This article uses the word “conceptions” throughout, but it sounds like the only data is about births. These births would have all occurred after the recessions started.
Did the original paper rule out the hypothesis that the recession actually affected births via an increase in miscarriages and abortions instead? I can’t access it.
According to the paper, "The data include the infant’s month of birth, and a clinical estimate of gestation in weeks, which we use to estimate a month of conception."
On miscarriages, "We interpret these data with caution because they come from a subset of one state, and because fetal deaths are under-reported. Nevertheless, the data provide no evidence of an increase in
miscarriages leading up to recessions that is anywhere near the magnitude required to explain a significant portion of the observed decrease in births." They similarly argue that abortions aren't significant enough to explain the reduction in births.
Miscarriages maybe but I believe stillbirths are legally required to be recorded. As unpleasant and upsetting as it is, it would be an interesting data point in it's own regard to observe.
Unfortunately, I have lot of personal experience here. The reporting on still births varies greatly. Some states require it past week 16, others stipulate a birth weight, and others set more arbitrary criteria. You would have to account for a lot of external factors.
Even better, add an indicator light to the hardware that shows the OS is asking and not an app (although this suffers from the same problem that users need to notice something is absent).
I’m using the stock Apple keyboard (used to use alternatives, but not anymore) and as mentioned the keyboard significantly darkens it’s grey when it’s asking for a system password.
Detecting one pulse above background noise is not terrible, according to the paper. However, the way the paper sets up their communications channel is kind of silly, since they are pulse rate limited.
If you wanted to transmit a lot of information with one pulse, you'd use time domain slicing and synchronized atomic clocks.
Regardless, you don't need particularly high signal fidelity in order to arbitrage the market, just better than 50/50. The ~25ms they can cut off of the transmission latency is an eternity in market time.
>voting could reduce the likelihood of the draft being reinstated
... only in the unlikely event that my vote changes the outcome of an election, and the candidate I voted for would also be able to affect such a big legislative change.
Millenials as a group might be worse off if many traded away their right to vote, but that's not the same thing as saying that individuals benefit in a tangible way from that right.
He doesn't get it. Someone else replied to his comment stating the same thing you did, i think he is selectively blind to the word "Markov", he missed them in the article and in the replies.
Maybe the Department of Justice? I don't know if they go for that sort of thing. The only other option I can think of off the top of my head is the FCC.
Reforming bail sounds like a good idea. I don't know why anyone would trust Harris on the issue, though.
If she wanted to shrink jails when she was California's Attorney General, she could have respected court orders requiring prisoners to be released.
Likewise, she could have stopped "defending convictions obtained by local prosecutors who inserted a false confession into the transcript of a police interrogation, lied under oath and withheld crucial evidence from the defense."
This is both interesting and unrelated to the bill.
There is not an issue on this planet, down to "is it raining outside," on which I would trust Rand Paul. But I don't have to trust him when I can read the thing. It's only eighteen pages long. (On my phone, otherwise I'd link it.) Beyond that, there are plenty of organizations more than willing to weigh in on stuff like this; you don't have to take the legislator's word on it at all.
As a non-lawyer, I'd expect to miss something important from the legislative text.
Your point about relying on other organizations is a good one, though. I generally take this approach, but I wasn't expecting anything to have been published yet on such a new bill. It looks like the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and SPLC all issued positive press releases, though.
You're not arguing with the legislation she cowrote but with a detail from her history. You need to address the argument here, because it stands independent of her history.
Did the original paper rule out the hypothesis that the recession actually affected births via an increase in miscarriages and abortions instead? I can’t access it.