The FBI has finally released crime statistics for 2023!
Let's have a short thread.
First thing up is recent violent crime trends:
Now let's focus in on homicides.
The homicide statistics split by race show the same distribution they have for years.
As with every crime, it's still men doing the killing, but it's also largely men doing the dying.
What about Hispanics? Their data is still a mess, but here it is if you're interested.
The age-crime curve last year looked pretty typical. How about this year?
Same as always. Victims and offenders still have highly similar, relatively young ages.
Everything else, from locations to motives to weapons is pretty similar to previous years. What's different is that the OP might show incorrect numbers.
For the past two years, the FBI has silently updated their numbers after about two weeks.
You can use the web archive to see that the data from the OP is the data shown at release last year, and the data from 2023 is the 2022 data with the FBI's suggested reductions (i.e., -11.6% homicides, -2.8% aggravated assaults, -0.3% robberies, etc.).
But you can see on their site now that they've adjusted the numbers up, so the reduction they suggested has brought us down to a figure that's less impressive than my chart shows. The difference isn't huge so I showed the OP without updating to their new data.
For reference, 2022 as reported then had a homicide rate of 6.3/100k, and they silently updated that to 7.48/100k. The 2023 data they provided today actually has a murder rate of 6.61/100k, higher than last year's initially-reported number, but lower than the updated number. To make matters worse, if you use their Expanded Homicides Report, you get a rate of 5.94 for 2022 and 5.24 for 2023.
Methodology matters and we get to see inconsistency in this year's data, not even data that's been updated or anything. It's a mess, so take everything with a grain of salt and, in the interest of caution, only interpret trends. Trends are mostly common between all data sources even if the absolute magnitudes are off, constantly updated, etc.
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 evidence🧵
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 Tertullian🧵
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.