Yeah, and that made me wonder whether survivorship bias could be at play. That is, populations at lower elevations see less opportunities for suicide due to individuals dying of things like heart disease, etc., before they have a chance to off themselves at a later age.
But they do mention that they "[controlled] for percent of age >50 yr." Does that imply that, per county, they excluded high-elevation suicides that wouldn't have happened at lower elevations, using known mortality rates for common causes-of-death for age > 50 individuals?
I'm sure the answer is in the paper somewhere, but I need to get back to work. :-)
They criticized Google for holding a value they perceived to be at odds with the underlying economic system.
During a discussion of said company's defiance of a federal judge, such a critique seems pertinent to me!
We have continually observed the most powerful actors in our system abusing it in consistent ways: cornering markets, becoming monopolies, bullying smaller companies, constructing walled gardens, diminishing the concept of consumer ownership, etc.
I think we ought to allow comments like theirs in discussions like this.
HN is an echo chamber.