clara

it’s an example of simpson’s paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox

a worked example: if england/scotland/wales all use heart ❤️ 49% and use tears of joy 😂 at 51%, and then northern ireland was to use heart ❤️at 100%, you can imagine this would tip the whole uk over

even more freaky, you could make all 4 constituent countries use heart ❤️ at 49%, make each constituent use a different unique emoji 👍😀🥰😼 at 51% each, and then the aggregate would show that heart ❤️ is still the most used across the UK

now consider for each place on this map, they are ranking more than just 2 emojis. the map itself says that tears of joy 😂 is only scoring 5% worldwide, and that’s 1st place. with margins of 5% and under to be deemed winner, it’s no wonder funky effects show up

ok, here’s the context. (click here)

the source of this file, regrettably, is the daily mail. broken clocks and all that. i will link the “article” that the video file was from, but you will need a hazmat suit going in, for both the cookies/trackers and low quality writing

here’s that source now. (click here)

for posters below saying they couldn’t find this, i understand it. we all get different search results, it’s possible you all got hugboxed and were unable to find the clip as a result

also, i don’t care to discuss the topic, i only wanted to link the source, because you were all struggling with it. i like finding sources :)

have a nice day 🥰

here’s one example for you (click here) exploring igbo gender norms

here’s a second report that’s worth reading too (click here)

i don’t have much knowledge about the other cultures suggested, others can provide info for those

let me innn!

yep, you’re entirely right. for your area, it’s more effective to run wells for each person. the frustrating part being that, it implies that the city has been designed so, so badly, that individuals can’t actually share resources, without the per capita price going up if they do so.

even without depopulation, that’s a huge governmental failure. if individuals are having to run all their own utility setups and infrastructure, is that even a “city”? it sounds more like rural living but it’s all vaguely connected. presumably as a result of this low density, you have higher ongoing costs elsewhere? i.e commutes to work, cost of food, etc

if not, then it could be one of those taxpayer-subsidised things, where it feels cheaper for each resident, but the reality is that someone else is paying for it. i’m not good at wording what i mean in this case, but i will pass you to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) to show it instead, he does a better job of explaining what i’m talking about

anyhow… that’s crazy! it’s entirely the thing i’m worried about seeing replicated large scale as a result of a reduction in population

i do get where you’re coming from, population density was less than it was. as a consequence, people had less access to resources. i would argue as a result of this, they also had less quality of life. the reason that urbanization has been a trend over the past 150 years that shows no sign of stopping, is because population urbanization is a multiplier on the effectiveness of quality of life, because it makes the cost to maintain higher quality of life cheaper per unit of life.¹

for example, yes, you can supply a neighbourhood with individual wells, granted. but surely it would be cheaper for your community to build one massive well, and then everyone in the neighbourhood can collect the water at the well? the community could all pay their share to maintain the well, and then the per unit cost of the well would be cheaper to build and maintain.

whilst you’re at it, since there’s only one well, you can put in a really fancy pump and purifier system. a really high quality rig, with low cost to run. that way, you only need to maintain 1 efficient pump and purifier, rather than 20 or 30 less efficient ones that would cost more fuel to run as an aggregate. the unit cost per person of the pump and purifier setup would be cheaper to run and maintain.

if you wanna go really bougie, you could all chip in to collectively install pipes to every house so that your local community doesn’t have to walk to the well. if you build slightly more pipes than you need, this would act as insurance so that if one pipe breaks, you don’t all lose supply, and the water could flow round… other pipes… and… …wait this just sounds like a municipal supply but with extra steps…

i know i’m being facetious, but the reality is that it is just not measurably cheaper to live out in isolated pockets, through supplying individual infrastructure on a per person basis.² economies of scale dictates this relationship.³ it’s inescapable.⁴. it’s inevitable.⁵ by all means, if it’s the only option someone has to provide utilities for themself, they should use it. but let’s not pretend that it’s more expensive to group up, live closer, and share the cost burden through communal resources.

i will trust you are aware of “economies of scale”, but i have linked a video here for those who are not aware, and also don’t want to read papers like a total nerd. ☝️🤓

[1]. (??? what would the units for quality of life per capita be i wonder? joy/kg? lol)

[2]. “The results indicate that cost savings can be achieved by increases in the scale of production…”, from “Productivity growth, economies of scale and scope in the water and sewerage industry: The Chilean case”, by Molinos-Senante and Maziotis, accessible at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162666/

[3]. “…more spread out settlement (“Dispersion”) leads to diseconomies in distribution…”, from “Economies of scale, distribution costs and density effects in urban water supply: a spatial analysis of the role of infrastructure in urban agglomeration”, by Hugh B., accessible at https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/285/

[4]. “…agglomeration economies make firms and workers more productive in dense urban environments than in other locations.”, from “The economics of urban density”, by Duranton and Pupa, accssible at https://diegopuga.org/research.html#density

[5]. “Econometric analysis of the data from the Big Mac price survey revealed a significant positive effect of being in a rural area on the increase in prices.”, from “Identifying the size and geographic scope of short-term rural cost-of-living increases in the United States”, by Díaz-Dapena, Loveridge & Paredes, accessible at “https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00168-023-01244-z”

sure, i’ll try to explain briefly

“infrastructure”, i.e utilities, transport, bureacracy etc is built to support a fixed population within a city. when the population increases, you have to build more infrastructure to support this new population. this part is easy, you expand your cities at their edges, extend the utilities, and set up satellite bureacracy offices if needed

the tricky part is when you lose population. the correct move would be to demolish this infrastructure and scale back. trouble is, not only would this be wasteful, but it would also leave gaps in cities, since population decline doesn’t happen uniformly from a city edge. where exactly, do you demolish the infrastructure?

it would be nice if we live in a theoretical world where, as population decreases, the cities magically shrink at their edges, and suburban residents move closer in to fill the gaps. this is not how populations deplete from an area though (example: detroit, 1950 - 2020)

you will struggle to convince a suburban homeowner at the edge, to sell up and move to one of the gaps left behind by population loss. if we stop short of rewriting laws to force this population transfer, the end result is that you are left with a “swiss cheese” city. houses and settlements will be spread so thinly that becomes impossible for city goverments to provide “infrastructure” without providing it at a loss. your local goverment will then take debt and bankrupt, the infrastructure will collapse through lack of maintenance, and then the remaining population suffers big time

i want to note that i am not using this as an argument to support population growth. i am only stating the big, big problem that needs to be tackled somehow, concerning population loss. some big-brains are going to have to work this problem through, fast!

side note: interestingly, most NA cities are spread out and sprawled so much that they are suffering unaffordable infrastructure bills already, despite not suffering the effects of population loss. goodness knows how these places will fare when population loss actually hits…

it’s the same type of non-performative speech you see when any company says “we value our customer’s complaints”, or “we work hard to have a diverse and inclusive team”, as if by merely saying these things that it magically becomes true

ah but meta has cracked it this time; if they just say “we never sell your info” that means they don’t, right?

op, it’s not just you, i promise. 🙂

i encourage you to watch this in it’s entirety. while it covers a different life story, it explores some avenues of what you are possibly feeling when you ask this question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmI_VBp9QU0

a trillion is never enough

look, all i’m saying is, the public transit and bike infrastructure aren’t the only reasons people wanna move there 😏

this meme can be saved, there are indeed methods…

the OP’s image was originally posted to the internet through twitter on October 21st this year. (nitter link)

source image was posted to twitter handle “GlowFYourSelf”, as part an advertising campaign for a website called “GlowFYourSelf”, which appears to sell… personal toys. based out of portland oregon, no surprises there lol.

source image was part of an album of 4 of images that all look similar. they were likely generated using AI because in the original image, the writing on the box is all borked.

this original, crisp, 2k x 2k image was then stolen 4 days ago by an instagram meme account called “worst.buy”.

from there, it has then received a caption, a bitmoji sticker, and a faint “CV” watermark stamped in the lower left.

through all these saves and re-uploads, it has been deep fried, jpegged, and cut in resolution. for shame.

fortunately for this meme repair, no 'shopping was needed to complete the work - i went straight to the source.

here you go folks. ❤️

gold skin unlocked: escape 1000 cats

if you’re serious, then here’s two places i recommend to make a start on that train of thought

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org should clue you in on which “advanced economies” might skew towards the life factors that interest you

and https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool might help you narrow down which of these will be a better cultural fit

i’m aware there’s a lot of subjectivity in these two links but, it could help you make a start.

many people are great at saying “get me out of here” online, but not many people follow up that thought, and ask themselves “but where to?”

be one of those who answers the second question. start working on your escape today! 💪

this would be good content for !THE_PACK@lemmy.world

i’m stealing it 😈

this is the original, sourced from here. enjoy

😏

have you considered the EU? here’s some routes for you:

if you are degree qualified, then look into getting an EU blue card. it’s the EU’s answer to the green card, and it’s probably the best way for anyone who’s got the chops. it gives you a near free pick at where you specifically end up. try this page to get a feel of eligible locations, some of the locations need big boy salary, so might be off-limits

do you have any grandparents (or great-grandparents) that are from europe? some countries offer citizenship through descent. if you can prove the descent, then you can register as a citizen. 100% worth checking this. it’s a long shot, with a huge payout if it’s valid. common ones you can check are italy, ireland, hungary, germany (maybe?)

third option for you - “digital nomad” visas are a thing that’s growing. you pick up a remote job for one EU state, and then you can get a visa to live in… a different EU state!? you pay the taxes to the state that is giving you the remote job, and you live in the state that provides the visa. the idea being, where does it even matter where you work, if it’s a remote job? so long as your dues are paid, you can go wild! some digital nomad visas even let you bring family along. not all EU states offer this, you would have to do individual research.

if you are serious about moving somewhere, genuinely serious, then take actionable steps to do it, today. i am a couple years down the path of taking steps to move myself. i don’t know how old you are, but you don’t want to look back and think “i could have took measurable steps when i was younger to get out of here, and i didn’t”. wherever your chosen destination, make it your mission. keep your eyes on the prize.

and lastly, if it doesn’t work out, oh well? at least you tried! you will have gained life experience some americans would dream to get, and you should be able to move back simply. you can’t shake US citizenship that easily ;)

from the tinder algorithm’s perspective, it “wants” to select for babies that will grow up and use the app when they are older too