I'm not going to lie, I am a complete Costco mark, ha.

There could be a psychological element to it.

Some people might say to themselves "if I am going to buy a membership, I better use it." As result, they buy more stuff at Costco than they would at a normal store.

So yeah, Costco certainly has fewer customers, but the customers they do have are more likely to spend more money.

That's right, I forgot about Cardinal Deacons.

Indeed. No nitpick cannot be picked apart itself.

One nitpick. The chain of command isn't so much that Cardinals rule over Bishops, but rather that Cardinal is a special title that some Bishops have. The title of Cardinal does not come with any territorial administration. A Cardinal is a bishop that can vote for the Pope.

One big pro is that the team gets a somewhat guaranteed revenue. In the American sports, a bad team may still be quite profitable. In European soccer, if the team is bad and gets relegated, they stand to lose millions of dollars.

> many defendants who insist on going to trial do so because they are innocent,"

I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, if a person is truly innocent, they have evidence to back that up, and fights all the way in every pre trial option available, there is good chance that it won't go to trial. The state does not like to lose, so they don't take cases to trial that they don't think they can win.

What I am saying is that innocent people rarely go on trial. They don't go on trial because if their evidence is good, it won't make it to trial. The legal work exists in the pre-trial. The main reason innocent people go to jail is because they can't afford good legal representation. They can't afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to mount a legal defense. Since they can't afford it, they typically plead out early.

But, sticking to OPs question, juries are rarely hung because of the state is willing to go to trial, they have a dynamite case (most of the time). The state might be wrong, but they appear be right, and so the decision is rather easy for the jury.

Still, it's a 95% chance of a guilty verdict.

Weaker cases tend to go the route of the plea as the state tends to offer reduces charges in hopes to avoid chancing it at trial. Also, if there is any weakness in the case, the judge might throw out the case or the state might drop it before it ever reaches trial.

Something like 95% of all jury trials result in some conviction, and the majority of criminal cases never make to trial. If a case is in trial, there is a more than likely chance that the case is that solid, that is not that hard to get all jury members to agree.

Yeah, you could subdivide the PhD group in any way you want, and that would surely reduce their numbers. Then again, if you do that, then you could include lawyers (Juris Doctor) and that number would go up again.

In the USA, there are maybe a couple hundred thousand more JDs than MDs.

To be fair, I thought you were right, but I was curious so looked it up.

There are about three time as many PhDs than MDs in the USA. About 3 million to 1 million.

The way the language evolved, the meaning of the word doctor changed from "teacher" to "physician." If I am not mistaken, back in the middle ages, a doctor was more often to be considered a doctor of theology (which is why you often hear people call St. Aquinas "The Doctor").

You may want to ask this to /r/AskHistorians because I doubt that there is a simple answer to how this word changed meaning.

I don't believe, but the answer could be that we don't know how many living "souls" exist in the universe. Maybe our population growth coincides with the population decline of the planet Xanadu.

Also, how long does it take for souls to transfer? Maybe there is a waiting room with billions upon billion of souls waiting for a body. As our population increase, may those waiting in the waiting room are getting fewer and fewer.

This is technique to control hyperventilation, such as in a panic attack. When you hyperventilate, your oxygen (O2) levels go up and your cardon dioxides (CO2) levels drop. In a healthy state, you need a certain O2 and CO2 balance, but hyperventilating tips the scale to having more O2. If you have too much O2, your blood PH changes and becomes too alkaline. If you remember the book or movie The Andromeda Strain, the researches discovered that the killer virus does not survive in alkaline environment, so an infected person had to hyperventilate in order to not drop dead.

The idea is that by breathing in and out of a paper bag, you would inhale more CO2. The extra CO2 balances with the extra O2 you get from the hyperventilating. I don't think the breathing in and out of the bag necessarily helps calm the panic attack, but it does help prevent the panic attack from creating further medical complications.

The current medical opinion is a bit divided. The science behind it still makes sense, but some doctors might argue that this technique might cause other types of harm. An incorrect use of the paper bag might lead to too much CO2 and not enough O2, which causes another danger. This technique can also be unsafe for those with certain medical conditions.

It's odd how some people don't get this. OP is basically asking, "Why can't modern people just accept a life expectancy of 40 years and an infant mortality rate of 300 death per 1000 births."

People back in the day were tough, but it's not like they were good at surviving. People have sucked at surviving right up until the 20th century.