Also, the visualization doesn't update well when scrolling back and forth; and the grouping is bad -- "bullied" is listed as an adverse condition, but is also shown as a separate grouping; and the way it's displayed for "Seen someone shot with a gun" is backwards, implying that the vast majority have seen that. Too bad, because it otherwise seems like an interesting study.
Social sciences is not value-free. In reality the most important indicator of "at-risk" is previous involvement with social services and mental health professionals. Usually because these experiences tend to be so bad that the kids involved start to hide problems, or even attack anyone involved with social services. And THEN they get into a negative spiral. It is not the first time they get into a negative spiral, except now their experiences with mental help are so incredibly negative they fight to remain in the negative spiral, sometimes to the point of physical violence.
Likewise, these professionals hide that almost all experiences kids have with social services are negative for the kids. Now I suppose you could say the above is an example of that, but really, it goes further. Kids seek help with homework, and only get berated by someone that couldn't do the homework themselves ...
Studies keep pointing out that social services is exactly the wrong approach. What makes teachers, and social professionals good is excellent subject knowledge, combined with basic psychology. NOT the other way around. And in practice every mental help professional I've ever seen thinks they know what to do, and when pushed fail to produce even basic psychological facts, or outright deny them. I like to think you can explain this that when push comes to shove our minds are trying to solve problems in the real world.
The majority of mental problems are someone failing to solve real world problems, and repeatedly failing to influence the outcome. A little bit of psychology is needed to get them to try again ... and a LOT of knowledge of the real world is need to make sure the outcome is different.
I wish my computer understood this when I get angry at it. Unfortunately, many (most?) times that I get angry are because things outside my control aren't working the way I feel that they should, whether they're human, animate, or inanimate. Or even me.
Aside from academic interest, I struggle to see the practical benefit of this study. When I'm angry, in the heat of the moment, there's no way I'm going to stop and write an essay about my feelings. By the time I am in a frame of mind to do so, the anger has passed and not a problem anymore.
I've found that marketing material takes significant liberties with their claims, with the understanding that the audience isn't actually interested in the gory details, just the general question of "should I buy option A or option B?" I've been asked to critique statements that were flat-out wrong, only to be told yeah, thanks, nobody cares about that.
> that's down to $85k in savings if you live frugally
Saving $85k per year, which is way more than the median income in the US, is fantastic for a family of 5, while simultaneously building equity in one of the most expensive markets.
And $5k in personal expenses per person per month is hardly living frugally, especially for a 1-income household where presumably child care (and pre-school) isn't necessary. I don't live in an HCOL area, but non-discretionary expenses for just me, besides rent/mortgage, are about $1200/month. Food and clothing aren't 4x as expensive in SV are they?
I've very late to the discussion, but this seems relevant anyway -- The issue isn't just the cost of getting/retaining customers. Businesses don't charge solely based on cost, they charge based on what customers will pay. Existing customers also are willing to pay more to not have to move. If customers are willing to pay more, then it makes good business sense to charge them more. For the owner, having an empty apartment is the worst, so it's worth it to do extra work and give discounts just to get somebody renting.
It isn't nefarious, and you do your part by being willing to move instead of pay the higher price. It's all just the way the capitalist market works.
Regulations for stuff like this seem frivolous and overly restrictive, until you remember that what seems completely benign when one person does it is potentially destructive to the future of humanity when done at scale (like burning oil, throwing away plastic, etc.).
> Just saying that there's nothing wrong with the statistics of it.
I think that an understanding of basic statistics still eludes a lot of people. Teaching it should be prioritized as much as teaching algebra. There are a lot of interesting real-life examples of how we get confused or tricked with statistics, enough to even keep the attention in class of the average high-schooler.
