They lose their flavor pretty quickly if you keep them on the counter.

It is most certainly not a small sample size. It's what allows for a margin of error of ±3.5%* at the 95% confidence level. Here's a graph of the margin of error vs sample size for 95% confidence interval.

With an 11 point margin, there's a clear separation of the upper limit bar for Trump and lower limit bar for Obama. For a single poll, assuming the rest of it was well designed and executed, this is an important spread. And the reasons are obvious if you look at the report. She's able to get 10% more Democratic support and 20% more independent voter support.

Ipsos is a high quality polling company. They don't make rookie mistakes like sample size. There may be other reasons beyond my reasoning that make this a bad use of polling, but sample size is not it.

* The source incorrectly reported the margin of error for the full survey, both registered and unregistered participants.

Coffee

Coffee

Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee

Coffee Coffee Coffee Coffee Coffee
Makes you high, makes you hide
Makes you really want to go

Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Stop

Is it possible for your partner to get a job with health insurance while you get your business up and running? If not, the ACA website, healthcare.gov, is your best option. When filing, you won't declare your income from when you had a job. Try to make your best guess. If needed, claim it to be $0 and then plan on paying it back when you file your taxes using the 1095-A.

If you don't have an accountant, get one. Talk to them before leaving your job. They know the ins and outs of these things. They should be one of your first trusted advisors. If you don't know how to pick an accountant, read Small Business Cash Flow by Dennis O ' Berry.

I feel really bad for this person.

In Oregon, we attempted to model Portugal's drug policy. The roll out was a mess and treatment centers weren't funded for several years. Additionally, following the advice of people in the field, the measure didn't include the mandatory meeting with the inter-disciplinary local commission like in Portugal. Instead, there was a hotline set up and possession became a citation. Unfortunately, the citation didn't have the number to the hotline. In places like Portland, the cops at least gave out a business card with hotline number on it in addition to the citation.

Several years later, we have a roll back of the citations to making drug use illegal again. It's not as bad as 2019, but it isn't Portugal either. The biggest strike against it was the public use of drugs in downtown areas and in small encampments. Sadly, this was happening nation wide, but Measure 510 was blamed. And this roll back seems to have taken drug decriminalization off the table in other states altogether. I hope someone braves these waters again, but the advocates who helped design the program have seemingly shuttered their legislative pushes elsewhere.

I wonder if things would have been slightly different if we hewed closer to the Portugal model. Sad that the worst off of us will suffer.

Here's the source for that chart. And the paper for that chart.

The chart is for household income. With each generation, there's an increase in the percentage of the generation living at home. This is noted in the paper, but not in The Economist article. We'll see if Gen Z makes the switch like Millennials were during their 30s.

A couple of asides. The Economist graph isn't very easily matched with one from the paper. There are several graphs that share similar contours, but The Economist has changed the aspect ratio enough that it's hard to identify with visual inspection. Most curious, though, is The Economist's choice of starting the x-axis at 15 years old. All the graphs in the paper start at 20myesrs old.

The conclusion in The Economist piece is as follows:

What does this wealth mean? It can seem as if millennials grew up thinking a job was a privilege, and acted accordingly. They are deferential to bosses and eager to please. Zoomers, by contrast, have grown up believing that a job is basically a right, meaning they have a different attitude to work. Last year Gen Z-ers boasted about “quiet quitting”, where they put in just enough effort not to be fired. Others talk of “bare minimum Monday”. The “girlboss” archetype, who seeks to wrestle corporate control away from domineering men, appeals to millennial women. Gen Z ones are more likely to discuss the idea of being “snail girls”, who take things slowly and prioritise self-care.

It is clear that The Economist has an agenda of dividing Millennials and Gen Z. The paper makes no claims about Gen Z and their economic outlook. The data is simply not there. Rather, The Economist is recapitulating tired themes of "the youth these days" and "kids don't want to work".

People work when they have something to work towards, with and for people they care about. People work hard because it fills us with meaning purpose. When we are young, we do and should be creating relationships and learning about ourselves, the world, who we wish to be in the world, and who we wish to journey with.

I forever will call bullshit on the anti-youth themes of our culture. It dimishes it and serves only the most well established and crumudgenly amongst us. Articles like these have all too obvious subtext of "shut up, work hard, and grow up".

Fuck that noise.

Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich is one person's decent. It was awful for her.

She is a former NSA translator who sent some classified documents to The Intercept. The Intercept failed to redact the document properly allowing the NSA to view identifying marks on the printout and track her down. I believe she has been release from prison.

From the press release:

Established in 2020, the RBG Award has previously recognized women of distinction, including HM Queen Elizabeth II and Barbra Streisand. The award was expanded this year to include trailblazing men and women. "Justice Ginsburg fought not only for women but for everyone," said Julie Opperman, Chair of the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation. "Going forward, to embrace the fullness of Justice Ginsburg's legacy, we honor both women and men who have changed the world by doing what they do best."

If you do what Israel was doing, you'd need to scale it on per capita basis. So America is about 330 million and the population of Gaza is about 2.3 million. So the population of America is 140 times the size of Gaza. So 1232 or so 9/11's.

The amount of people not reading the article or the study is astounding.

This is not about Trump.
This is not about your conservative uncle.
This is not about America only.

This is about off label prescribing in ICU and ERs early in the pandemic with low evidence (theoretical pathways) in six countries which either gave explicit approval or unclear guidance that was interpreted as approval. It goes on to suggest that in a similar emergency future, the state agencies sould do better.

In the absence of restriction, the number of expected HCQ-related deaths is likely to be directly related to the promotion of its prescription by scientists, physicians and health agencies. In February and March 2020, the use of this treatment was widely promoted based on preliminary reports suggesting a potential efficacy against COVID-19 [80]. For instance, the use of HCQ markedly increased from mid-March to mid-April 2020 [81], [82] in France before a temporary recommendation supporting its use by the State Council was rapidly rejected [83]. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a temporary emergency use authorisation for HCQ on March 28th 2020, which was finally revoked on June 15th 2020 [84]. In India, HCQ was also prescribed as a curative treatment to patients with COVID-19 and as a prophylactic treatment for front-line workers based on public authority guidance [85]. Conversely, the British government promoted HCQ use only within clinical trials, explaining the absence of cohort studies reporting the use of HCQ in the United Kingdom in the present study [86]. Consistently, a cohort of a multinational network showed a wide variation in the use of HCQ between countries, with 85% in Spain, 14% in the USA and less than 2% in China [80]. The rush to administer this treatment caused supply shortages in community pharmacies, forcing the implementation of dispensing restrictions [82]. Finally, the results of observational studies and randomized trials in May and June 2020, respectively, convincingly demonstrated that HCQ was ineffective and led to an increase in adverse events [4], [5], [12], [66], [73].