what a weird infantilizing viewpoint. This is an anecdote but I left home at 18 and got a job, did not go to college, and didn't have any of the problems you're describing. My parents gave me $0 in money and very little support or education. I did not take out any loans, infact from my first days out in the world, I would only put on my credit card what I could pay for that day anyway.

It wasn't easy, it involved a lot of saving, but i don't think it's right to think that there's some sort of required intermediary step people must go through between high school and adult life.

4 additional years of education after high school used to be very affordable, too. At the University of Michigan in-state tuition was $240 per academic term for 1970/71 for most programs. Entry level high school teachers made $11,000 per year in 1974. It's easy to justify the cost of tuition with that relationship between cost and future pay. Today's tuition is $9,800 per term and the entry level teachers salary is $46,000.

The relationship between cost and value has broken down.

Correct but Palantir is a US Corporation so this is an unnecessary distinction.

believe it or not people can figure out how to take care of themselves at 18 years old without college or mom and dad.

I think 100k+ in student loans does that well enough already. It's literal indentured servitude, saddling people with tremendous amounts of unerasable debt before they have any income to even justify it, and then launching them into a workforce where the practice is to require degrees as a sloppy way to set a lower bar for access to employment.

It's a garbage system that deserves some competition.

Back in the day, IBM had to train all their CE's. They were pulled off farms, trained on what they needed to do with an oscilloscope, and sent out into the field. It's a relief that a private corporation is taking back some of the burdens of education instead of asking people to take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a college education. I wish more companies would do this.

this is an anecdote but we have 5 kids and my wife having the undue burden of the physical side of producing offspring was something she actively desired, so your take on the idea that it's this universally reviled unequitable situation is unfair. She wanted our family to be this size and drove our decisions because it was her desire. In our family, our unequitable distribution of physical burden didn't play a role.

kindly fuck off

fertility rates have been falling since well before social media.

This field of research is dominated by survey's that have led to misleading results. It's the best example I can think of where if you ask people to self-report why they have no children you will get the wrong answer. Never mistake your finger for the moon. Everyone in this field is generating tremendous amounts of confirmation bias to support programs that generate no children.

Marvel and DC focus their efforts on larger revenue streams, choosing to leave the smaller margin stuff like actual comic book publishing to other companies.

when defined by a human its education, what do you call it when someone without such clear interests is in control of what you read?

When you pick up a book and read it, it's because you chose to read it. You had to physically make the decision to get up and get the book and read it, whether from a library or your elsewhere. Reading and writing on a smartphone is partially controlled by you, but there's an aspect of it that involves algorithmic decisions about what content you consume, especially if someone participates in any of the social media platforms which curate content for you, which is all of them.

So your statement is true, but a book will never seek you out to target your brain and person with an intention to program you with ideas. Smart phones are a direct brain tap whose control of what you consume is not entirely in your hands. This is the aspect of control that is most easily lost in the smart phone age. Certainly you can own a smart phone and intentionally avoid the worst of it, and even consume intelligently some social media -- but the traps are ever present and evolving.

whats the point of automating making more documents? i already didn't read most of the garbage created by humans. If we amplify the garbage by 10, how is that helping produce anything useful? if anything, work requires less words, not more of them. the last thing we need is more useless time wasting documents.

i haven't seen this level of global delusion in my entire life. the executives of every company are absolutely insane. they're blinded by the promise of a jump in efficiency, but dont know enough about the underlying technology to really understand how it can be applied, so they're all just blindly walking off a cliff.

this is insane to see and very illuminating about how stupid all of these PHB's are.