As pit bulls have become more common, their representation in dog fatalities has grown, as have the per capita rates of dog fatalities and injuries.
In 1979-1998, pit bulls were a quarter as common as now, but they were still responsible for a large % of deaths. The premiere "aggressive dog" at the time was the Rottweiler, and despite its reputation, bad owners, and far greater numbers, it didn't kill as many as the pit bull.
And this isn't due to mix-ups. We used to have data separating purebred pit bulls from crossbred ones.
Crossbred pit bulls are fortunately now more common, but they used to be the less common variety. It's fortunate because the mixing means less violence per dog.
More recently, in the deadliest states with respect to dog attacks, it's clear that pit bulls are to blame for most dog fatalities.
A major part of why pit bulls are such outliers is that, where we have data, it appears they kill people at a wider - older - range of ages.
52% of all dog fatalities are of people ≥10 while 72% of pit bull fatalities are, versus 28% for the ~94% from all other breeds combined
Despite aggressive dogs and bad owners being a thing forever, the switch from Rottweilers and the like to the pit bull has been destructive for this reason
Dog fatalities used to be a problem for children alone, but due to pit bulls they are now largely a problem for people ≥10
Pit bulls are not deadly because they're strong. Many breeds are stronger. They are deadly for the reason fighters want them: tenacity.
"Pit Bull" here is a mix, but the broader label applies to the APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
This is something that's difficult for police to get dogs to adopt through the rigorous training they're subjected to. Most fail! Because it's been bred into pit bulls, it's much more reliably observed in that breed.
Other BSL'd breeds are also often extremely tenacious.
Here's a previous post with the relative risks of fatalities by breed.
Are White women the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action?
That's a real claim that's commonly advanced by journalists, and the claim has gone so far that it's even made its way into academic publications and policy.
But the claim is completely false🧵
This claim doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, shouldn't the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action be the people who the policies primarily target?
In America, that's African Americans and, among them, women get an added benefit. How could it be Whites?
To figure out where the claim comes from, I started reading supposed sources.
Often enough, journalists will just take the claim for granted without providing *any* source.
It's just tacit knowledge now, and that's not good!
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progress🧵
The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.
Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war.
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.
The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died.
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.
If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized.
You know how most books on Amazon are AI slop now? If you didn't, look at the publication numbers.
Compare those to the proportion Pangram flags as AI-generated. It's fully aligned with the implied numbers based on the rise over 2022 publication levels!
Similarly, the rise of pro se litigants has come with a rise in case filings detected as being AI-generated, and with virtually zero false-positives before AI was around.
Pierre Guillaume Frédéric le Play argued that France's early fertility decline was driven by its inheritance reforms, where estates had to be split up equally to all of the kids, including the girls.
There's likely something to this!🧵
For reference, the French Revolution ushered in a number of egalitarian laws.
A major example of these had to do with inheritance, and in particular with partibility.
In some areas of France, there was partible inheritance, and in others, it was impartible.
Partible inheritance refers to inheritance spread among all of a person's heirs, sometimes including girls, sometimes not.
Impartible inheritance on the other hands refers to the situation where the head of an estate can nominate a particular heir to get all or a select portion.
In terms of their employment, religion, and sex, people who joined the Nazi party started off incredibly distinct from the people in their communities.
It's only near the end of WWII when they started resembling everyday Germans.
Early on, a lot of this dissimilarity is due to hysteresis.
Even as the party was growing, people were selectively recruited because they were often recruited by their out-of-place friends, and they were themselves out-of-place.
It took huge growth to break that.
And you can see the decline of fervor based on the decline of Nazi imagery in people's portraits.
And while this is observed by-and-large, it's not observed among the SS, who had a consistently higher rate of symbolic fanaticism.
"Food deserts" are an example of social scientists getting causality backwards
They saw poor people eating unhealthy foods and blamed local supply
They should have blamed demand!
Using data from 13 years of supermarket entries, there's basically no effects on healthy eating🧵
The significant effects are probably not meaningful. They're more likely under the null with this gigantic dataset (p's of 0.003 and 0.005 with a total sample size of ~2.9m)
Entry did affect sales for new stores, but not existing ones. It also affected more local places more.
When new supermarkets open up, they do nab a share of local grocery sales, but the effect on healthy eating in total, among low-income households, and in food deserts, just isn't there.