Of course I do sneak in some music analogies, including a mention of Dock Boggs.

The post Winston Marshall podcasts with me on AI appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• A good discussion. Indeed, it clarifies why Cowen is an AI ... by rayward
• Idiotic “Al” slop and boosterism seems to finally be ... by Patrick
• In reply to Aaron A. Saliently for this subtopic, the heir of ... by M
• In reply to Aaron A. It is easy to understand why. Mass ... by Jim
• Winston Marshall! Haven’t heard that name in a while. A quick ... by Aaron A
• Gemini on being asked about how Hoagy Carmichael said he used ... by rsm

Related Stories

• Can AI models consent to their own constitutions?
• Wiesbaden notes
• The Troubled History of Government Equity in Technology

 

Mr Stallard has been working for a decade to corroborate this revelation. His findings have, if anything, become even more striking. Last year he and some colleagues published research in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that, whereas 40 years ago three in every ten Americans aged 85-89 had dementia, by 2024 just one in ten had it (see chart 1). What is more, America is not the only beneficiary of this trend. Between 1988 and 2015 the share of older people being diagnosed with dementia fell by 13% a decade across six countries in North America and Europe, according to a study of almost 50,000 people by Frank Wolters of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, and colleagues.

Some smaller studies have also found big declines. Data from the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked three generations in an American town, show an average drop in new dementia cases of 20% per decade over almost 40 years between the late 1970s and early 2010s. Those who were entering their dotage when Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky” was topping the charts (2013) were 44% less likely to have dementia than those who were doing so when Sting was urging Roxanne to switch off her red light (1978).

Whereas most earlier studies had simply pooled elderly people and then applied a statistical adjustment for age, Mr Stallard looked at narrow bands of ages to compare different cohorts of people over 50 years. By examining the changes between each successive cohort, he calculates that dementia rates have been declining by 2.5-3% for each calendar-year cohort.

Here is more from Jonathan Rosenthal at The Economist.  You can think of this as the new instantiation of the Flynn Effect…

The post Progress against dementia appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to bazza. I’m not sure this is any more surprising ... by M Raige
• In reply to ElsieT. I suspect both at are play. Certainly ... by anonprof
• In reply to bazza. My dad's mom was the only one of her ... by Hadur
• In reply to MikeP. Thanks for the reminder! [to get my ... by bazza
• I expect it mostly reflects improving cardio-vascular health ... by bazza
• Plus 9 more...

Related Stories

• Andrew Hall is on a roll
• Single-payer health care systems are looking worse all the time
• Missing women on Indian streets

 

2. How much have the top last names changed since 1790?

3. Bernanke appointed to the Long-Term Benefit Trust of Anthropic.

4. The India 1991 Fellowship is going great.

5. UK Dynamism Fund.

6. Peter Gray on phones and social media.

7. The new Richard Hanania book is out.

8. Warsh Fed task force leaders.

The post Friday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Howard Zinn. I did read part of Zinn's history ... by dearieme
• In reply to ElsieT. Politics and DNA is a dangerous ... by Old Programmer
• In reply to RAD. Meta’s actions are solid indicators. Of ... by Old Programmer
• In reply to JFA. I went to school 15 years ago and back then ... by Anonymous
• #4 Were video and podcasts 'things' way back in 1991? The ... by bazza
• Plus 10 more...

 

For most of the past decade, anti-billionaire language was a niche product. Democratic emails invoked billionaires in the mid-single digits through 2017 and 2018, spiked briefly to around 14 percent during the Warren and Sanders primary surge in 2019, and then settled back down—through the entire Biden presidency, the billionaire appeared in roughly one of every twenty to twenty-five Democratic fundraising emails, barely more than in Republican ones.

Then came January 2025. In the weeks after an inauguration that seated tech CEOs in the front row and the dizzying drama of Elon Musk’s ill-fated DOGE experiment, billionaire mentions in Democratic emails quadrupled, peaking above 20 percent of all emails sent and holding around 15 percent ever since. Anti-billionaire fundraising tactics are now a mainstay of Democratic messaging.

Yes, billionaire derangement syndrome is now a thing.  As a side note, I was told that Andrew is the son of the great economist Robert E. Hall of Stanford.

The post Andrew Hall is on a roll appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Student. It is, imo, a common misconception that ... by D
• In reply to Student. I don’t envy their wealth. I would ... by Mishkilji
• In reply to Gilligan. A net worth of $20M can't attract a ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Ricardo. The contradiction isn't in the numbers, ... by Claude
• In reply to Peterpiper. Expand the economy for whom? by Chuck Kotlarz
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Just wondering what the correct model of Iran is here
• From Prediction Markets to Decision Markets and Beyond!
• The Troubled History of Government Equity in Technology

 

The post Redux of my Homer’s Odyssey essay appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• Working link for Part 1: ... by Ray
• In reply to AB. And yet the comments are still lively . . . ... by Ray
• In reply to TMC. Response to Marcus by TMC
• I'd say that Trump is a reaction to the structural problems ... by TMC
• In reply to rayward. Ray, have you ever considered that Trump ... by Marcus
• Plus 4 more...

Related Stories

• What to Watch and Not
• My Conversation with the excellent Joel Mokyr
• What should I ask Liaquat Ahamed?

 

Tyler and Joel discuss European corporations vs. Chinese clans, why the Catholic Church became obsessed with cousin-marriage, how persistent cultural trends really are, why Chinese cities became so populous relative to Europe, why it took so long for European living standards to surpass China’s, why sinified invaders kept getting swallowed by the dynasties they conquered, how geography kept Europe fragmented and China unified, where India fits into the story, why the Romans never made spectacles, why British soldiers stood two inches taller than the French, what powered the sudden rise of 19th-century German science, how disruptive winning a Nobel is, and much more.

Unlike many Conversations, in this one I could excerpt just about any section with equal interest.  Here is one bit:

COWEN: Why does it take so long for the wealthiest parts of Western Europe to surpass Chinese living standards? Say that’s happened by 1700 or 1720, that’s many centuries after this medieval divergence. If it takes so many centuries, is the medieval divergence really the relevant factor? Why is it such a slow process?

MOKYR: Yes, I think it is. I think it’s a main factor. I think the idea of looking at standard of living, one thing, I’m very skeptical about how standards of living are actually measured. I know that this is what Pomeranz and other people have, and Jack Goldstone and other people have argued that the living standards in China were comparable to the West as late as 1750. I’m not 100 percent sure that that is true. Certainly, for my money, what really defines the divergence is that, technologically, the gap between the two countries starts to become visible at the time of the Renaissance, in terms of a whole bunch of things that you see growing in Europe and stagnant in China.

Now, keep in mind, of course, that part of the European growth is due to the fact that they borrowed ideas from China. Then the Industrial Revolution consists, to some extent, of imports institution by Europeans trying to mimic the goods that they were importing from China—not just from China, from India as well. Pottery is a good example. One of the things they really wanted from China was Chinaware. That’s why it’s called Chinaware. It took them a while to be able to match the Chinese capability in the ceramic industry, but they do so eventually. Then they stop importing this stuff from China. The same is true for, say, cotton and other products that we’re getting from the East.

European living standards, I think, should be measured, in part, by the fact that when the Europeans start their voyages across the globe in the late 15th and early 16th century, they are able to bring in a whole bunch of new crops and new techniques from other areas which they merely adopt. You’ll see Europeans very soon growing tobacco and potatoes and corn and other things like that. They are the agents of global change. Not only that they change their own diets, they change the Chinese diets because the Europeans bring from the New World things like peanuts and sweet potatoes and things like that. They change the Chinese diets, but the Chinese themselves are not agents here.

They are accepting the stuff that the Europeans did to some extent, and they’re rejecting others, but it’s the Europeans who are the agents of change here. They are the entrepreneurs. They are the people who bring about the changes, Tyler. My sense is that typifies the difference between Europeans and the Chinese. Europeans are more aggressive. They are more outward-looking. In the end, what you see by the 1830s and 1840s, you see that the technological gap is huge, in some ways much larger than the living standards gap. Even in the 19th century, in terms of food, the Chinese were capable of producing enough food. The number of famines in China is probably not a lot worse than in Europe.

When you see what happens during the First Opium War, one English ship is blowing all of this sort of mighty empire to pieces, and the Chinese have to accept this terribly humiliating peace, you can sort of see how the technological gap has grown between the two. For me, that is much more telling than the living standards. The other thing that I should like to point out is that, when you look at Europe in the 16th and 17th century, you can see that the capability of expanding the set of useful knowledge, including science, is just growing very rapidly. Whether there is a scientific revolution or not is a debate that I want to get into.

Certainly, by 1700, Europe is on the verge of really changing our understanding of how creation works. That’s not just Newton and Galileo. There’s a whole body of work that is emerging. There’s really nothing parallel like that in China. China is a very sophisticated society in many ways. The literacy rates are high. They have a well-funded and well-organized system of education, but they don’t really continue their earlier forays into science and into new technology.

Somebody actually went out and looked at Joseph Needham’s many volumes on Chinese technology and science, or Science and Civilisation [in China], as he called it, and he discovered something—which I guess we all knew, but they put numbers on it—almost nothing that Needham pointed out as an innovation happens after 1400. There’s complete stagnation setting in and some of the things that they knew how to make in earlier times, like the sophisticated clocks that they built in the 11th century, they disappear. For me, that’s more telling than how many calories of carbohydrates were consumed on average, if we could ever calculate that correctly.

Interesting throughout, and of course self-recommending.  I very much enjoyed Joel’s recent book Two Paths to Prosperity: Culture and Institutions in Europe and China, 1000–2000, with Greif and Tabellini.

The post My Conversation with the excellent Joel Mokyr appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to M. Weber was simply wrong about bureaucracy at a ... by Vivek Iyer
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. I see what you're thinking in ... by M
• In reply to Horhe. We're talking about path dependence here: ... by mkt42
• In reply to jmkd. Supressing piracy is expensive. And more ... by Sure
• In reply to Hoosier. The problem is empires. Once they grow ... by Sure
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Redux of my Homer’s Odyssey essay
• What to Watch and Not
• What should I ask Liaquat Ahamed?

 

One of the cool things about European football is that it provides good evidence that high-income, high-ability individuals move in response to tax rates…

That is from Jeremy Horpendahl, citing research by…Emanuel Saez.

The post That was then, this is now appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Tom T.. One would think that, say pretty much all ... by Moneymanger
• In reply to Elad. Yep, first thing I thought of here was ... by Patrick M
• In reply to JSK. Federal taxation over such disparate income ... by M
• In reply to rayward. Yes I live in a high tax state (we have ... by Dan B
• In reply to Glenn Mercer. Imagine that you are a partner in a ... by Vivian Darkbloom
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Land Reclamation!
• Single-payer health care systems are looking worse all the time
• Why we stopped making land

 

2. How exactly did movies become so much less sumptuous?

3. Twenty lessons about China.

4. Silvana Renreyro will be the new IMF chief economist.

5. Simon Baron-Cohen improves his views on autism.

6. Obamacare premia due for second straight double-digit jump.

The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to TMC. I use the quotation to show off my classical ... by Brent Buckner
• The more I learn about this Caplan fellow, the more I am ... by Cecil Rokestam-Bourke
• In reply to M. Fake Edit: Goofed on one of the values there. ... by M
• In reply to Sure. To add I'm also sceptical of arguments that ... by M
• In reply to Sure. Interesting speculation – I could imagine ... by M
• Plus 10 more...

 

But also don’t miss Connor Tabarrok’s historical overview of land reclamation featuring the ancient Iraqi city of Ur, Alexander the Great’s siege of Tyre, and the amazing flood tanks built under the city of Tokyo! Connor, a civil engineer by trade, points out that most land reclamation isn’t done to build cities with land fill but rather to create farmland through drainage:

In the lower 48 states, the US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that wetlands covered 221 million acres in the 1780s and 104 million by the 1980s. That is roughly 117 million acres drained in two centuries, a loss rate the report puts at 60 acres an hour, sustained for 200 years. For comparison, the total urban footprint of the United States is around 70 million acres. America has drained substantially more wetland than it has built city, and nearly all of that drained land became farmland.

… The Dutch invented the modern polder and have spent eight centuries pushing back the North Sea, and the result is one of the densest, richest countries in Europe. Yet around two-thirds of the country’s dry land is farmland. Flevoland, the newest province, is 1,410 square kilometers reclaimed from the Zuiderzee in the 1950s and 60s, and it was laid out as an agricultural basin, not a city. The country with the most reclaimed land per person uses it to grow potatoes, graze dairy cattle, and ranks as the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter.

The other reason that we drained land historically was to get rid of mosquito-driven malaria and to improve sewage.

In the mid-1800s the land south and west of the Washington Monument was the Potomac Flats, a tidal marsh that collected the city’s sewage and exposed it to the sun twice a day. The stench reached the White House. In 1882 Congress appropriated $400,000 and the Army Corps of Engineers, under Major Peter Hains, began dredging the river’s shipping channels and pumping the mud onto the flats. The work created more than 600 acres of new ground and a Tidal Basin engineered to flush the Washington Channel with each tide. The Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials stand on that fill. So do the cherry trees, planted in 1912 on land that had been open water within living memory.

Much more of interest at the whole thing.

The post Land Reclamation! appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Steve Sailer. Denny Regrade, Seattle: ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. Coastal property is fine. ... by mkt42
• In reply to mkt42. Henry Knox being the namesake of my former ... by Bill Allen
• In reply to Evanston BT. Chicago's 18 miles of beautiful ... by Steve Sailer
• In reply to mkt42. Perhaps you could benefit from looking at ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Why we stopped making land
• What should I ask Liaquat Ahamed?
• That was then, this is now

 

Köln!

We spent a few days in the city, and once again I marveled at the splendors of the Cathedral.  If it had its original stained glass, it would count as one of the very best churches ever.  It still stands in the top tier as it is.  Plus the Ludwig and Wallraf museums are excellent, making the city worthy of a visit.

But, and yes there is a but.  My first visit to the city was I think in 1984, and I have been maybe five times since.  When I walk through the pedestrian zone, the stores there seem far stupider than in earlier times.  They seem to reflect a lower level of intelligence from the populace and the city’s numerous visitors.  One feels there is not much chance of stumbling upon something interesting or very high quality, not compared to earlier times.  And I think MR readers will know I am no paragon of nostalgia per se.

Now that might be an illusion.  Perhaps the smart stuff has moved to mail order, to online, and to the outer rims of the city.  Perhaps.  But is it not dispiriting when one of the best cities in one of the smartest countries in the world, over the decades, starts appearing stupider?  If someone told me I had to live in center city Köln, circa 2026 that would simply feel like aesthetic hell.

The post The tomb of Duns Scotus appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Hmm. A bracing and comedically offensive post but ... by MrSquiggles
• In reply to Salim. I traveled to Prague last year and in the ... by Anon
• In reply to mdap. She bought us a lock to put on the bridge ... by j mct
• In reply to Hmm. The daily struggle to convince yourself that ... by ten-lane post-punk doomer highway
• In reply to Peter. If only we could go back to having Sears, ... by anonprof
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Jackson Dahl podcasts with me and Nabeel on aesthetics
• My Conversation with Joanne Paul
• Land Reclamation!

 

Government-run systems often (not always) do a perfectly fine job setting a broken arm or administering a long-standing, well-known medication. They do much less well when it comes to developing, financing, and delivering a new immunological approach to fighting cancer, personalized to your individual genome at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. In our rapidly arriving biomedical future, innovation capacity will matter above all else. And though they may not see it today, the people with the most life ahead of them will reap nearly all of the benefits of a dynamic system, or suffer the consequences of a paralytic one.

Thirty years ago, it was often debated whether the Canadian or British healthcare systems were better than what we have in the U.S. After all, they offered a kind of guaranteed access to health services. The details could differ, but often the healthcare had no upfront price or only a low user fee. In America, in contrast, healthcare was more expensive, there were many millions of uninsured people, and dealing with sometimes rapacious insurers and hospitals could involve significant emotional trauma.

But over time the British and Canadian systems look worse and worse. The queues and rationing have increased, as giving healthcare away for free makes it hard to satisfy demands in a timely manner. In Canada, for instance, the median wait time has risen from 9.3 weeks in the early 1990s to 28.6 weeks today. In the British National Health Service, only 65.3 percent of patients start treatment within 18 weeks.

Worse yet, both of those systems are undercapitalized. In Britain, healthcare is badly understaffed and underfunded. Yet the country already has high taxes, high debt, and slow economic growth, so it is not clear where the new money will come from to recapitalize the system.

And this sentence:

This entire dynamic will be intensified as the pace of medical innovation picks up.

Your life may depend on it.

The post Single-payer health care systems are looking worse all the time appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Anti-Gnostic. And the Proponents doing the Bernie ... by NotRover
• In reply to Id Ego. Aren't you the one with private ... by NotRover
• In reply to Floccina. Partisans, of all stripes, advocate ... by NotRover
• In reply to Sure. How would your brothers situation look in ... by NotRover
• In reply to BradF. My complaint would be the ... by NotRover
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Progress against dementia
• That was then, this is now
• Land Reclamation!

 

Then I read many, many commentators saying how good the final deal was for Iran, and what a major loss it was for Trump.  I was never sure I understood all of the parameters of the full deal, but still I did not hold any directly contrary opinion to that.

And now I see Iran is attacking ships in the Strait again, talking openly and brazenly about building nuclear weapons, and making plans to have tolls/fees on the Strait.  To be clear, only the first of those surprises me, the latter two do not.

But given their reckless behavior in what is supposedly a wonderful war outcome for them, what is the correct way to model what they would have done had Trump and Netanyahu not attacked?  And what is the correct way to model our optimal response to that?  The terrible things that are happening now, do they not reflect an underlying equilibrium that would have emerged anyway within a few years’ time, or do we hold some hypothesis here of extreme path-dependence, suggesting the Iranian government would have been less bellicose on more or less a permanent basis?  To cite one particular example of a possible equilibrium, if drones permanently alter the balance of power in the region, the ways in which their current position is now more aggressive might have emerged in any case.  Or if the military have the strength to be the natural successors to the mullahs, might that not have happened over time anyway?

I do not see many war critics engaging with these questions openly and explicitly.  It seems to me that the war critics implicitly are relying on a model of extreme path-dependence for Iran’s behavior.  Had Trump not attacked, they might have stayed in a more peaceful groove for some while to come.  That model might be true, but I do not feel I know enough about Iranian politics to make that judgment.  Why are the others so convinced that model is true?  Are they such well-informed experts?  Is it that they have the properly sunny sense of the underlying Iranian disposition?  Inquiring minds wish to know.

The post Just wondering what the correct model of Iran is here appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• The war: **(1) Fragmented Iranian authority via ... by ES
• In reply to Sure. You assert that the JCPOA would not be ... by GeorgeNYC
• In reply to Mark Bahner. Depends what you consider ... by songs that rip off other songs
• In reply to RaywardWannaBe. Close to 100% shadowboxing at ... by Brian Donohue
• In reply to Mitch Berkson. If Qatari news reporters still ... by MT
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Andrew Hall is on a roll
• From Prediction Markets to Decision Markets and Beyond!
• The Troubled History of Government Equity in Technology

 

2. Are Japan’s electric baths unregulated?

3. “We find that Claude has developed a small collection of internal neural patterns that, compared to all its other internal processing, play a special role.”

4. Is there a silent revolution in macro?

5. Automation does not seem to lower the labor share.

6. Which schools have the highest disability rates?

7. Jonathan Haidt update.

The post Wednesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Phil S.. On a similar note, something like 40% of ... by Jason
• In reply to Anonymous. Encrypted USB sticks are also easy to ... by Sure
• In reply to JK. Maybe. But when they explained that the J ... by mkt42
• In reply to Sure. There are solutions for using keys without ... by Anonymous
• #4 Very good essay — which I’d paraphrase as: “In the ... by Kaz Stanczak
• Plus 10 more...

 

• Reilly: I don’t like surprises.
• Cat: I’ll remember that when your birthday rolls around.

Nicholas Cage does some Nicholas Cagey spidery things which I enjoyed. Watch it in black and white.

Project Hail Mary (Prime): I waited until this was streaming and I’m glad I did because it was disappointing.
The core problem is Ryan Gosling. He plays Ryland Grace, the genius scientist-hero but genius is something we are told, never shown. Indeed, the character with the best ideas in the film is Carl, Grace’s bodyguard/minder (played by Lionel Boyce)—they should have sent him to save the planet. Gosling has no intensity, and every choice he makes is to lighten and humorize. It’s a small thing, but it annoyed me to watch a scientist toss his instruments disdainfully. Andy Weir is a master at showing smart people grinding through hard problems—in the novel, Grace spends months learning to communicate with an alien. In the movie, Gosling dances.

This isn’t just miscasting. The whole adaptation is built to soften the book. The film cuts the desperation of the world, undercuts the ruthlessness of Stratt and instead adds a karaoke number and a trip to Home Depot (ha, ha, duct tape can solve everything!) Every change is away from high stakes intensity and toward charm and humor, a Disneyfied version of Weir. I have nothing against Gosling but we have lots of charming movies and I would like some competence porn.

The main virtue of PHM, in the end, is that it shows what a miracle The Martian was. Matt Damon knows how to play smart and intense, and he brought both to what I called the most Ayn Rand film in decades. There’s an old story—probably apocryphal—that Chuck Yeager was once asked what he’d do if his engine flamed out and he had sixty seconds before hitting the ground. He replied, “I’d spend the first fifty-nine seconds working on the engine.” Chuck Yeager had the right stuff. Matt Damon in The Martian has the right stuff. Ryan Gosling does not have the right stuff.

The Sheep Detectives (Prime): A delightful surprise! A flock of sheep solve a murder-mystery in a quaint English town; featuring Hugh Jackman and voices from Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Bryan Cranston, Patrick Stewart and others. Babe meets Knives Out. A family film but, as the best family films are, with some deep themes.

The post What to Watch and Not appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Other M. Thanks! One thing we don't see much of ... by mkt42
• In reply to BC. The astrophage was supposed to reduce the ... by Other M
• In reply to mkt42. Yes, the book had a long section on saving ... by Other M
• For the love of god please stop using AI to write all your ... by Nick
• In reply to Aladdin. Well said. Movies are different than ... by Zach
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Redux of my Homer’s Odyssey essay
• My Conversation with the excellent Joel Mokyr
• What should I ask Liaquat Ahamed?

 

How absent are women from city streets in the developing world? We answer this question using GPS-linked wearable cameras and randomized street audits across ~900 kilometers of roads in greater Mumbai. Across 4000+ street images containing 23,000+ visible person observations, women account for 16.4% of visible people in Mumbai and 14.7% in Navi Mumbai, far below their population shares. We estimate pedestrian sex ratios of 239 and 223 women per 1,000 men, implying 71% and 76% of women expected based on residential ratios are missing from the streets. This pattern holds across road types, and private mobility does not explain the gap; women’s share on two-wheelers is lower still (8.4% and 5.7%). These results provide the first large-scale measurement of gender disparities in urban public life that self-reported data cannot capture.

That is from a recent paper by Varun Karekurve-Ramachandra and Gaurav Sood, via the excellent Alice Evans.  Here is a related paper, “The median married women in India leaves home for 30 minutes per day. On a typical day, 45% of married women don’t leave home at all.”

The post Missing women on Indian streets appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Agorabum. come to london or birmingham to see ... by bigot
• In reply to dearieme. The native fear of swans is one of the ... by Matt
• In reply to Sparky. It is a lack of faith in the power of ... by Agorabum
• In reply to Mother of three. Definitely not my experience ... by Peter
• In reply to Sparky. Elon Musk’s raison detre: tolerance. ... by Art
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Progress against dementia
• Andrew Hall is on a roll
• *What Makes a Great Composer?: A Data-Driven Exploration of Music History*