to a control group, and had better health outcomes. Those studies, plus population-wide data, supports the idea that a Mediterranean diet improves longevity and health in general.
That's just the unusual prevalence of 100+ year olds, in the so called "blue zones." Overall country life expectancy statistics aren't thrown off by that type of fraud as much, because the vast majority of people don't live anywhere close to 100, and these specific blue zones are a very small overall portion of the larger country.
For the most part, we can observe a correlation between wealth/income and life expectancy, where the blue zones are outliers on that general trend (both long lived and very poor). So there's no reason to believe that these small communities are poisoning the overall stats in any significant quantity.
It's thousands of tiny little things, pushing and pulling lifespans up and down.
As the screenshot notes, it's both diet and access to healthcare.
It's also other lifestyle factors, like amount of walking or driving, amount of alcohol consumed, tobacco use, etc.
It's social and economic factors, like income, education levels, employment status, type of job, disability status, marital status, number of close friends.
It's mental health issues, and related statistics like suicide rates, substance abuse rates, etc.
There are environmental factors, like environmental exposure to certain hazards or pollution, sunlight exposure, altitude, certain illnesses isolated to certain climates, maybe things like localized microbiomes (although those are also correlated with foods eaten and things like that).
There are also genetic factors for individual families or potentially ethnic groups.
And perhaps the one that can't be ignored entirely is just plain old recordkeeping. Some places have high rates of people living past 100, but don't seem to have much in the way of a lifestyle or environmental explanation, and may more accurately trace back to unreliable birth records 80+ years ago such that people might be mistakenly reported as living longer than they actually did.
But my body is 60% water!
how is that implied by 'a man likes to feel like a man'?
What's the context that you're imagining this topic coming up? Because from my perspective, as a man, if someone said this to me about someone else I'd assume that I'm being asked to come up with some made up work, so that some junior guy on my team, or some dude in my social group who is feeling down, can feel more useful.
Which I might or might not accommodate, but it's kinda patronizing and would effectively have the opposite effect in building up my respect for that man.
That's not part of this comparison. The comparison in this article and the metric it covers is for people who are renting versus buying in 2024. The renter in 2024 can rent from a landlord who purchased in 2010, and is borrowing at 2020 interest rates. But a buyer today is buying at 2024 prices and 2024 interest rates.
To the person he exercises leverage over, who makes money on each sale made, and pays his wages/commissions? Isn't that obvious? He agrees to sell some stuff, in exchange for money that comes from the sale.
Producing value gives leverage. A salesman who brings in lots of revenue and profit can negotiate a pretty high commission, because controlling that level of revenue/profit represents some leverage.
Two things: first, landlords aren't entitled to a profit, and second, landlord input costs might be completely different from an owner resident.
On the first point, if the landlord's costs are $2000/month, and the market rent for that unit is $1900/month, the landlord would rather lose $100/month on a lease than lose $2000/month on a vacant property.
On the second, it might be that the landlord bought the place when it was much cheaper, or has a much lower interest rate than what is available today. So if the landlord's costs are $2000/month for a property that would now cost $4000/month at today's purchase prices and interest rates, but can rent for $3000/month at a profit to himself.
Similarly, some volume landlords can spread certain costs around and not pay nearly as much as an owner resident. It might cost $1200 to hire a plumber to do a 6-hour job, but it also might cost $150 to simply have a plumber on the payroll to do that job, if you've got enough steady work that it's cheaper to have him around.
It's true of all combat sports, and, to some degree, any other sport in which you go face to face with your opponent.
And although it might be true that at the very very top levels people both learn to be more ambidextrous (so that there's less of a mismatch between sides whether right or left handed) and are more experienced/skilled at dealing with left handed opponents, the early years of learning the sport will weed out fewer left handed people so that the top levels have more left handed people.