INGELRII

There is idea behind that, but continuous is not enough.

The variable is all transfers, taxes and benefits T = [all taxes - all benefits] as function of income per person (including children). T starts negative (benefits are negative taxes).

Goal: monotonously increasing effective marginal T rate.

The productivity paradox (also the Solow computer paradox) is the business process analysis observation that, as more investment is made in information technology, worker productivity may go down instead of up. This observation has been firmly supported with empirical evidence from the 1970s to the early 1990s.

Before investment in IT became widespread, the expected return on investment in terms of productivity was 3-4%. This average rate developed from the mechanization/automation of the farm and factory sectors. With IT though, the normal return on investment was only 1% from the 1970s to the early 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

Measurement or Management?: Revisiting the Productivity Paradox of Information Technology. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/38739/v_00_4_9....

Then in the 2000 to 2020s productivity slowdown aka productivity paradox 2.0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox#2000_to_2...

Always visualize first. Human 'eyballing' is a good pattern detector.

Linear correlation is just one pattern the data can have.

Unfortunately many social science publications have reviewers who know only the basics and can't judge or accept statistically valid analysis that is outside their competence. Fit it into line or nothing.

Studies indicate that manipulating "growth mindset" does not improve students' academic performance.

This new research suggests that growth mindset makes people more inclined to blame students for their failures

>Third, Glen Weyl-style economic arguments have convinced me that, in the presence of superlinear returns to scale, the optimal policy is actually NOT Rothbard/Mises-style strict property rights. Rather, the optimal policy does involve some nonzero amount of more actively pushing projects to be more open than they otherwise would be.

(read the rest of his reasoning for this philosophical shift).

This was damages paid to the individual.

(lets talk law on damages)

Many European countries have /the principle of the prohibition of enrichment/ within the law of damages. The injured party should receive compensation for the actual loss or damage suffered, but should not end up financially better off. The goal is to make the victim whole. Damages are not punitive.

There is separate case in EU against Google that can result severe penalty.

Maximums are high: For severe GDPR violations the penalty can be up to 20 million euros, or up to 4 % of total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. For less severe violations fines of up to 10 million euros, or up to 2% of its entire global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. Turnover is from _undertaking_, meaning every corporation or natural person who is engaged in the activity (you can't avoid penalty with financing or corporate structure).

in s study of people age 65+ "Up to 32% of incident dementia over 8 years could be attributed to clinically significant audiometric hearing loss"