For me it’s if I’m referring to a named body of water or not. “That’s Spring Creek” vs “I’m heading down to the crick”

I bing bop between Lycoming and Lackawanna. Nothing I noticed

You’re ignoring a global pandemic that impacted supply chains and economies across the world. You’re also ignoring Russia’s shenanigans and it’s impact on oil prices.

Natural gas continues to be extracted at the highest rates in PA. Wolf also just pushed out a tax package to encourage more gas extraction. We don’t even tax the gas companies in PA as far as I know lol.

EDIT: Actually, I forgot about the Act-13 impact fees that unconventional gas wells pay out. So there is that.

Meanwhile, the entire state of Texas freezes each year because winterizing gas well heads threatens someone’s profit margin.

Yeah, that’s a fair assumption, I’d agree. Just thought it was odd to exclude the unconventional play in the state. From my understanding, that’s the vast majority of new activity going on now…

A much more intensive process too… so perhaps too much to be practical under this reg?

So this explicitly excludes unconventional gas sources then? Are those already under similar regulation or are they being excluded for… reasons?

Are you asking me what I would personally do? That sounds like a false dichotomy.

Or are you asking in what scenario more resources would be used to address the crime? It’d be absolutely more resources to stop the 1000 crimes, but relatively more resources to stop the 1 crime (per capita).

I don’t understand your logic. The example you provide between a population of 100 with 1 crime vs. a population of 1million with 1000 crimes shows that the smaller population has 10x the crime rate.

You are statistically more likely to be a victim of crime where the crime rate is 1% vs .1%. Just because the absolute numbers are bigger doesn’t make them scarier. It shows there’s something different between the populations causing the difference in the rates.

My comment was a tongue in cheek response to the L post from the user above.

Philly has over 1 million people. New Orleans has < 400k. By your logic, why wouldn't PA have more violent crimes per capita? PA also has Pittsburgh. PA even shares borders with other large cities in neighboring states.

The great thing about per capita statistics is that it reveals trends. Isn't it interesting that a certain group of states tend to be worse in violence, poverty, and need for federal money? It suggests a systemic failing of the states as a whole. I wonder what systems these states share that citizens living there are subjected to.

It’s a good thing we aren’t in one of those Bible Belt states where gun death rates are 20 - 25 per 100k people, huh. I couldn’t imagine how terrifying it must be to live in a state like Mississippi or Louisiana where gun death rates are so high.