"Never explain a changing parameter by a constant factor," quoth @robinhanson. Eg:
"Why is inequality rising?"
"Greed."
"Greed isn't new!"
Constant causes (e.g. emissions) can have accumulating effects (e.g. concentrations). Seems natural to read greed/inequality claim this way.
-
-
(At least it seems a natural reading based purely on the quoted words. It may not be a natural reading in real examples.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You still have to explain why the parameter started out low in the recent past.
-
Yes, although how recent depends on the specific example.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.