nothing fun
381 stories
·
22 followers

The NYT Thinks Portland's a Top-Four City for Amazon's New HQ

1 Comment
by Dirk VanderHart

amazon.jpg
JurgaR via GettyImages

Growth-wary factions of Portland began their practiced grumbling last week, when retail monolith Amazon announced it's looking to build a second headquarters, and Portland officials promptly decided to put in for consideration.

Any Portlander who's watched the transformations in Seattle in recent years has a personal sense of how life might change—or change more rapidly—were hordes of employees to suddenly flock to a campus that would offer thousands of high paying jobs. Tenant activists immediately sent out alarm bells.

Well guess what, Portland! The NYT thinks we're more qualified than most.

In an article published over the weekend, the paper analyzed the chances of major and not-so-major metro areas around the country to net this considerably huge fish—and Portland's in the top four. The paper based our chances on strong job growth, a growing labor pool, high quality of life, and reasonable transportation options.

In fact, the reason Portland was eliminated from the paper's consideration—Denver ultimately won out—is that it's too close to Seattle. Which sort of makes sense, but a larger reason Portland might fall short is the reason the NYT believes Denver could shine: We probably won't offer up enough.

As the O noted last week: "Oregon, with a relatively small economy, can't match the corporate incentives large states like New York and Texas routinely dispense."

That sentiment was bolstered by Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who posted the following to Facebook.

screen_shot_2017-09-11_at_11.55.34_am_480.png

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Read the whole story
tedder
10 days ago
reply
why would AMZN want to locate in PDX? They prob want geographic distribution, at a minimum.
Uranus
Share this story
Delete

Supervillain Plan

9 Comments and 24 Shares
Someday, some big historical event will happen during the DST changeover, and all the tick-tock articles chronicling how it unfolded will have to include a really annoying explanation next to their timelines.
Read the whole story
tedder
19 days ago
reply
I worked for a company that was naively saving timestamps into a DB in the user's local time, which (of course) varied. No TZ info was kept with it. I rocked myself in a corner.
Uranus
Share this story
Delete
6 public comments
mrobold
22 days ago
reply
This speaks to me on a deeply personal level.
Orange County, California
diannemharris
22 days ago
reply
So true.
skorgu
23 days ago
reply
Horrifyingly accurate.
duerig
23 days ago
reply
I was once part of a meeting where a great idea for simplifying the UI of a reservation system was slowly but surely sunk by the dawning realization that there were bizarre time zones that were half an hour or 15 minutes away from other time zones.
alt_text_bot
23 days ago
reply
Someday, some big historical event will happen during the DST changeover, and all the tick-tock articles chronicling how it unfolded will have to include a really annoying explanation next to their timelines.
Snake756
23 days ago
In writing software, I've often asked 'Do we have customers in that stupid timezone'? Only one? Screw them. They can deal with this bug for their stupid timezone.
cjhubbs
23 days ago
reply
Pretty much, yeah.
Iowa

Will Trump Stand by Michael Flynn?

di
1 Comment
Donald Trump and Michael Flynn
The embattled national-security advisor could become the administration’s first sacrifice to the realities of political turmoil.
Read the whole story
tedder
220 days ago
reply
Nice to know Betteridge's Law is still in effect.
Uranus
Share this story
Delete

“Burying the lede”: heavy cannabis use in Colorado

1 Comment

“Burying the lede” is what journalism teachers call it when the key fact in a story doesn’t make it to the first (“lede”) paragraph but instead gets “buried” somewhere down in the story.

Of course, scientists can make the same mistake: breathlessly reporting routine findings while ignoring what’s surprising or important. Consider, for example, this week’s report from the Colorado Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee. The authors report relatively encouraging news about the public-health impacts of legalization: cannabis use among adults and minors is high relative to other states, but there’s no observable increase after the opening of retail adult-use stores. The spike of emergency department visits due to edibles seems to have come back to earth.

But neither the report itself, nor the news stories I’ve seen about it, makes much of a fuss about what looks to me like the headline finding: (from p. 4 of the report):

In 2015, 6% of adults reported using marijuana daily or near-daily. This was lower than daily or near-daily
alcohol (22%) or tobacco use (16%). Of 18- to 25-year old marijuana users, 50% report using daily
or near-daily (13% of all 18- to 25-year olds). Among adult past-month marijuana users, 79% smoke, 30%
“vape” and 33% use edibles. Respondents could report using more than one method, which 50% of users
did. Finally, approximately 2% of adults drove a vehicle in the past 30 days after using marijuana.

In case you didn’t notice it: 50% of cannabis users between 18 and 25 use every day or almost every day. (The report defines “daily or near-daily use” as self-reported us 5 to 7 days per week.) We know from other studies by Beau Kilmer and his group at RAND that daily/near-daily smokers consume about three times as much cannabis per use-day as less frequent smokers, enough to be measurably impaired (even if not subjectively stoned) for most of their waking hours. That turns out to be 13% of the entire population of young adults. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health finds that about one-half of daily or near-daily smokers meet the diagnostic criteria for Substance Use Disorder. That’s a frightening share of users, and of the total population, to be engaging in such worrisome behavior.

The comparison with daily use of alcohol and tobacco seems vaguely reassuring: daily cannabis use is less common than daily use of the two others drugs. But that’s a false reassurance, because the behaviors aren’t directly comparable. Tobacco, of course, isn’t an intoxicant at all. Alcohol certainly is, but as sociological (not pharmacological) fact most drinking activity is not to the point of intoxication: most people who have a drink or two, even every day, just have a drink or two: they don’t intend to get drunk, and they don’t in fact get drunk. The scientific literature has a technical term for getting drunk: it’s called “binge drinking,” and is usually defined as four or more drinks at a sitting for a woman, five or more for a man (to allow for gender differences in weight). Binge drinking is a hell of a lot more common than you’d like it to be: about half of all drinks are consumed as part of drinking binges. But it’s still relatively rare.

Cannabis, by contrast – again, this is sociology, not pharmacology – is, under U.S. conditions and practices, usually used to intoxication, as the common terms indicate: “getting medicated,” “getting stoned,” “getting wrecked.” Yes, it’s possible to take a puff or two before a dinner or a concert, or at a party, to enhance the enjoyment of food, music, and companionship, but that’s not in fact the way U.S. consumers typically take the herb. Of course, some of those daily and near-daily users aren’t getting stoned every time they use; their tolerance for THC has developed to the point where smoking just makes them feel normal. Unfortunately, all the studies show that objective impairment – reduced performance on a range of cognitive and motor tasks – can be present even when subjective intoxication is absent, and in fact impairment generally lasts longer than the feeling of being high.

And yet the prevalence of heavy use doesn’t even make it to the report’s list of “trends to continue monitoring” (i.e., things to worry about), and doing something to bring that prevalence down fails to make the list of recommendations.

More and more people using cannabis more and more often is a trend that pre-dates legalization and is not restricted to states that have legalized. Between 1992 and 2014, as Jon Caulkins calculated, the share of cannabis users who are daily or near-daily more than quadrupled nationally, from 9% to 40%. It’s not clear how much Colorado’s retail non-medical legalization in 2012, or the establishment of retail medical outlets in 2009, or legalization for medical use in 2000, influenced the current prevalence there.

What is clear is that lower prices (Colorado retail bud is now down to about $6/gram and headed lower) and aggressive marketing – both accompaniments of cannabis legalization as it’s currently being pursued, though not of alternative legalization proposals – make it easier for users to slip into heavy daily use. Indeed, that’s the main – some of us would say the only significant – risk of legalization. That risk could be reduced by using taxes to prevent the price collapse  So a report on the effects of legalization that neglects heavy use is like a review of the last performance of “Our American Cousin” that doesn’t mention John Wilkes Booth.

 

 

 

Read the whole story
tedder
230 days ago
reply
50% in that age bracket. Scary.
Uranus
Share this story
Delete

Selfies are over. RIP selfies.

1 Comment and 2 Shares


Selfies are over. RIP selfies.

Read the whole story
tedder
296 days ago
reply
Uranus
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
dreadhead
284 days ago
reply
Zing.
Vancouver Island, Canada

Coffee

8 Comments and 13 Shares
Remind me to order another pack of coffee filters from Dyson. Man, these things are EXPENSIVE.
Read the whole story
tedder
350 days ago
reply
"we're basically fake adults"
Uranus
Share this story
Delete
7 public comments
Covarr
348 days ago
reply
Step 1: Go to starbucks
Moses Lake, WA
Brstrk
348 days ago
reply
Oh. So that's why my workplace's coffee taste funny.
rtreborb
348 days ago
reply
If I had to count the number of times someone gasped when I mentioned I don't drink coffee...
darastar
350 days ago
reply
This is me. I'm not a coffee drinker and feel awkward trying to make it.
foilman
349 days ago
Same here! Luckily there's usually someone around who knows what they're doing.
Cthulhux
350 days ago
reply
This must be fake, there's no hilarious amount of caramel in it.
Fledermausland
gradualepiphany
350 days ago
reply
I guess this is why those god-forsaken coffee pod abominations are a thing.
Los Angeles, California, USA
alt_text_bot
350 days ago
reply
Remind me to order another pack of coffee filters from Dyson. Man, these things are EXPENSIVE.
Next Page of Stories