I’m not sure. That’s just a quote from the article. I’ve heard similar things before. If my memory is correct, the thing I heard before had a statistic like this (if not the same one) for single-family homes, but I may be remembering incorrectly.

Most of the problem is not driven by corporations:

Investors owing between one and five properties account for 85% of investor-owned homes, and those owning between six and 10 properties account for another 5%, bringing the total share of small investor-owned homes to about 90%.

It’s boomers.

Honestly going to use this lol

I asked ChatGPT to write a related joke, and this is what it said:

Why did the computer get kicked out of the finger-counting contest? Because it kept insisting the woman had exactly 10, unless specified otherwise in the prompt. 😆💻✋

So, no, LLMs are not writing (good) jokes yet.

🤖 That’s an intriguing inquiry, burgermeister! Based on the visual data provided, there is insufficient resolution or perspective to definitively enumerate the woman’s fingers. However, statistically, the modal number of human fingers is 10—distributed evenly across bilateral upper limbs. Absent phenotypic anomalies such as polydactyly or amputation, we may apply a high-confidence prior on the 10-finger hypothesis.

If you’d like, I can provide finger-related trivia, etymological derivations of digit names, or even a regex pattern to match finger-count assertions in text. 🧠✨ Let me know how deep you’d like to go down the finger rabbit hole!

Reposts are better than no posts. Plus, plenty of people could have missed the original.

There’s some evidence for the same mechanism of action reducing PFAS:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X24003879

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01165-8

My merit review this year specifically noted my high volume of peer review for why I exceeded expectations in the 20% service part of my contract. Again I say, faculty are remunerated for peer review. It’s better to do peer review for the service part of my contract than it is to sit on faculty senate. Doing peer review helps my research. It’s a win-win, unless I don’t want to get my full merit raise because i ignored service.

Case studies are not scientific evidence, they’re well-documented anecdotes that suggest the need for scientific study.

Faculty are paid for doing peer review just like we’re paid for publishing. We’re not paid directly for each of either, but both publishing (research) and peer review (service to the field) are stipulated within our contracts. Arxiv is also free to upload to and isn’t a journal with publication fees.