In 1982, Randy Shilts published his biography of Harvey Milk, entitled "The Mayor of Castro Street".
For those who don't know, Harvey Milk was the first open homosexual to be voted into public office in the state of California.
He was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
The biography contains a fair bit of background, not just about Harvey Milk, but about San Francisco's gay community more generally.
In its early years, San Francisco attracted large waves of mainly male migrants motivated by the promise of gold in California.
Boys will be boys, and out of necessity and selectivity, these early migrants tended to be a bit more accepting of homosexuality than the people back east.
The gays among them enjoyed more license, attracting more gays, many of whom abided by the handkerchief code.
As San Francisco grew from a backwater to a bustling city of some 50,000, its licentious attitudes led to gays migrating there just to be around more gays.
This reputation was so renowned that even Oscar Wilde talked about it:
The Spanish-American War saw thousands of young men come to call the city home, and many of these young men learned that they could make extra money escorting older men.
But the bustling gay scene wouldn't last.
In 1906, the earthquake destroyed 80% of the city, including most of the underground gay establishments.
It also attracted church leaders who ran clean-up campaigns that were followed by even more extreme efforts during Prohibition.
The campaigns against gay establishments and establishments that accepted them due to their 'looser morals' were coupled with private efforts to blackmail gay men.
Some navy men would dress up in their tightest uniforms and stake out Market Street, hoping to find gays to extort.
If that weren't enough, the "Lilly Laws" enforced by the police made things much worse.
One method the police used to detect homosexuals was to set up their best-looking men in the Market Street theater, a popular cruising spot.
And, well, just read this:
The gays who got away with living their lives were the lucky ones. Gay living in the city had been effectively snuffed out prior to World War II even though it had such a fruitful beginning.
But notice that I said prior to World War II.
Starting in 1916, the U.S. military started dismissing soldiers who were found to be homosexual.
Gay soldiers, officers, and navy men alike were given blue discharges (aka blue tickets) signifying that they were dishonorably discharged and everyone was to know it.
From the point of discharge, these men had the letter "H" stamped on all of their documents.
And I mean all their documents: if they went to the doctor, the bank, or any potential employers, everyone would know that these men were homosexuals.
World War II was the largest mass conscription event in American history, and it was the first time the military actively sought to purge its ranks of homosexuals.
Because San Francisco was the main Pacific theatre point of debarkation, it's also where these men were dismissed.
Tens of thousands of men from across the U.S. were discharged from the Pacific theatre and they suddenly found themselves taking up residence in San Francisco.
Because of the damage from the big letter "H" on all their documents, it wasn't feasible for most of them to leave.
The result was a community that had no choice but to get on, openly.
If everyone knew you were gay due to the big blue letter branded on everything about you, why act like you're anything else?
So America's largest gay community was born.
This meant gays didn't hide (as often) anymore in San Francisco. This fact also attracted people who didn't want to hide to the city.
What's more, the military labeling gays as gays gave rise to the first truly modern gay bars in America.
After all, why care about getting caught when you've already been found out?
These discharges were a major injustice and their scale remains unknown because the military hasn't owned up to it.
But they are how San Francisco became incredibly gay.
If you want to know more, the book is widely available online. Go give it a read!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.
In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ!
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.
We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons.
The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.
The reality:
Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance.
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.
The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.
If access was the issue, this resolves it.
And yet, nothing happens
This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too
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!