> Lmao it’s Oakland. In many cases you can just walk a block to the next city. That doesn’t actually prove anything.
From the PLOS article: "There were no detectable changes in purchases of untaxed beverages or sweet snacks or purchases in border areas surrounding cities."
From the post you replied to: "without countervailing increases of sales in neighboring markets without the tax."
It's imperative to recognize the distinction between 'undetectable' and 'nonexistent.' The mere fact that variations were indiscernible does not negate their existence. Rather, it underscores the diffusion of individuals across diverse channels, which may inherently obfuscate discernible patterns. This does not serve as incontrovertible evidence, but merely a testament to the complexity of data distribution among various outlets.
Even geographically the assertion is nonsense. The fraction of Oakland that lies within walking distance of retail outlets that are not in Oakland is small. Only the far north and far south enjoy this situation.
