I don’t know why people distrust science. Sure, it’s not perfect, and scientists, like all people are subject to human problems. But there’s nothing else in the history of the world with a better track record than science. I feel like the problem is that some politicians spread FUD and prey on people’s insecurities, and unfortunately it tends to work, disproportionately on people with less resources. The problem isn’t science at all; the problem is people and politics.
I know what a linear regression is and how to examine event studies, lol. What you don't understand is that the author is leaning on linguistics to insinuate strong evidence of causation where it doesn't exist. If this was a quant in finance, they'd be out the door in days.
"The problem isn’t science at all; the problem is people and politics."
Please elaborate. I haven’t used entropy balancing or difference in differences, but those articles explain that their purpose is to try to tease out causation. What - exactly - is the linguistic trick, if they actually did use an entropy balanced Poisson regression and difference of differences?
"Teasing out causation" is exactly why this methodology fails. You are confusing the intended purpose of a statistical tool with its real-world validity. No one is questioning what an Entropy-Balanced Poisson Regression or a Synthetic Difference-in-Differences model is designed to do.
The issue is that the authors have profoundly violated the mathematical assumptions required for these tools to actually function. Throwing high-level econometric terms into an abstract does not make the underlying logic scientific, but rather acts as a linguistic tuxedo on a fundamentally broken causal claim.
If you cannot see through economic (and other) confounders that invalidate their approach and their biased statements, I cannot help you. This isn't science. Getting an LLM to run an SDID model and spit out a result doesn't = science.
Ah the age old question: what makes something good? I think you’re already describing it well at a high level; context matters, and there are multiple axes to consider. But that’s extremely vague and doesn’t help you identify or measure quality, so it might be worth listing as many specific axes as you can.
Maybe ask the same question about other things. What makes a good guitar? What makes a good chair? What makes a good airplane? What makes a good book? What makes a good song? What makes good art? Each of these has a long list of very specific goals and concerns. And to help define the boundaries, also ask what makes something bad, and what makes something mediocre.
Code quality starts with functionality. Does it perform the stated requirements? Does it have testing in place to catch breaking changes in functional requirements? That’s the basic stuff that probably isn’t part of “taste”. A lot of code quality goals center around how code changes over time, and beliefs about designing to avoid functional breakage.
For example you can ask things like does the code use minimal dependencies? Is the code organized into clean classes/modules/functions that each have a single clear role? Is the API easy to read, understand, and use? Is the API hard to misuse accidentally? Is all the code easy to read? Is there documentation, and is the documentation useful, and more than a list of contents? Is the code self-documenting? Is the code efficient, both in how it executes, and in its use of code itself? Is the code designed so that it won’t fail when someone runs it with different sized types, or a different compiler or execution environment, or on a different architecture? Is the code surprisingly elegant and fun to use?
Those are just the beginning. There are of course more layers of application-specific and environment-specific and audience-specific qualities. The good news is that quality depends on your own goals, you can decide which aspects of taste matter to you, and ignore the ones that don’t. It’s fine if your taste & goals change over time.
I have so many questions… Since Apple already sells unified memory systems, what is the market opportunity you envision? Do you see Nvidia and Apple as competitors, and how? (And I’m not suggesting they’re not, necessarily, but I want to hear where you’re coming from, and they do have very different markets.) Hasn’t Apple used storage size (RAM & disk) for market segmentation for decades? And how does a machine with 128GB unified mem not potentially cut into some people’s reasons for wanting a 96GB GPU?
Apple offers relatively affordable options for a high-memory workstation that uses unified memory. They previously offered 256/512GB Mac Studios (both discontinued). Because of this they can keep larger models in memory.
BUT you just can't compete with NVidia performance for LLM workloads (mostly inference) for two reasons:
1. The memory bandwidth just can't compete with a 5090 (1800GB/s). The best current Mac is ~900GB/s. That directly caps tokens/sec and might be manageable but there's another problem; and
2. The raw FLOPS just can't compete with even a 5090. It probably needs to natively support FP4/FP8 to at least maintain a number format parity with NVidia. But beside that, NVidia just has more raw FLOPS.
According to Google, an M5 Max does ~70 FP16 TFLOPS while a 5090 does 380. If Apple can close that gap to at least be competitive and also hold larger models in shared VRAM, that would be a competitive advantage and it would directly attack NVidia's market segmentation.
The Mac Studio last came out March last year. So we may get an update in Q3. Many are pinning their hopes on this. But it might not happen until next year. When it was released the M4 was the state of the art and it came with either the M4 Max or M3 Ultra (which, as I understand it, is basically 2 M3s stuck together, kind of). What people are hoping for is an M5 Ultra with >1000GB/s of memory bandwidth, ideally 200+ FP16 TFLOPS and hopefully FP4/FP4 support.
You can chain Mac Studios together into a cluster with TB5 too.
But it's reasonably likely that the next Mac Studio will be only incrementally better than the last generation.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I wholeheartedly agree with them...
Quick background: doing AI inference requires three things. Lots of memory, lots of memory bandwidth, and of course plenty of compute that has access to that memory.
Quick reference: nVidia 5090 has 1,792 GB/sec bandwidth. 3090 gets about 1000 GB/sec. DGX Spark and AMD 395 whatever get about 275 GB/sec.
Apple M1 Max gets 400GB/sec, M5 Max gets 614GB/sec. Ultra variants get 2x that bandwidth, base variants get 1/2 that bandwidth. However... their compute is rather weak.
Right now, Apple's offerings are juuuuuust fast enough to run dense 27B models at usable speeds at like, 10% of the performance/watt of nVidia. They're world-leading general purpose CPUs but not killer GPUs.
By all accounts, these Windows PCs nVidia is touting seem to have DGX Spark like performance, which is less than impressive. Same with the upcoming AMD AI-oriented consumer stuff.
The other context here is that running your own AI at home is just starting to become feasible in terms of open model availability and the ability to run it at usable speeds. Many are interested in it for reasons of privacy, security, and cost certainty vs. buying tokens.
Since Apple already sells unified memory systems, what
is the market opportunity you envision?
nVidia and AMD can't make their consumer offerings too good at AI, because that risks interfering with their higher-margin data center sales.
(And, let's face it. Even if nVidia did release a 6090 with 64-128GB of memory for an affordable price, consumers wouldn't get their hands on them anyway because people would just start filling data centers with them)
So.
Now you see Apple's opportunity, right? No data center sales to interfere with. No relationship with nVidia or AMD to worry about.
They could choose to make an absolute beast of a home AI machine. The M5 Ultra, if announced, might be that. It's admittedly a niche market, but people are already buying 64GB+ Macs faster than Apple can make them and they're fetching high prices on the used market as well.
The only real questions are if this market is even something Apple would find time to care about, and if they could secure enough DRAM to make a go at it. They are enormous obviously but they're feeling the RAM pinch just like everybody.
They use different technology for their VRAM though. Apple, AMD Strix and NVidia DGX/RTX Spark use LPDDR, whereas discrete cards will be either GDDR or HBM. That directly impacts the memory bandwidth figures. As for compute available, Apple and AMD still have very good figures there for what's essentially a general-purpose iGPU that ships as part of the stock system, rather than a special-purpose piece of dedicated hardware.
The M5 has 16 dedicated ‘Neural Engine’ cores and a ‘Neural accelerator’ in each of its conventional GPU cores. It’s been pretty special-purpose juiced for inference.
When it comes to the very largest models the ANE seems to be only marginally useful for prefill. The M5 Neural Accelerators (NAX) help a lot but at a real cost wrt. power and thermals.
Yep, but Apple products don’t spend most of their time running huge models. They are running lots of little ones all the time, using hardware designed for that.
It seems that you're agreeing with what I wrote above. They ship a general-purpose stock system and tailor their compute offering towards that. Accelerating 'lots of little models' fits naturally into what they offer, in a way that a more compute-intensive design might not.
Yep, I misunderstood your point. Thanks for your patience. In my defense, the 'general purpose system' has a lot of model-inference-specific hardware. But not LLM-specific hardware.
If there's an M5 Ultra it'll be interesting to see what they've optimized it for.
Even if a Mac isn’t the fastest in raw numbers it may be faster if it can load the whole model in its ram (went up to 512 GB before shortages) than a couple 32 GB cards could with the data having to be constantly loaded over PCI-E. Because unified memory means the Apple GPUs can access all 512 GB at full speed.
My understanding is this is the advantage that’s pushing huge Mac Studio demand. Because it was the only way to give GPUs so much memory at price points anywhere near.
Yeah you can do way better once you’re in the 5 digits. But below that Apple had a specific advantage for some.
You're correct about some things but mostly wrong.
Yes, a Mac with 128GB+ will let you load some pretty big models.
However, you're still not going to be able to run them at usable speeds. Here are some M5 Max benchmarks on a Qwen 27B model w/ 290K context.... 12 tokens/sec output.
And that's a 27B model. So yes, a M5 Max 128GB will let you load some pretty big models - can probably fit 120B in there with room left over for context. But the M5 Max still doesn't have the compute to make it practical, at least from an interactive usage standpoint - 120B dense model is going to be like an order of magnitude slower than 27B. You have to understand the computation going on here. LLMs are basically a huge many-to-many operation, and those operations themselves are pretty heavy.
So back to my previous post... you need three things. You need fast memory, you need a lot of it, and you need GPU compute with direct access to that fast memory. The M5 Max has like, 1.5 of the 3.
The M5 Ultra (if it ever exists) could kinda hit all 3, although actually getting your hands on one will be quite the lottery ticket.
My understanding is this is the advantage that’s pushing huge Mac Studio demand.
This is true, but also, people who made this investment found that they're still not very usable for those HUGE models. Don't take my word for it though. Lots of benchmarks out there. r/localllama is pretty active too.
12 tok/s can absolutely be "usable output" depending on what you're doing. I agree though that the 27B dense model often feels slow due to an overall weakness of memory throughput on that particular platform. Most real-world 120B models though will be MoE-based with only a small fraction of active parameters, and these run quite well. Also, dense models can benefit from batching, which is at least marginally viable with Qwen if you stick to shorter contexts and smaller batches.
> If you use it on stuff that you’re pretty good at, it’s not a gamechanger (and if you’re an expert, it’s a minor boost at best).
This was probably true last year, and it’s a common talking point, but I’ve seen too many examples now of deep experts using Claude & Codex in the last year to solve very big problems, and write or rewrite large systems. The experts do complain that the LLMs can sometimes get stuck or go off the rails and they need to pay attention and actively steer. But nobody I know who’s using it is still claiming the LLMs aren’t a game changer, even quite a few people who were staunch holdouts for a long time. I was skeptical myself, for a long time, but had my oh shit moment late last year.
One caveat - to get expert results, you do need to have some experience using LLMs, you need to use it to write plans and design docs, know how to use ‘skills’ and MCPs, use it to review code, and (for now) you need to understand context compaction and when/why to use sub-agents. If you’re a domain expert but an AI noob, it’s less effective than an expert who knows how to use AI and has experience.
One of the biggest problem with humans is we’re wired to spot patterns and draw conclusions and then we have a really hard time seeing and accepting change and updating our mental rules. The LLMs are getting better. They have already gotten better, and they’re going to continue getting better. It’s too early to draw conclusions, and many conclusions people have already declared are out of date and no longer true.
Sure, but conservation in ray tracing is also a goal that not everyone has and isn’t required for teaching or games or making pretty & even plausible images. There are plenty of situations in both ray tracing and fluid simulation where conservation is not desirable.
Fair use was common law with judicial precedents for a couple hundred years before it became a statutory law in 1976.
Why would fair use law go away? Fair use for the purpose of critique is maybe the best & most favored defense of fair use by the Copyright Office, and ties together necessary copyright exceptions for supporting Free Speech and journalism, among other good reasons. Things also seem to be moving in the opposite direction with recent precedent deeming some AI uses transformative fair use. YouTube has done more that it’s fair share of playing fast and loose with copyrights for a profit, but YouTube, and more broadly Google, depends on fair use for massive portions of their business. I don’t see fair use going anywhere anytime soon.
I never said you shouldn't be able to use it, I only said you should have to share revenue if you use someone else's work. "fair use" and critique would still be a thing.
> Income inequality isn’t the same things as government resources available per person.
Correct. You clearly understand that your citing of averages papers over the poverty rate and conflates the gains of the rich with the plight of the poor.
Louisiana is literally ranked the #1 poorest state in the nation today counting the percent of people who don’t have enough to pay rent or eat properly.
“Government resources available per person” is cold comfort to the over one in four children in Louisiana who are living in poverty. How are those government resources actually being used, and if it ranks so well, why isn’t that reflected in LA’s health and education? “Government resources available per person” includes tax credits for oil and gas…
You’re arguing with a different person than you think you are.
I’m arguing about available resources, not willingness to use them.
If you want to define poor purely by percentage of people who are living below the poverty line instead of median income, average income, gdp per capita or tax revenue, go ahead. But in the context of whether the government has the resources to do something, that’s not a good metric.
And beyond this scope if you look at average or median personal income, the average or median person in Louisiana is not poor, which is the metric I would use if I was going to call a group of people poor.
Okay I see your point; the state has money, even if a significant portion of the population doesn’t. That in itself is a problem. I was arguing, and many others here are arguing that the population of LA is poor, and you’re arguing that the state isn’t poor, and has options (whether or not it uses them). Both points are true - the state has resources, and the population has the greatest poverty in the US. Poverty rate is a valid objective metric of whether a state is “poor”, but it refers to the population and not the state budget, which is also a valid objective metric of whether a state is “poor” or not.
> if you look at average or median personal income, the average or median person in Louisiana is not poor
This is one to be more careful with. Neither the average nor the median inherently tell you anything about the state’s poverty rate, and having a poverty rate that’s the highest in the US and almost twice the national average absolutely supports the viewpoint that LA is relatively poor. When it comes to median household income specifically, the LA Budget Project says “These numbers obscure stark racial disparities” and points out that the median Black income is around half that of White non-Hispanic household income. (Page 9 - https://www.labudget.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/LBP-Cens...)
It might seem like the median $60k household income isn’t poor, but 50% of households are below “ALICE” levels and having to compromise on basic necessities. This doesn’t support your claim that the median resident of LA is not poor. https://www.unitedforalice.org/introducing-ALICE/louisiana
That metric makes Louisiana look relatively better because cost of living is low. For example, 48% of households in New York are below ALICE levels.
It highlights one problem with using percent of people below the federal poverty level as your metric. Median income doesn’t tell the whole story, but neither does percent below the poverty level. $33k goes a lot further in Louisiana than it does in New York.
> Median income doesn’t tell the whole story, but neither does percent below the poverty level.
You’re equivocating. Poverty rate is a much better metric for measuring poverty than median income is.
Louisiana has a higher poverty rate, and a higher child poverty rate, than New York State. New York’s ALICE level seems comparable because New York’s cost of living is so much higher, but it’s actually true that around half the people in New York (and Louisiana, and make other states) are struggling to afford all their basic necessities. Poverty rate isn’t ALICE, poverty rate is high probability of compromising on nutrition.
Come on, be honest, are you willing to live on $16k/year in Louisiana? (Or any state??) I wouldn’t want to, and I bet you don’t either. Are you really going to argue that’s not poor?
> ALICE level seems comparable because New York’s cost of living is so much higher
That’s my point. You’re the one who brought up ALICE as a metric to show how someone making the median income is still poor.
If it applies to Louisiana, it applies to New York as well.
> Louisiana has a higher poverty rate, and a higher child poverty rate, than New York State.
If you adjust for cost of living, New York and Louisiana have the same poverty rate.
> Come on, be honest, are you willing to live on $16k/year in Louisiana? (Or any state??) I wouldn’t want to, and I bet you don’t either. Are you really going to argue that’s not poor?
No but I’d rather live on $16k in Louisiana than New York. I’m not making a value judgement on what constitutes poor or not, I’m saying that if $16k is poor in Louisiana, then $22k is poor in NY.
Incidentally for big chunks of my childhood my family was below the poverty level in the Deep South, and so were many of my friends.
Yes I understand your point and yes I brought up ALICE - as an aside - and I see that was my mistake because you’re using it to dodge the core fact that LA has very high poverty relative to most other states. ALICE levels are a completely different tier of wealth metric than the federal poverty line.
Cost of living is less applicable to the federal poverty line than it is to the ALICE threshold or the median income because the cost of food and several other basic necessities don’t vary geographically as much as the price of housing does. The poverty line of $16k/person is set in part because it’s the line where going below likely means you can’t afford enough food no matter where in the U.S. you live.
> The poverty line of $16k/person is set in part because it’s the line where going below likely means you can’t afford enough food no matter where in the U.S. you live.
That’s not correct at all. The poverty level is 3x the amount of money it took to feed one person a nutritional diet in 1963 and then adjusted for inflation. They picked 3 times because food represented about 1/3 of a poor family’s budget.
Note that they use CPI-U for the adjustment, and food prices haven’t risen as fast as most is the rest of the goods in CPI-U so it’s closer to 4x the amount needed to afford the minimum nutritional diet.
If you look here, you’ll see that the “thrifty food plan” for the most expensive person (male 20-50) comes out to $3,800 a year.
If you just think about it for a minute $16k or $43 a day is a crazy amount for the minimum amount of money to afford food. I don’t spend that much on myself on average and I ‘m making many times more than $16k a year.
Now I can try very hard to come up with the most charitable explanation for what you are saying and assume that you mean that $16k is the number that you need to afford other necessities plus food.
However if that’s what you’re saying then the number 1 other necessity is housing. Which means for an accurate comparison you need to factor in housing price differences.
To your point housing cost is the largest difference between states, but it’s also the largest part of nearly everyone’s budget, even people living on $16k a year, and it’s far from the only difference. Groceries a fair amount between states, and other necessities are somewhere in between.
You can’t just look at a flat number across the US, there’s no way around it.
I mean just look at average rent. It’s more than 2x higher in NY than LA. Even looking at another southern state, GA. Rent is 25% higher there. That’s a huge difference and it absolutely needs to be accounted for if you care about comparing poverty between states.
2- $16k / year / person is not enough in the US to live comfortably, regardless of where you live. Going below that does in fact risk compromising nutrition, and the fact that that is what is actually occurring among the poor is pretty well documented.
3- If you want to use cost of living, then as you point out, NY is not a valid comparison to LA. Compare LA to Nebraska or South Dakota or any of a dozen other states where the cost of living is nearly the same, and you will see exactly what is said all over the internet: LA has a much higher population of poor than other comparable states.
4- The fact that LA’s ranked 32nd for tax revenue and #1 for poverty seems like something to be rightly ashamed of.
We’re tilting at windmills and failing to convince each other, but Louisiana is widely considered to be one of the poorest states in nation, and trying to argue otherwise on HN certainly won’t change the mountain of evidence or the summary at all.
The page you linked to doesn’t discuss how the “poverty threshold” is calculated. It discusses how the poverty threshold is used to measure poverty level.
It does however provide a link 3 paragraphs down that does tell you how the “poverty threshold” is calculated. A direct quote:
“The current official poverty measure was developed in the mid 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, a staff economist at the Social Security Administration. Poverty thresholds were derived from the cost of a minimum food diet multiplied by three to account for other family expenses.”
Can you acknowledge that the risk of comprising nutrition on $16k a year is higher in a state where rent is 2x higher and groceries are 10% more expensive?
Literally every anti-poverty group in the country acknowledges that the failure to update the poverty threshold by region is a terrible failure in the way the United States handles poverty.
If you want to come up with a tortured method that only compares Louisiana to states with 85%+ white populations in order to fit your preconceived regionalist prejudices then have at it.
Let’s rank states by number of homeless people while we’re at it and see if that’s at all useful.
Maybe instead we could look at the percentage of people who can’t afford food, shelter, and basic necessities in their state on their income. As far as I can see the only major downside to doing that compared to other methods is that it doesn’t support the way you think the world ought to work.
You’re still wrong. What you quoted is what they did in 1963, not how they’re setting the poverty threshold today. The same page you pulled the quote from contains a paper that discusses the many changes to the poverty threshold calculation since 1963.
I offered up two states that have comparable cost of living. There are actually around 14 or 15 states that have lower cost of living than Louisiana, and all of them have a lower percentage of people below the federal poverty line than LA.
> Let’s rank states by number of homeless
Seems like another straw man to me. There are more people below the poverty line in Louisiana than there are homeless people in the entire US.
> Maybe instead we could look at the percentage of people who can’t afford food, shelter, and basic necessities in their state on their income.
That’s what ALICE is, we already talked about it, and the ALICE threshold is FAR higher than the federal poverty line in all 50 states.
OH, BTW, guess which state ranks highest on the ALICE poverty list…
> it doesn’t support the way you think the world ought to work.
You have a vivid imagination. I’ve been trying to avoid snark here, and appreciating that you also kept it low as well until now. I will mention that your interpretation of what I said about thresholds was not in any way ‘charitable’ let alone realistic. I would love to see your budget that stays under $43/day without compromising on food. Show it to me and I’ll list a few things you forgot you need that blow your budget. I don’t know how to live on $43/day assuming I don’t pay any rent.
I understand it’s confusing because the papers on the site mingle proposed plans with adopted plans.
Here’s a summary of exactly what happened. If you want to research that yourself I’ll include a link to an overview, but I know what I’m talking about.
1. Start with the 1963 base thresholds developed by Orshansky.
2. Apply the 1969 revision:
-Keep the 1963 nonfarm thresholds as the base.
-Change the inflation adjustment
method from food-plan costs to CPI.
-Change the farm adjustment.
3. Every year thereafter:
-Take the prior threshold and adjust it by the relevant CPI. (Originally CPI-W, then CPI-U after about 1980.)
4. Apply a few technical revisions in 1981:
- Remove farm/nonfarm distinction.
- Remove male-headed/female-headed distinction.
- Expand family-size categories.
That’s it. The numbers are still based on the data from 1963 adjusted for inflation each year. There are differences in that we no longer look at the gender of the head of household and farm families no longer have lower multiple applied.
But the number is just the calculations from 1963 based on a multiple of the amount of food needed carried forward.
Most other countries use a relative benchmark for poverty and most other counties use COL adjustments by region. The US does not. It is stupid that we don’t. And using the resulting measurements from this flawed system is horribly misleading.
As to whether you can live on $43 a day minus rent. Louisiana has expanded Medicaid coverage, so someone making $16k a year will get free healthcare. Assuming a single person with no kids, they’ll also get about $180 a month in snap benefits which covers a little more than half of the $333 usda thrifty food plan. So how about you tell me how this hypothetical person can’t survive on $1,333 a month with rent, healthcare, and half of their food covered? If you can’t imagine being able to survive on that you must living in a very high cost of living area.
> using the resulting measurements from this flawed system is horribly misleading
Then don’t. Use the cost-of-living metric you’ve been arguing for to answer the relevant question here. When accounting for cost of living, you will discover exactly what we already know: Louisiana’s population is the poorest in the nation.
I’m not actually sure which state has the highest percentage of people under a poverty threshold adjusted for COL because to do that math you need a specific poverty breakdown by household size and that’s far more effort than I’m willing to put in.
New York, California, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Louisiana all have % below ALICE thresholds between 46 and 50%.
Based on that I think it’s very likely any one of those could have the highest percentage of people under a COL adjusted poverty threshold. Either way they’re so close that’s there’s no meaningful difference.
The real question is why would you use the percent of people under some threshold as your primary factor when deciding to label their entire popular “poor”.
I certainly wouldn’t use COL adjusted poverty rates to say that New York or California is poor, or that the populations of those states are poor.
Let’s say hypothetically that we constructed a rich threshold, say it’s $500k a year COL adjusted. And some hypothetical state was both number one for percentage of people over the rich threshold and number one for percentage of people below the poor threshold, would you say that this population was the poorest in the nation or the richest?
ALICE is adjusted by household size, and cost of living adjusted. Louisiana is the state with the highest percentage of people below ALICE threshold, and the only state that crosses the 50% line. It’s right on their map, so now you know. https://www.unitedforalice.org/national-overview
You can continue to equivocate about other states that are close, it doesn’t really make a relevant difference here. Louisiana has the most poor people by “stupid” absolute percent below the federal level, it has the most poor people by cost-of-living household-size adjusted ALICE level, the third lowest median income, and the third lowest number of billionaires per capita. By multiple objective metrics, including the one you asked for, Louisiana is most definitely poor.
ALICE isn’t the same thing as a COL adjusted poverty measure though.
If you want to just look at ALICE as what qualifies a state to be called poor then sure let’s do it, but if that’s the case then if Louisiana is poor at 50%, then New York is a poor state at 48% and California is a poor state at 46%.
If that’s the argument that there is a big group of poor states all over the country including California and New York that includes Louisiana then I’m not gonna argue. I wouldn’t make that claim but I can see how someone would.
Why are you assuming the rapid increase in LA’s population from 2006 to 2010 did not have a significant portion of temporarily displaced people moving back?
Oh, then you’re of course aware that many many people did in fact return, and that your earlier estimate of the number of people coming to LA after 2005 that hadn’t lived there before was over-estimated.
Here are a few links explaining the terms:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7384548/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_regression
https://lost-stats.github.io/Model_Estimation/Research_Desig...
I don’t know why people distrust science. Sure, it’s not perfect, and scientists, like all people are subject to human problems. But there’s nothing else in the history of the world with a better track record than science. I feel like the problem is that some politicians spread FUD and prey on people’s insecurities, and unfortunately it tends to work, disproportionately on people with less resources. The problem isn’t science at all; the problem is people and politics.
reply