Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-5-2009
Oct. 5th, 2009 12:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
-
I recognised a whole bunch, but nowhere near all of them.
-
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tells ya!
-
Like Photosynth - only massively bigger.
-
Having seen all that, I'm still sure Chuck Norris could kick his way through one...
-
Can't be too careful...
-
So I can find it again later.
-
Terribly cute post about training one's child in the ways of Asimov.
-
Anyone want to pop over and talk about Twin Studies?
-
Really fascinating if you live in Edinburgh.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 11:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 12:27 pm (UTC)That death of the newspapers graph is just the top chunks, so as to make the change look larger. How to Lie with Statistics is just as relevant as it ever was.
Twins start out with a shared environment in the womb-- it's hard to say how important this is, but it might have some contribution. On the other hand, it wouldn't do much for the hardcore freewill supporters.
Womb environment doesn't affect tameness in foxes.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 01:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-05 01:44 pm (UTC)Compound interest time! 1.05^8=1.48, so the average annual increase is just a gnat's piss more than 5%. National median full-time wages had annual increases of between 3% and 4.8% over that span, so Edinburgh is interestingly higher than the national average, but not dramatically so. But, come to think of it, those 2000 and 2008 values are very round figures - can we find something more accurate?
Yes, rhetorical questioner, we can! For the City of Edinbugh local authority area, I find 2008 median gross annual earnings of 23,079, mean 28,827 (for everybody working in Edinburgh): and median 22,954, mean 28,247 (for everybody living in Edinburgh). My source is ASHE, tables 7 and 8. Damned if I know what the reporter's source is.
So this one sentence is misleading in that it doesn't show any national or international comparison, which would let us form an idea of whether this is over or underperformance. It's misleading in that it doesn't give the average AR over the period - the annual rate is the form we are all more familar with, and which allows us to readily compare RPI or CPI against wage increases. It doesn't cite any source, so we can't assess for potential bias or find out any methodology. And it disagrees violently with the nearest equivalent National Statistics figures we can find.
Ah, newspapers. How I love them.
Nature versus nurture
Date: 2009-10-05 04:51 pm (UTC)