Nah please jinx it. I want some snow. It doesnt feel like connecticut anymore.

It was just an experiment to see if for dumb correlations, this sub actually cared whether the data was readable and aesthetically pleasing.

The experiment failed.

I made this graph entirely to dunk on the one from yesterday that was both one dimensional and ugly. They even displayed it as a bar graph! I also stole the same data sources.

My experiment failed though, not many people seemed to like this post.

To be completely honest, I agree. I made this post entirely to dunk on the one from yesterday that got 19k upvotes despite displaying the same data in a both ugly and one dimensional way. I don’t actually care about what correlation exists and what we can learn from it (very little).

As it turns out, Excel makes it nearly impossible to increase the label sizes. I tried to make the picture resolution good enough that you can zoom in.

Oil isn't a huge source of employment anymore in ND. The boom ended a while ago. I actually worked there back in 2013-14.

No. Regardless of the state populations, if the line is a perfect fit, then the whole US population would be directly on the line. The entire US would have a partisan lean of 0 (by definition) and according to the source has a bachelors degree attainment of 32.9%, which is very close to the line but slightly above it.

For what it's worth, North Dakota and Wyoming have some of the highest average incomes, but are the reddest with the least education.

It's probably got more to do with rural vs. urban area. There's a lot of rich farmers in the midwest with not much education.

The new parameters would be:

y = 2.8717x - 98.644

R² = 0.5251

So not very different, but DC improves the R^2 value somewhat.

Sources:

• https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/educational-attainment-by-state

• https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/

Tool used: Microsoft Excel

Inspired by THIS post, but I think this is a much more useful visualization of the data.

Are you sure they weren’t Mennonites?

Gold is the most ductile and malleable of all pure metals (and probably alloys too, since they tend to be harder and more brittle). This is why it's used in computers and advanced electronics, even though silver and copper are more conductive. A very small amount goes a long way, it can still hold together at under 1 micron thickness.

If you tried to hammer lead into a foil that thin at ambient temperature, (which is the traditional way gold foil is made), it would crumble to bits.

Even in antiquity, artisans knew how to make very thin gold foil by hammering it thin, then folding it with paper between the layers to prevent cold welding, and continuing the process, with the number of layers doubling each time.

I'm just making assumptions here, but there are a lot of ways people can be tracked now the way technology is. Many many surveillance cameras are tracked through databases and can pick out peoples faces. Forensic scientists can even tell where and when you were somewhere in a sound recording by listening to the background noise from the electric grid.

Possibly, but he also might have fled the state before prosecutors issued the warrant which would make it harder to find him. With modern facial recognition set up everywhere, it's harder to escape as a fugitive, but not impossible.

Not going to happen any time soon in Connecticut.

If this has to do with unsafe transport vans with no seatbelts, then there's moral culpability not only to the cops, but the department, the state, suppliers, who knows? As for who foots the bill, probably just the state.

Can useful statistical data be gleaned from many hundreds or thousands of case studies, considering how common case studies are recorded for cancer patients?

Hartford has incredible economic strength. It's GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world. I couldn't find data for the city alone, but just for the "Hartford, East Hartford, Middletown Metropolitan statistical area", aka the "Greater Hartford Area", which includes all of Hartford, Middlesex, and Tolland counties. In 2013, the Greater Hartford Area had the 4th highest GDP per capita of any metropolitan area in the world, behind only San Jose, Zurich and Oslo. It even beat out Boston, New York, Paris, London and San Francisco. The economic powerhouse of the area is the city of Hartford, with its insurance industry, which means its GDP per capita is likely much higher than the area as a whole. The economy of the region has been pretty static since then, with only a minimal change in population or GDP since the insurance industry has been shrinking a bit; so it has fallen a bit on the list as a few other cities have become insanely wealthy in the past 7 years. But it's still one of the most productive cities in the US.

Per capita income on the other hand is much lower, because most of that GDP goes to stockholders of Hartford's companies. The only town in the Hartford Area with a per capita income higher than the GDP is Glastonbury, only by a small amount and it's not a very large town.

In contrast, the Bridgeport area, being a suburb of NYC, has since surpassed Hartford only slightly, and has several towns with per capita income higher than its gdp per capita.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Connecticut_locations_by_per_capita_income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor/

And yet the city struggles with its finances and it somehow needs government welfare programs like PILOT and ECS to survive.

They damn well should get ALL that state funding and more. They ought to have their municipal budget funded ENTIRELY through state and federal grants instead of local property tax. After all, they produce the highest value for the state.

>"One of the things that really upset me was that the desolate asphalt covered cities I had visited in the US and Canada weren't always this way. I was told the cities were like this because they were designed for the car. That's not true. They weren't designed for the car. They were BULLDOZED for the car.

>.... This is a picture of Houston in the 1970s. No, it wasn't bombed, they did this to themselves. This used to be a compact, walkable city that was just as good as those in Europe or Asia, and they destroyed it."

https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54?t=449

>People used to be so proud of this place they had built [downtown Brainard Minnesota] that they put it on postcards. No one is making a postcard of this place [the same place today].

https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY?t=140

Suburbia is subsidized by city centers and even poor neighborhoods are more cash positive than car centric suburbs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

These videos by the excellent channel Not Just Bikes explain where North American urban planning went wrong and how redesigning our cities for the car has destroyed communities.

Hartford isn't even as bad as some of the cities he mentioned, like Houston, where you can't even walk in most places. Also because Connecticut doesn't have property taxes at the county or state level, Hartford isn't directly subsidizing suburbs like West Hartford. Although the mill rate in Connecticut cities like Hartford is much higher than the suburbs to offset lower property values, which unfairly targets the poor.

Hartford keeps almost going bankrupt, and it IS subsidizing the suburbs- only not through direct taxation. Suburbanites always complain about Hartford's "urban blight" and mismanagement as it can't provide the same quality of life as they expect. It has the single lowest per capita income of any municipality in Connecticut. Yet, it is the economic powerhouse of the region! Without Hartford providing so many high paying jobs in Insurance, government and other industries, then towns like Glastonbury, West Hartford, and Farmington would not be wealthy and desirable places to live for the upper middle and upper class families. The only significant revenue that Hartford proper gains from all this insane wealth is the property taxes from businesses offices, and whatever professional workers spend at the local cafes and lunch places during their day. The rest leaves the city. And when Hartford wants to increase property taxes, these companies threaten to move their headquarters to Massachusetts (Taxachusetts, lol) of all places!

Why do we neglect our economic centers, depriving them of their community and spending thousands of hours of our lives commuting to them?

Even if the government offered you a fair market value for your home, would you be happy to uproot your life, lose your neighborhood community and start over? And if you're a renter, you get the same treatment with not even relocation expenses covered.

Even beyond the devastating cost to the city, if the highway didn't go directly through the city centers in Hartford and Waterbury, commuters wouldn't have to deal with traffic jams literally every single day. The highway twists and turns through the city, slowing traffic even more than just the higher number of people entering and exiting around there, and results in a more dangerous driving experience. And there are no good alternate routes through those corridors of the state.

Idk, I'd have to look up some studies on it.

I was just saying that having kids doesn’t turn people conservative. They were mostly conservative already.

> haha Reddit moment

Fair enough lol. Showing my bias.

Disagree, it’s more that conservatives have kids younger and have more kids than liberals (spend more of their lives raising kids). They are also more susceptible to advertising and consume more media than older educated professionals having 2 kids in their mid to late 30s.