Furious|T|

This is such a stupid idea and will forever damage military cohesion.

Well, exactly. So why did she bother writing this if it's so unimportant? Who asked her to?

Especially if you're from Oakland

screenshot of a skeet re-skeeted by the author of the Will Stancil article reading: "Please do not let Will's tantrum over getting the attention he wanted...'

Re-skeeting this sort of undercuts your point?

whoever runs risk management for these guys needs to be replaced

My daughter just now to her younger brother: "Well, you often have shitty opinions. And that was a shitty opinion." That girl does not play.

I flit into local activist spaces and many have relationships with reporters. (Some of my work, which is just oppo-research, has ended up in reporters' hands.) It does sort of feel like she (author, not SJ) sandbagged the guy as a bit of a favor.

Missing from this:

"Here's how"

Missing from this:

"Here's how"

You know who handles that shit well? Tom Nichols, of all people.

Oh, I didn't mean him--I meant either his rabid followers or his equally rabid haters. I get blocked by others for agreeing with him and for disagreeing with him.

You and I are of a mind. But this place does not reward mixed views or nuance. You'll end up on a block list one way or another.

Let me guess--some of those regularly comment on the law and legal process despite not being lawyers themselves.

Aaron's traveling--let's hope his in-flight Wifi is working.

The Research All Points in the Same Direction: Adding More Homes Curbs Rents for Low-Income Tenants - Metropolitan Abundance Project The Center on Poverty and Inequality at Georgetown Law made a surprising and contrarian argument in a new paper: adding more homes does not benefit low-income tenants. Three recent separate analyses…

TL;DR: Adding housing actually cuts costs for those who need it most. 📉

Didn't think we needed it, but still grateful for the solid data (again).

One of those folks needs to appeal to southern blacks though. That might be Newsom's edge.

Oakland, baby

imo we are barely scratching the surface of this phenomenon and aren't asking good questions. We're relying on traditional, stale outputs without the necessary granularity to draw strong conclusions. I want folks of all stripes to be more creative, to dig deeper, and be flexible with assumptions.|T|

But you should re-read them, and count the "mays" and "mights." The whole paradox is the models don't match anymore. In my line of work, one of the things you have to do in that situation is question the model. Is it stale? Does it need to evolve? What is it missing?

I've read both before. The first one shows much of what I'm talking about. There's an obvious thread of inequality in that piece, but which isn't examined (which I get). Way too much to go into here. What I would say is that the assumptions on which they are based should be revisited, and often.

I have guesses, too--none of which I'm yet truly confident about. And we agree on the numbers. I'm not doubting the data. We're looking at the same charts.

But we're asking very different questions about them.

And I've seen this before. But it's a guess. It's "vibes."

And you know me, Hyperlexic. I'm not a "leftist" or "tankie" or whatever. But I'm looking at bank balance sheets and income statements every day. I know what's going on in people's accounts and who moves their money where. Front line, on the ground, real time data. And there are answers there.

But I'm just struck by how unserious it all seems. There are potentially good answers to that question, electorally useful answers. But to find them you need to be curious and, yes, humble. You have to know what you don't know and be interested in filling those gaps.

I just don't get the guy's project. The question is "why did people think the economy is bad?" And he appears to have no interest answering it. He'll bring every data point bear to dunk on randoms to insist the answer is "vibes." There's no rigor in that.

The actual answer begins with inequality.

Well, I kind of take that back. They have an answer that basically boils down to "social contagion"--which is difficult to prove (not that they've tried). That is not the rigor I would expect from either. I would expect them to explore additional possibilities with open minds and a real curiosity.

Low hanging fruit. My critique stands. There are "next steps" which never really get taken.

It seems to me that neither of these guys really understands the broader impacts of inequality and neither are curious about exploring them. Indeed, to them it's just "historical norms."

They keep asking "why do people think the economy is bad" and then not bothering to try to answer the question.

Federal Reserve Board. They break it out by education, race, metro/non-metro, etc. as well.

I'm only blocked by 600 or so folks, and boy are they an interesting collective.