Regional costs seem to be included in the figures but no mention of taxes being included.
Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
Regional costs seem to be included in the figures but no mention of taxes being included.
msstate7
Well-known member
New York (52.2%), California (55.3%), & Hawaii (60.6%) have the lowest rates of homeownership in the United States. Historically, these are three most expensive states, in terms of average home prices, in the U.S.
....
#1 West Virginia
#2 Delaware
#3 Mississippi
So we're the poorest state, but apparently our money goes much farther to be 3rd in home ownership rate.
....
#1 West Virginia
#2 Delaware
#3 Mississippi
So we're the poorest state, but apparently our money goes much farther to be 3rd in home ownership rate.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Me: On a distant planet a species called zorks evolves via natural selection. One day, the zorks consciously make the decision for the most able zorks to reproduce at less than replacement level so that they can give resources to the lesser able zorks, allowing them to reproduce at well above replacement level. What happens to the zorks?
Gemini: If the Zorks implement this strategy, they are essentially replacing natural selection with a form of artificial selection (specifically, a dysgenic pressure). In the context of evolutionary biology, here is the likely trajectory for the species:
1. Shift in Genetic Frequency
Natural selection typically operates on the principle of differential reproductive success, where traits that enhance survival and reproduction become more common. By reversing this, the Zorks are ensuring that traits associated with being "lesser able" (whether that refers to physical health, cognitive function, or resource acquisition) are the ones being passed to the next generation at a higher frequency.
2. The Resource Paradox
The strategy aims to distribute resources more equitably, but it creates a long-term sustainability crisis:
* The Dependency Loop: If "able" traits (those required to gather or create resources) are being selected against, the total "resource pool" of the Zork civilization will likely shrink over time.
* Capacity Collapse: As the population of "lesser able" Zorks grows and the population of "able" Zorks declines, there will eventually be fewer individuals capable of generating the very resources being redistributed.
3. Evolutionary Fitness vs. Moral Goals
In biological terms, fitness is simply the ability to survive and reproduce. By their own decree, the "lesser able" Zorks have now become the "most fit" because they are the ones successfully reproducing.
However, "fitness" in biology doesn't always mean "thriving" as a civilization. If the traits being selected for are detrimental to the species' interaction with its environment (e.g., weaker immune systems, lower intelligence, or physical frailty), the Zorks risk:
* Extinction via Environmental Stress: They may become unable to adapt to natural disasters, climate shifts, or predators.
* Competitive Displacement: If another species on the planet continues to evolve via natural selection, that species will likely out-compete the Zorks for territory and energy.
Summary Table: Natural vs. Zork Selection
| Feature | Natural Selection | Zork Intentional Selection |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Toward environmental adaptation | Toward resource equity |
| Trait Frequency | Advantageous traits increase | "Lesser able" traits increase |
| Population Health | Generally increases over time | Generally declines over time |
| Long-term Risk | Genetic stagnation | Total societal/species collapse |
> Note: This scenario is a classic thought experiment in ethics and biology, often used to explore the tension between altruism and biological sustainability.
>
Would you like me to simulate how this might affect the Zorks' technological progression over several generations?
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Me: Stupid zorks.
Gemini:
It is definitely a bold strategy for a species that presumably wants to keep existing. In the short term, they get a gold star for empathy, but in the long term, they’ve essentially signed a "going out of business" notice for their entire gene pool.
By making "inability" the primary requirement for reproductive success, they’ve turned evolution upside down. In nature, the environment usually does the selecting; here, the Zorks are doing the environment's job—but they're picking the losing team.
The "Stupid Zork" Death Spiral
* Generation 1: "Let's help everyone! This is very noble."
* Generation 5: "Wait, who knows how to fix the resource generators?"
* Generation 10: "Does anyone remember what a resource generator is?"
* Final Generation: Silence.
It’s the ultimate biological irony: by trying to be "better" (more moral/altruistic) than nature, they become "worse" at the one thing nature actually requires—survival.
Would you like to see what happens if a rival species, the Gorks, evolves naturally on the same planet while this is happening?
Gemini:
It is definitely a bold strategy for a species that presumably wants to keep existing. In the short term, they get a gold star for empathy, but in the long term, they’ve essentially signed a "going out of business" notice for their entire gene pool.
By making "inability" the primary requirement for reproductive success, they’ve turned evolution upside down. In nature, the environment usually does the selecting; here, the Zorks are doing the environment's job—but they're picking the losing team.
The "Stupid Zork" Death Spiral
* Generation 1: "Let's help everyone! This is very noble."
* Generation 5: "Wait, who knows how to fix the resource generators?"
* Generation 10: "Does anyone remember what a resource generator is?"
* Final Generation: Silence.
It’s the ultimate biological irony: by trying to be "better" (more moral/altruistic) than nature, they become "worse" at the one thing nature actually requires—survival.
Would you like to see what happens if a rival species, the Gorks, evolves naturally on the same planet while this is happening?
Tapate50
Well-known member
San Francisco Data (2018-2024)
Total Complaints: In 2018, San Francisco received 14,597 to 28,084, depending on the source and metric used (ranging from specific "feces" complaints to general "human waste" reports).
Daily Frequency: In 2018, the city received approximately 65 calls per day regarding feces on sidewalks.
Concentration: In 2018, reports were concentrated in areas such as Tenderloin, South of Market, Mission, and Civic Center, with over 450 complaints per square mile in some areas.
Recent Trends: A 2024 report indicated that 30% of surveyed streets in a 12-month period had human or animal feces on them, up from 18.5% in early 2023.
Per Capita Spending: San Francisco has budgeted approximately $59 per person on street and sidewalk cleaning, which is significantly higher than other cities like Los Angeles ($19 per person)
Total Complaints: In 2018, San Francisco received 14,597 to 28,084, depending on the source and metric used (ranging from specific "feces" complaints to general "human waste" reports).
Daily Frequency: In 2018, the city received approximately 65 calls per day regarding feces on sidewalks.
Concentration: In 2018, reports were concentrated in areas such as Tenderloin, South of Market, Mission, and Civic Center, with over 450 complaints per square mile in some areas.
Recent Trends: A 2024 report indicated that 30% of surveyed streets in a 12-month period had human or animal feces on them, up from 18.5% in early 2023.
Per Capita Spending: San Francisco has budgeted approximately $59 per person on street and sidewalk cleaning, which is significantly higher than other cities like Los Angeles ($19 per person)
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Shitty.
As I said that graph doesn't mention taxes at all.
California sitting at 65K with their taxes makes it an unlivable shithole.