The first slide makes the disclaimer that one is not "able to identify if an event was due to climate change", only likelihoods of certain events occurring under various conditions. People might treat those two things the same due to our mental heuristics, but they are not.
It's true that this method can't say event X was or was not due to condition Y.
But it is fair to say that a pattern of such events that matches (or doesn't) the probabilities given by condition Y is evidence that Y is (or isn't) accurate.
A single heatwave, however anomalous, isn't evidence of anything. Several heatwaves may be ample evidence that one model is more accurate than another.
Obamacare won't fix it because it's a gutted compromise. Universal healthcare (which is the only way to get around private insurers not paying out, and not tying healthcare spending to income) is a non starter in this country and it's entirely due to one political faction. It's accurate to blame them for this.
Those colleagues were very wealthy by Indian standards to begin with and have only increased their purchasing power by being abroad. India does in fact have free care at government facilities and they are certainly not "low overhead and high skill". I'd pick rural American healthcare over rural Indian healthcare 10 times out of 10.
Wow, the last few years are a shocking drop. In 2010, 70% reported "very or quite satisfied" and 18% "very or quite dissatisfied." 2010 - 2020 seemed to hover around 60-65% "very satisfied."
I have a PhD and this is absolutely not the reason universities don't want to hire their own. In the modern day, there is no reason whatsoever that university affiliation limits the spread of ideas or collaborations. The reason is there is a funnel - only the top x% of students get the TT positions and students of prestigious institutions are just more likely to have the big name publications that forms the sole criterion for academic hiring. Even the prestigious institutions like to spread the mantra of "we don't hire our own" but this is just so that professors can avoid having the awkward conversations with their students along the lines of "you're good, you're just not better than <y> candidate".
Is this subscription-based hardware though? It's an open linux device and you can write any software you want to work with it. There's no requirement to pay for their cloud storage if you don't want to.
Why is this an advantage? The factors in assessing the risk are the creditworthiness of the customer and the amount. Also, I find it hard to believe that the creditworthiness of a customer actually fluctuates fast enough for Affirm to be able to do some arbitrage on it.
I went to one of these liberal arts college. They all (typically) have science and math departments. Engineering typically doesn't fall under the purview of liberal arts (though pure science and math certainly do). The problem tends to be availability of upper-level electives if you actually care about learning certain topics and don't want to just complete the requirements. Also, your exposure to research opportunities are typically external to your own institution (there are exceptions to this). I'd say the required courses in the first two+ years are a better experience than large research universities though.
Not really. A lot of these small liberal arts colleges date back to the 1800s. The more prestigious ones are often priced like private R1 institutions as well. I'm sure there are some two-year institutions that started offering four-year degrees, but it's not typically the case afaik.
How is this relevant to the pro sports bring value through children's leagues discussion though? It appears these kids leagues exist completely independent of the professional teams, and would continue to do so even if the pro team left.
