The @sltrib did the thing where they write a story on some quality-of-life report but didn't actually examine what the report was promoting. It was some nature score that gives full marks to the urban-wildland interface and low marks to anything actually urban. Like the neighborhood I'm in is high-density suburban (by US standards) and full to the brim with public green space and natural areas, and it gets a score of 40%. A rich neighborhood with no green but street trees gets 97%.
@timesandseasons@sltrib This doesn't surprise me most people are lazy and wealth is a generally somewhat available piece of information so you just use it to synthetically Create other metrics. It's one of the risks when you do historical data especially on countries. That or could just be the substitution heuristic
