Exercise through everyday walking likely plays a key role. Rural Americans drive everywhere and their most significant walking typically will take place only within stores while shopping.
Having lived in rural areas, suburban areas, and urban areas, I don't see there being much difference in walking between rural and suburban.
My guess is that it's a combination of rural areas being poorer (less access to healthy food and extra curricular activities) and the lack of societal pressure to be healthy that comes from living in a more isolated environment.
I suspect if you closely examined activity levels by distance from city center, you'd see something like a log curve with moderate activity for city dwellers, decreasing as you get farther from the core, to the point where suburban/exurban/rural dwellers have very similar activity levels.
I saw a huge difference when I moved from a tiny rural town to a city. I grew up comparatively close to a decent-sized town, in that it was a 20 minute bicycle ride or more than one hour walk to the nearest supermarket, but in the city I found that there was usually a supermarket within a 15 minute walk. In the country my parents had to drive to everything except the pub and playground, and deliberate effort was required to get more exercise.
This depends on how walkable your cities are, of course.
You can exercise all you want (not saying its not good for health, in contrary!), if you eat consistently crap unhealthy food and too much of it it doesn't matter long term (both consistent problems in US population as viewed from literally anywhere else in the world, for past few decades).
Who eat more healthy? More intelligent (since they grok how important it is long term, despite less initial appeal compared to more stronger basic fat&salty&sugary taste), more wealthy (so they can afford it compared to processed junkfood prices pushed to absolute minimum).
Who cooks for themselves from raw ingredients (which ends up being healthier food in general due to many factors)? Again same as above, you need to either have it hardcore baked in your culture like say Italians or French have, or just realize facts, and have some money to afford the extra time (and not juggle 2-3 shitty jobs trying to stay afloat and hovering just above burnout).
Even in major cities in the US, the vast majority of people still drive most places. Sure, downtown office workers can usually walk to get lunch, but that's about the extent of it. Also, exercise is much harder in urban areas, cities have crowded gyms making it harder to work out at peak times, crowded roads making it harder to bike, and constant crosswalks making it hard to get in a consistently-paced run. Rural/suburban people just run on their land/around their neighborhood.
I think one would have to adjust for occupations. I would assume certain types of jobs are more prevalent in one are or the other. For example, you're not likely to find many office workers in a location without large office buildings.
What gets me is how Apple markets the improvements in the M series processor. They iterate on these on a yearly basis, yet do not upgrade base model RAM for near a decade.RAM is quite often the limiting factor for current computer longevity. This is especially true of Apple computers as RAM is non-upgradable.
Apple at a minimum should create a cadence of RAM upgrades to coincide with processor upgrades to at least some extent. Otherwise they are selling base model computers that are going to require most users to replace sooner.
Conflicts with Apple's environmental efforts.
>RAM is quite often the limiting factor for current computer longevity
I think this is an interesting point, because my own experience completely disagrees. I feel like consumer laptop RAM has been stagnated at 8gb or 16gb for about decade now, which is insane as someone who grew up during the turn of the millennium when it was doubling yearly.
Among myself and people I know, the biggest factors for getting a new machine are usually (in order) battery life/consumption, physical condition, storage, and OS support for the hardware. I haven't heard someone say they need a computer with more RAM unless they started using it for new purposes they didn't before (someone getting into video editing, data analysis, etc).
Apple has put a ton of effort into optimizing software to squeeze more out of less ram. They also have operating system level features like compressed ram.
The whole implied argument about hardware longevity is because software bloats. A responsible thing would be optimizing software for power and resource usage.
I assume this will be lower cost through plastic casing, M1, and low RAM/storage.
Currently the M1 is sufficient for 90%+ of the population (IMO), it is the RAM/storage that will outdate most Apple computers. If Apple sells this in the $599-799 range with 8GBs of RAM that would be a solid offering for most K-12 schools.
The previous months were primarily going to US customers (partly due to an ongoing pandemic). Notice how deliveries to Europe will spike in follow-on months as ships arrive.
Tesla tends to have very vocal fans and haters. Each month there is a different article highlighting how Tesla is in dire straights due to the precipitous fall in sales in X country. The next month an article will say how Tesla crushes competitors in X market.
"With another wave of deliveries in the Netherlands, Tesla Model 3 has become the best-selling car in the country for the year as it now surpasses 10,000 units.
Since the European launch of the Model 3 earlier this year, the vehicle clearly reinvigorated Tesla’s sales on the continent."
edit: in case it sounds accusatory I want to clarify: your statement is totally plausible to me, I just want to learn about where you got the information (and learn more myself)
Agree on this one. Why Nations Fail is a fabulous book. I recommend reading Guns, Germs, and Steel first if you are going to read both. Highly recommend both.
