Aside from the confusing conflation of sums and rates mentioned in other replies, your argument assumes that correlations are transitive and exhaustive—i.e., that because socioeconomic status correlates with crime, any group with lower crime must have higher socioeconomic status. Which of course is invalid because correlations do not compose across variables, and crime is multi-causal

You can look at studies like https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1331677X.2022.20... if you want to look at those multi-causal aspects. In general however, demographics with higher socioeconomic status has lower crime rate and the concept is well established (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7820585/).

A missing aspect with immigration when it comes to statistics is time spent in the country. The likelihood that a person has ever committed a crime in a specific country is generally lower the less time they spend in that country, especially as that number reach zero. The apple to apple comparison would be to look at the average person of average age, in any specific demographic, and ask if they have ever committed a crime, which is not the same as committed a crime in a specific country. That would be the crime rate. An other way would be to ask the question regarding a given year, what is the probability of an individual to commit a crime. The rate of the average person lifetime will not align with the rate of any given year.

The relation between crime and socioeconomic has been thoroughly debated and research when it comes to race, with the finding that race is not related to violent crime, but only once socioeconomic factors (and other related aspects) has been controlled for. If you disregard socioeconomic factors, then race has a distinct relation with violent crime. It is only because researchers control for related factors that we get the findings that we get.

People can disagree with studies should be valid and which doesn't, or look at different meta studies and say which ones is more valid than the others, but I would recommend that one engage with the discussion rather than throw around assumptions about assumptions.

If it's so clear cut then why did SCOTUS throw that case out?

>Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-s...

I short: because it wasn't Facebook that brought the case.

>She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.”

Those next two sentences from your article seem to contradict your assertion that it was because it wasn't Facebook that brought the case.

Which statistics are you talking about? According to the article, the only statistics available are from self reported data.

When I went jumping back in the 80s, I was told that the accident rate was around 1 in 1000.

Maybe competence with respect to having the instructors be certified. Or at least trained by people whose credentials aren't suspended.

It's interesting you focus on the alcohol claim but not any of the accusations mentioned in the article that would have gotten people killed.

This is what I do as well. I find it works better than fractional scaling.

aliens...

There is a global chip shortage. Apple has said the shortage would impact their products.

Yes, this. The high-end M1 iMac shipped with a cooling system more powerful than the M1 can possibly benefit from, and everyone was sure a new MacBook Pro was coming by WWDC. The chip shortage seems like the most likely explanation for both.

No credible leaker (Ming-Chi Kuo, Gurman) predicted a new MacBook Pro at WWDC.

The problem was Jon Prosser who was telling all the YouTubers it was going to happen. Even though he's been seemingly wrong as many times as he's right.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that. From what I understand it’s ripples from higher up in the supply chain that are causing delays (substrate, power components, etc.). TSMC on its own is doing fine.

I was surprised. I wasn't expecting a major tech company who's website is plastered with things about "valuing diversity" to be one to pick a fight over a such a minor requirement in a gender equality law.

True, but the most of the examples people found are of companies that already have Colorado employees.

Right, but this applies to job postings. Current employees don’t require any additional work as they’re already hired.

Here's the act, it looks like it does have some additional requirements for companies with CO employees: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085

If remote work sticks around (I think it will), it will be interesting to see how employers handle the additional burden of having employees in dozens or even hundreds of jurisdictions. I don't think it's insurmountable, but it's certainly something many companies have not had to deal with before.

The same way they deal with the asinine US sales taxes or how international companies deal with hiring internationally.

They'll outsource it to companies that look after it for them. This is the "resources" bit of "human resources".

In the meantime, maybe the actual HR people could get back to being "people and culture" managers and stop thinking of staff as "resources".

There are companies that automate a lot of this, specifically to support remote-first companies.

...

I had a laptop with a similar amd cpu and even though it was rated for the same wattage, it was a lot more inefficient. The laptop would get warm just watching youtube videos and the fans would always kick on.

In contrast to the M1 which is so efficient that Apple doesn't even put a fan in it on its lower end models, and it still barely gets warm.

Also the battery life is a lot better on the m1.