This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
| Official | https:// |
| Support this service | https://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup |
pinkmuffinere
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 4 Posts
I like engineering, finance, and tech. My biggest project (as part of a team) is stingray resistant booties: https://mydragonskin.com/
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
I think the subject is perhaps an implied "you", "us", or "society". Here's how I read it:
Sure, so long as involves (you / us / society) not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
I never claimed the balance will occur at a point that I like. This is just math, it’s not a political stance. If you want more homes, go build homes.
I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.
From tfa
> We estimated uncorrected heritability (uncorrected for extrinsic mortality) (materials and methods) in three independent ways: (i) MZ twins reared apart (n = 150), (ii) DZ twins reared apart (n = 371), and (iii) MZ versus DZ twins reared together (196 MZ, 325 DZ)
This is from _one_ of the datasets they examined, but there were also two others. n=150 twins reared apart in their small category, or n=520 twins reared apart total is the lower bound of data they had, and even that is not too shabby imo