Radiant Energy Group recently published a massive international survey of opinions on nuclear energy.
It's full of some things you might already know, but it also contains some surprisesđź§µ
For example, did you know French and German nuclear support isn't that different?
Nuclear does have less support than other green technologies, but in most places, it still receives net support.
This apparently low level of support looks higher when survey participants are asked about their ranked supported for different energy sources.
This support increases further if you subset to people who are techno-optimists or tech-neutral when it comes to fighting against climate change.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware about nuclear is exceptionally clean. Even larger numbers think nuclear waste is a major point of worry.
The Simpsons has done incredible damage to the reputation of our best energy source.
Onto the demographics!
In some countries, the old are the most supportive of nuclear. In others, it's the young.
If you've seen other surveys on the demographics of nuclear support this one won't surprise you: men are universally more supportive of nuclear.
If you've seen other surveys on the relationship between science knowledge and nuclear support, this won't surprise you either: the most knowledgeable are (almost) universally the most supportive of nuclear.
Despite being the current best option for providing reliable, low-cost, and clean energy, being concerned about the climate generally predicts less support for nuclear.
When climate concern is represented by nonprofit membership, there's a similar result.
Despite the nuclear industry being aligned with numerous (typically) left-wing goals from protecting the environment to supporting labor unionization and high employee safety standards, it's the economically right wing that's more supportive of nuclear.
There's more in the report, but I'll end this thread on a happy note: globally, there's more support for additional nuclear builds than for additional nuclear shutdowns.
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it
Diets that restrict carbohydrate consumption lead to improved blood sugar and insulin levels, as well as reduced insulin resistance.
Additionally, they're good or neutral for the liver and kidneys, and they don't affect the metabolic rate.
Carbohydrate isn't the only thing that affects glycemic parameters.
So does fat!
So, for example, if you replace 5% of dietary calories from saturated fat with PUFA, that somewhat improves fasting glucose levels (shown), and directionally improves fasting insulin:
Dietary composition may not be useful for improving the rate of weight loss ceteris paribus, but it can definitely make it easier given what else it changes.
Those non-metabolism details may be why so many people find low-carb diets so easy!
There's a popular belief that family wealth is gone in three generations.
The first earns it, the second stewards it, and the third spends it away: from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations!
But how true is this belief?
Gregory Clark has new evidenceđź§µ
The first thing to note is that family wealth is correlated across many generations. For example, in medieval England, this is how wealth at death correlates across six generations.
It correlates substantially enough to persist for twelve generations at observed rates of decay:
But why?
The dominant theory among laypeople is social: that the wealth is directly transmitted.
This is testable, and the Malthusian era provides us with lots of data for testing.
The Catholic Church helped to modernize the West due to its ban on cousin marriage and its disdain for adoption, but also by way of its opposition to polygyny.
The origin of this disdain arguably lies with Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullianđź§µ
Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho argues with a Jew that Christians are the ones living in continuity with God's true intentions.
Justin sees Genesis 2 ("the two shall become one flesh") as normative.
In his apologetic world, Christians are supposed to transcend lust.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, is attacking Gnostics (Basilides, Carpocrates), whose sexual practices he finds scandalous.
To him, "temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed"—polygyny is a doctrinal and moral deviation from creation affirmation.