Trent0405

You sure love country music. I liked your #2 the most.

Make sure you PM him.

I think you will like this cover of Tainted Love, given your affliction for Country Music:

Who checks the bias of mediabiasfactcheck?

Yes and no. Founded as Silicon Alley Insider, it was renamed and relaunched as Business Insider circa 2009, by Henry Blodget. As others have noted, Mr. Blodget’s life has been controversial (a good article about his rise and fall and rise again is here: Henry Blodget's comeback complete after $343m sale of Business Insider). But Business Insider has continued to thrive, with millions of visitors to its website. Its core audience of “bankers, traders and tech geeks,” wrote Ian Burrell, a reporter for England’s The Independent, “…is overwhelmingly young and male. “They appreciate [Business Insider’s] mobile-friendly and graphics-illustrated guide to hot stocks.” And writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky noted that the publication benefits from being digital-only, and that “60 percent of its traffic comes from mobile devices and 39 percent from social networks.”

This is both good and bad. Business Insider is known for getting unique and interesting stories first, as well as for compelling story-telling; but since it is aimed at a younger and more tech-savvy audience, its detractors say the focus is on getting stories first, rather than getting them right; there have also been reports of extreme pressure on its writers to turn out more and more content for the site. In addition, Business Insider has been criticized for its tabloid and clickbait-style headlines. And some critics have said the site traffics in gossip as much as it does in business news. On the other hand, Business Insider remains very popular with its target audience and has absolutely reported some important stories; a number of its writers have solid reputations. Thus, while it certainly seems legitimate, you may want to contrast what it publishes with stories from more traditional business publications like Forbes, Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. (Even if it’s the best source in the world, it’s never a good idea to only get your news from one place!)

it suggests there is racial bias, suggests is not fact right?  I wouldn't deny there is bias or even racial bias but context matters.  Regardless I don't think I have ever seen anyone claim that racial bias is the same as racism.  Do you think they are the same or different?

I also noticed they use the term officers but not white officers, so if "officers" doesn't differentiate then that's a problem isn't it?

that short snippet of the meta analysis left out too many variables which is why I went to those studies, but maybe columbia law and yale are wrong.  None of it shows racism, at best all of it says, we don't know for certain, including your meta analysis.  So I still stand by my statement "you need to have some actual proof of racism within all the police departments in the U.S. otherwise you are just stoking the fires without facts." 

People don't wish to be hurt, brutalized, victimized etc right?  So they would act in ways they think will minimize their risk and that includes bias.  I don't go to certain parts of the city because whatever actual risk there is, isn't worth it to me, bias or not doesn't matter to me.

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3660&context=faculty_scholarship

this is really long and I didn't read it all.

In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involvedshootings on either the extensive or intensive margins

Using data from Houston, Texas – wherewe have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions withpolice where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely

Partitioningthe data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings.

we argue that the results are most consistent with, but in no way proof of, tastebased discrimination among police officers who face convex costs of excessive use of force. Yet, thedata does more to provide a more compelling case that there is no discrimination in officer-involvedshootings than it does to illuminate the reasons behind racial differences in non-lethal uses of force.

But overall. The left package is clearly better based on results. 

I couldn’t quite understand the reason for the link regarding the 30,000 apartments lost in New York every year, or the credentials of a man called ‘William Tucker’. However, what I did observe was that.....’Although hard statistics on abandonments are not available, William Tucker estimates that about 30,000 New York apartments were abandoned annually from 1972 to 1982’. 

So where does this 30,000 figure come from? Additionally, and let’s suspend disbelief and assume his estimations are accurate, this still doesn’t prove that ‘abandonments’ are the result of rent controls. A myriad of other factors might be at play here. 

Rent controls have to be moulded and designed for a given environment, to meet the needs and demands of a specific environment. It certainly can’t be a case of one size fits all, and continuous tweaking and evolving should take place. 

At least, contrary to many economists, you’re not entirely sure whether applying the free market system to the rental sector would work. But in actual reality, economists are also in favour of tax benefits, incentives and subsidies for the real estate sector, which really doesn’t sound like the magical ‘laissez faire, free market’ solution. For them it’s a case of increased deregulation of prices while also lobbying for increased subsidies and tax incentives for owners. 

Why do I feel like if I and Trent meet, we will be literally best friends that could engineer a model rocket in a month?