Alger's Comments
Cartographic problem. The map uses overlapping categories. A BIG nono.
But points for it's being normalized to per/1000.
Anyone have any idea how this data is classified?
But points for it's being normalized to per/1000.
Anyone have any idea how this data is classified?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Through a fluke survival of the cachet of "US Magazines" my wife keeps under the bed, the only names from our time known to the Lizard-Cyborgs will be our god Branjalina and her loyal minions among the Kardashian Clan.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
As an urban geographer who's grad school education included a lengthy discussion of this old chestnut I am tempted to just declare "Shenanigans!" and move on.
But this thing has been popping up everywhere on teh intertubes this past week, so:
This observation/theory popped up first way back in the day when geographers were trying oooohhhh so hard to explain the spatial ordering of the world in rational terms so the "real" sciences would take them seriously (like the economists that write Marginal Revolution for example). Taking a page from Park and Burgess someone noticed that there was a pattern of east side industrialization and poverty in *some* US cities, and correlated it to wind patterns.
This caught on and has been a truism ever since. Problem is it also correlates to other patterns; like where rail lines enter cities, and the nearest side to a major market. These patterns are less deterministic and have a better correlation rate than prevailing winds. The biggest problem for this theory is that east-side industrialism and poverty is not the case in as many cities as it is true and overlooking those cities is a classic example of confirmation-bias.
The commuter correlation doesn't factor in since these patterns appeared long before individual car-based commuting became normal.
In short, this theory has never survived any rigorous peer review, and it isn't a new idea by any means.
sorry for the pedantic rant.
But this thing has been popping up everywhere on teh intertubes this past week, so:
This observation/theory popped up first way back in the day when geographers were trying oooohhhh so hard to explain the spatial ordering of the world in rational terms so the "real" sciences would take them seriously (like the economists that write Marginal Revolution for example). Taking a page from Park and Burgess someone noticed that there was a pattern of east side industrialization and poverty in *some* US cities, and correlated it to wind patterns.
This caught on and has been a truism ever since. Problem is it also correlates to other patterns; like where rail lines enter cities, and the nearest side to a major market. These patterns are less deterministic and have a better correlation rate than prevailing winds. The biggest problem for this theory is that east-side industrialism and poverty is not the case in as many cities as it is true and overlooking those cities is a classic example of confirmation-bias.
The commuter correlation doesn't factor in since these patterns appeared long before individual car-based commuting became normal.
In short, this theory has never survived any rigorous peer review, and it isn't a new idea by any means.
sorry for the pedantic rant.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Every holiday my mother (godblessher) reminds me of how amused she still is at the first time I said burlesque.
It LOOKS like Burl skew, right?
It LOOKS like Burl skew, right?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Jabson Mondoñedo
I host a 3am Iberian music program on a low-power campus station apparently.
I host a 3am Iberian music program on a low-power campus station apparently.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
How many of us would feel enlightened about the horror of landmines after peeling off a crudded up sicker from our shoe? How many of us would even both to try and read it after walking on it all day?
This is what ad reps come up with to win awards.