There is no way this is accurate for geography majors. $50k is would bottom decile (edit: for 3-10 years experience) based on the industry surveys I regularly see (Directions Magazine, GISUser, gisjobs, etc), and large percentages of geography majors work within their major field.

Edit: I see that geography has both the 3rd highest unemployment as well as the highest coefficient of variation for unemployment by a wide margin. And far lower degree holder numbers than are estimated. I suspect the survey is using a strict definition of the geography major and excluding geographic information systems and sciences majors.

Out of curiosity, which one of these, if any, would correspond to pork-cat syndrome? (I have a pork intolerance or mild pork allergy but no apparent cat allergy or broader mammalian meat allergy like alpha-gal.)

It is because the paid suspension of the police officers happens while they are still under investigation. This unpaid suspension is a punishment after the investigation has been completed. Most likely these firefighters were put on paid suspension during the investigation as well.

It's basically a 40-acre field per day. So that raises questions of how often you have to repeat treatment, as well as how deep into the growing season.

Stuck this in a different discussion on this, but a typical "clean" herbicide managed 40 acre field with minimal yield loss has about 2 million weeds. Take away the herbicide management and that goes to 6M-8M.

I think the real question here is what growth stages can you use this. I'm assuming the machine learning is good enough to use this during emergence and obviously pre-emergence. But I doubt you could use this VT or later. I suspect you can't even use it after V3.

Because if you can't use it after V3, then you still need a chemical or mechanical pre-emergent control or a way to continue to control after V3 (likely an over the top spray, which has its own issues).

For context, a typical 40 acre field under herbicide control experiencing minimal yield loss has just under 2 million weeds. Without herbicides, you would be looking at more around the 6M-8M range. Cutting the time in half is pretty awesome, but still has a ways to go. (And there is the whole question of which growth stages this can be used during.)

Looks like most of the elevation gain is from an increase in run length?

They mention in the lower part that they specifically worked to improve form and cadence. This might not result in a faster pace, but would result in a more efficient run that would both bring down heart rate and enable running more distance without losing pace. If you look at the distance chart, OP did run longer and longer distances (culminating with the marathon) without a loss in pace.

Just last weekend I had a 5k race where the first 20+ people all got lost because an out and back turn was missing. We all ran 3.5mi instead of 3.1mi. It happens. The race organizers were the embarrassed ones, because the course markings disappeared on them and the course should have been better marked overall.

What's interesting about this is that tuna are not typically fished in those waters. So the recovery is not simply because the tuna themselves are not being fished. This boost is stock is specifically a response to the protect of the entire system rather than just the species itself.

Because of dolphin safe tuna regulations, relatively few tuna are fished in the eastern tropical pacific tuna region (IATTC), where this MPA resides. In the IATTC, most tuna fishing was done via sets on dolphins. These types of sets have extremely low bycatch with a high concentration of large adult tuna, but that bycatch is primarily spinner dolphins. So, most tuna fishing is done in the WCPFC (western and central pacific) region (especially western) region. Although this region has plenty of dolphin bycatch, as well as many other species, the sets are done against floating objects rather than dolphins which automatically makes them dolphin safe.

(I used to work here a long time ago. I have not kept up to date on the industry, but most of these policy implications have not changed much in that time.)

Yep, I added that. Thing is, the vast majority of homeowners are in the same exact boat as renters: they cannot deduct any of their housing costs either.

The mortgage interest and property tax deductions can only be taken by a small number of home owners and the business use deduction can only be taken for part of your home if you have an exclusive business use.

Correct. Homeowners have to use part of their house exclusively for a business use in order to deduct their housing costs, outside of the itemized deductions specifically for mortgage interest and other taxes paid. You cannot deduct your mortgage principal, insurance, utilities, etc. otherwise.

The article is specifically talking about untaxed imputed rent, not FHA loans.

>And the really big one is that renters don't get to deduct their housing costs when doing income taxes!

Yes, you can. We did this for years while renting and it is pretty explicitly called out on form 8829 and schedule c that you can do this. <- This is for business use only. Whether a homeowner or a renter, you cannot deduct typical housing costs unless part of your home is used exclusively for business use.

Don't be surprised if you are unable to deduct your mortgage interest or property tax. You must itemize to deduct either of these, and with the standard deduction now at $27.7k there is a good chance that your itemized deductions, even with mortgage interest, are less than your standard deduction unless you are early in your loan (which you are) and you are close to or above the principal cap. On top of that, the real estate tax deduction is combined with your state income tax deduction and both combined are capped at $10k (again, compare this to your standard deduction, which you would forgo by itemizing

The catch is that it is much more difficult now to take the mortgage interest deduction and lower your taxes, thanks to the changes in the standard deduction combined with the principal caps on the mortgage interest deduction itself. It's down to under 18% of home owners now who can actually take the deduction and lower their taxes.

The real subsidy, which is what the paper is referring to, is the tax exemption for imputed rent. When you pay rent, your landlord pays income tax on that rent you pay. A homeowner pays no tax on the imputed rental income of the house, which they functionally pay to themselves by owning the home.

This is the really interesting one:

https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live

Few superfund sites are radiation contaminated. The most common (and some of the most toxic) sites are former dry cleaners. It’s all about the chemicals used, and these sites will be swimming in heavy metals.

Every single one of these is a future superfund site.