Adults living in Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach – “the Beach Cities” – in Los Angeles County are estimated to save $182.4 million on healthcare costs each year thanks to lower rates of obesity, diabetes and smoking there.
This is very revealing. But the reporting that follows is startling - emphasis in bold is mine:
Gallup estimates Beach Cities residents spend $95.3 million more on healthcare each year because of obesity, diabetes and smoking than what would be expected if all residents were of normal weight, did not have diabetes and did not smoke. By comparison, the estimated extra expenditures for the Beach Cities would nearly triple, jumping to $277.7 million annually, if these indicators mirrored the national rates; so for residents of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, their collective high level of wellbeing represents $182.4 million in healthcare cost savings.
More money spent on healthcare ends up saving costs. Imagine that!
It sounds like maintaining good health is… beneficial on so many levels. Maybe sound healthcare policies should be adopted everywhere in the USA.
We’re also talking about rich people who can do things like hire personal trainers.
Median household income in Manhattan Beach is $187,217 and that includes all the people doing things like renting the rich people’s guest houses in the back of their mansion. Which is a big thing in L.A.
The money going in is what’s important to note. By paying for health up front, by putting in the time and money, people will pay less for a better quality of life in the long run. This happened in a rich region because it’s one of the only places that could escape the crushing chronic economy over a broad population. But the ultimate point is that communities can save literally tens of thousands per person by paying hundreds.
To be fair, this is a legitimate scientific hypothesis (the Grandmother Hypothesis) that attempts to explain why human females, unlike almost every other species, have a lifespan that outlasts their reproductive cycle. It’s just hypothesis, and even if it’s correct, drawing conclusions about women’s role in modern society based on a trait we developed before agriculture is just stupid, but what he’s saying isn’t as crazy as the headline is implying.
There absolutely is. Vance is describing how his mother-in-law took a sabbatical to help with their first child, and this specific interaction becomes the focus of the article:
“That’s the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female in theory,” Weinstein said at the time.
“Yes,” Vance agreed.
That’s…mostly correct. He should has said, “hypothesis,” instead of, “theory,” and it’s certainly oversimplification, but otherwise, that’s a correct assessment of the Grandmother Hypothesis.
Now, it’s fucking weird to apply that hypothesis to modern society. It’s very strange how Vance can only analyze his mother-in-laws actions through the lens of traditional family values vs. free market capitalism. It’s also pretty telling that Vance ignores the racist comment the interviewer makes when he calls this, “a weird, unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman.” But the article glossed over those comments and goes out of its way to make the, “postmenopausal women,” statement sound crazy, without even acknowledging the Grandmother Hypothesis.
It’d be like if Vance said, “You know, if multiverse theory is correct, there may be an Earth where couches have vaginas,” and I wrote an article about how Vance has this crazy belief that there’s more than one Earth. That’s actually not that crazy, and it really shouldn’t be the focus.
That’s fair, I don’t think the nuance really changes how inappropriate his comments are (nor do you) but perhaps I was too harsh to say there’s no need to be charitable.
He’s a scumbag regardless, and I could understand not confronting the other person in the moment but afaik he hasn’t distanced himself from these comments since, but you weren’t making excuses for him as my reaction implied.
Males absolutely are. The reason men aren’t, is because we couldn’t afford the infanticide, conflict and lack of genetic diversity. We have a lot of adaptations to navigate and reduce male aggression. From women killing their own newborns, to periods and ambryonic wasting, to monogamy, to a great theory of mind, to vindictiveness, to working together, to crying/smiling… it goes on.
The only reason you aren’t like the average ape, is because men adopted female ape behaviour. Ever read about just how much estrogens influence the development of the human brain? It gives us a lot of aspects that makes humans cool.
Male apes couldn’t care less about their offspring, but men express prolactin after their baby is born in order to take care of it. It’s why you don’t try to maul other men to be the only option left. It’s why rape is actually pretty rare in humans. It’s why rape is almost exclusively a matter of exerting power. Rather than a reproductibe strategy.
Men and women outlast their reproductive years. Though it is harder to reduce men’s fertility completely, it still occurs in the form of andropause. Since count and quality are important for sucess. If this wasn’t the case, men wouldn’t live as long as they do. (Just look at orca’s) Death is needed to prevent parents competing with their own offspring. It’s why we age.
Not that I condone anything the US government does or may do, but the guy literally profited off of people using his site for piracy. Not sure what defense he can muster that will succeed in the US court system.
Edit> I guess people don’t understand the words I’ve written. Downvote me, please! Fake internet points are meaningless :)
Edit 2> So many attempts at completely illogical analogies. Wow. And the funny thing is all I said is the US sees what he has done as illegal and therefore will pursue him, and that he would probably have little defense of it since he profited by doing so. It’s impressive how people go from that to inferring that I am on the US’s side with this pursuit. I honestly couldn’t care less what Kim did or what the US does to him…but it sure as hell would be nice if people stopped assuming more than what was actually fucking typed. It’s impressive the sheer lack of comprehension that exists on this Lemmy instance.
People can get injured on my land by actions they take, and I get sued. I’m not saying it makes sense.
But the dude knew full well what he was doing and profited off of piracy. The US has some things to say about that. But apparently no one can read that I said I don’t condone the US here. Maybe the word “condone” confuses people, I don’t know.
Wait is this for real? Liability works like this? I rent a storage unit – does that mean I can send the owners of the storage company to jail if I put drugs in my unit?
It’s more like you had a storage unit, and let people do whatever they want with it, but it’s implied it’s used for illegal activity. And then you have full control to stop or prevent them from doing illegal activities, and choose not to.
If it’s determined there’s liability, maybe. I don’t know about jail but a victims family absolutely could sue in civil court in the US.
I don’t know about specifics but there are absolutely cases and laws around determining when and if a storage company in this case should have known. Also for things like kids breaking into your derelict building and hurting themselves and a million other things.
Don’t ask me to get into whether the laws around establishing liability are correct or ethical, I barley know any details in my own country let alone others (and what international treaties apply). But you asked a question and the answer is: it depends but, yes, sometimes.
not only that. kimble was a skid and paid at&t folks for cards. he was a shit person from day one on. there are too many shit things he did. the idiotic videos of himself in whatever car and women he paid to hang out. also you dont feed off of the Scene. you will have a bad time. kim is shit!
It’s okay, my mom’s in her 80s and my dad made it to his 80s and their parents all made it to their 90s, so I have a good 5-15 years to degrade once I turn 60.
Gallup - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Gallup:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Pew Research - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Pew Research:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Children tried as adults were sentenced to a little more than three years in prison on average for third-degree felonies — around 50% longer than the average sentence given to adults for the same class of offense. The vast majority of all felony charges are third-degree offenses, which are the lowest class of felony crimes and include burglary, some types of assault, drug possession and certain DUI offenses.
Children and adults had similar average sentences for more serious offenses that fall under first and second-degree felonies.
Seriousness of charges isn’t necessarily the same as seriousness of crime. I read more about Knight’s case and it sounds like them departing from sentencing guidelines for armed robbery happened for the same reason as them wanting to charge him as an adult - I.e. that his actions were worse than you would think just from reading the name of the charge.
For serious offenses, they get treated the same. The only difference is for third-degree felonies, which it sounds like would be the main circumstance where that correlation would come into play. Why wouldn’t there be a difference in sentencing, when you’re specifically selecting for the more serious circumstances on the juvenile side and not on the adult side of the data you’re comparing?
Because if you are selecting for more serious circumstances, higher charges would apply. Giving them a lesser charge, but a longer sentence, doesn’t make sense.
That is the entire point of the article, disproportionate sentencing for the same charges.
Seriousness of charges isn’t necessarily the same as seriousness of crime.
And:
it sounds like them departing from sentencing guidelines for armed robbery happened for the same reason as them wanting to charge him as an adult - I.e. that his actions were worse than you would think just from reading the name of the charge.
Not every third degree felony is identical to every other third degree felony. There are ones where the circumstances of the case are going to warrant a longer sentence, and those are probably going to overlap with the ones where the circumstances of the case would warrant charging a juvenile as an adult.
And, the least serious category of felonies are going to have more "space" for more serious circumstances to exist, and so it would make sense how those have this anomalous thing exist with them, that doesn't exist with the more serious felonies where the charge better encompasses the full seriousness of the crime.
What is more likely is that more of the minors who are charged as adults are minorities, which is already known to result in disproportionately longer sentences. That is aligned with racist assumptions that minorities commit more crimes or the way they commit crimes is worse.
So as long as we are both speculating, mine is based on actual disproportionate outcomes in criminal sentencing and yours is based on an assumption that the disparity had a logical explanation. Disproportionate sentencing tends to be based on racism and sexism, not reasonable logic.
What is more likely is that more of the minors who are charged as adults are minorities, which is already known to result in disproportionately longer sentences.
Why in your theory doesn't that happen for 1st and 2nd degree felonies?
The racism in the system applies across all levels -- for adults and kids, for 1st and 2nd and 3rd degree felonies. It could be that this particular effect is a result of some kind of unequal application, sure. But I wouldn't automatically assume that racism applies very specifically to 3rd degree felonies committed by juveniles in a way it doesn't for 2nd degree felonies, or for 3rd degree felonies committed by adults, or what have you.
It sort of sounds like you're assuming that something you already know (that the system is racist) is definitely responsible for anything and everything about the system, and anyone who doesn't see it that way automatically must just not know the system is racist, and you need to explain that to them. Yes, I know the system is racist.
So as long as we are both speculating, mine is based on actual disproportionate outcomes in criminal sentencing and yours is based on an assumption that the disparity had a logical explanation.
It seems like you're just not grasping the mathematical concept I'm trying to explain (or maybe, just not even understanding that there might be anything to grasp other than that the system is racist.) And then saying the only explanation for anything in the criminal justice system is always racism. IDK man. I tried twice to explain it, and it seems like it failed both times.
If you want to understand, let me know, and I'll try again. If you just want to tell me that the system is racist (which, again, it is) and the problem is just that I'm too stupid to know that it is racist and need you to explain it to me, I think I'll go off and do something else instead.
Why in your theory doesn’t that happen for 1st and 2nd degree felonies?
Because longer sentences don’t have as much proportional variance as a shorter sentence.
When a sentencing range is 1-5 years, some people will have sentences that are 5 times as long as others. When the sentencing range is 25-40 years, nobody will have a sentence that is even twice the duration of someone else.
I understand the point you are trying to make on math. I am saying your point is based on flawed assumptions.
Yes, I am also saying that racism and sexism are the most likely explanation for any disproportionate outcome when looking at the legal system. Single judges might have their own personal variance, but when looking at state levels and above it always ends up being racism or sexism that drives the trends.
Not every third degree felony is identical to every other third degree felony. There are ones where the circumstances of the case are going to warrant a longer sentence, and those are probably going to overlap with the ones where the circumstances of the case would warrant charging a juvenile as an adult.
You are assuming that what leads to a child being charged as an adult is the curcumstances of the crime, and that they will have a longer sentence for those lesser charges instead of different charges that reflect the sentence.
Both race and the circumstances of the crime are going to impact their being charged as an adult, and the sentence they receive. The existence of racism doesn’t mean that the circumstances of the case will now have 0 bearing on their punishment - it’s not one or the other; it is both.
Like I say, the system is racist, yes. It feels like you just seized on an opportunity to lecture about racism and deny the existence of literally any other factor being possible except for race. It’s childish and reductive and hostile to things that are necessary for understanding the world. Stop doing that. This will be my last message to you on this topic.
My assumption that the trend in this article is based on racism is because that is absolutely a thing that happens.
I could say that people order vanilla ice cream more than chocolate because of racism, and then if someone said that wasn’t true I could cite a bunch of statistics about how racism is absolutely a thing that happens and get mad at them for denying the impact of racism, and it would make an equal amount of sense as your argument here.
It feels like you just seized on an opportunity to lecture about racism and deny the existence of literally any other factor being possible except for race.
You asked for an explanation and I provided it, then explained in further detail when you dismissed it. If that feels like being lectured, maybe you shouldn’t ask for explanations.
I see you haven’t given up on the explanation you pulled out of thin air to avoid the obvious explanation of racism. Why are you so dedicated to dismissing racism? Do you feel personally attacked by Florida’s legal system being criticized for its racism?
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Boy, for a state which prides itself for its self-reliance and independence, Texas sure does depend upon the federal government and its neighboring states a lot.
This is more a “the cruelty is the point” situation. Dividing up families, keeping prisoners out of reach of their lawyers, and ferreting away anyone who might implicate the state in liability for criminal abuse is what’s driving a lot of this.
The goal is to convince people to “self-deport” rather than endure a Kafka-esque legal state.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.