I think the idea is that anyone who’s seen his stupid interviews is a “tainted” juror, so if he’s tainted most potential jurors, it becomes more difficult to try him. Not sure how true this actually is
According to this guy’s (possible wrong) view of market elasticity.
More food stamps-> each person work more hours to survive-> more labor supply-> lower wages.
(EDIT) Which would make him not like food stamps.
There are other effects of food stamps, but in this guys view, that’s the dominant term. Maybe he’d like it for his own employees, but certainly not for the market as a whole. I guess it’s the opposite of “restaurants have to pay people more to compete with coronabucks” narrative that started a year or two back.
Parents of low-cost students can send their kids to the “high information market” (the schools that can reject high-cost students). Parents of high-cost students have to send their kids to the “low-information market” (the public school that can’t reject high-cost students). Any school that can reject high-cost students can make themselves more attractive to low-cost students, which then feeds on itself, as the “low-information” school ends up with more and more high-cost students.
In this case, both schools have the same information, it’s just that one school isn’t allowed to act on it.
How does this even work? Police officer walks to within 7 feet of you: you’re not allowed to film. They tell you to stop filming and then suddenly you’re allowed to because they’re interacting with you?
If each temperature was sampled identically and independently, each place’s “time since hottest” should be flatly distributed between now and however long the recording goes back to.
The person optimized for "interestingness" and feels they have very little to show for it. I'd bet that was also the case for quite a few "interesting" people in the first half of the 20th century.
Maybe I'd have a richer life if I'd spent 2 years as an animal tamer or whatever, but society isn't set up to reward that. Was it ever?