I’m not even so sure if the general public would support it.. we learned that straws suck or rather don’t suck well now that they’re not plastic.

Eugenics.. if we classify our diversity we can be more exactly diagnose what produces the undesirables we want to eliminate.

science advances not just by logic and experiment, but also by negotiation with political power and resistance from orthodoxy. It’s a human enterprise, not a purely objective one.

I think the birth rate problem will take care of itself. As there are less and less people the costs to the remaining will inflate, a declining workforce will be paying incrementally more and more tax, be required to work more hours and have a much later retirement age. At some point having children at 40 will become more financially untenable than in your 20s. This will mostly be achieved by giving financial incentives such as higher taxes, insurance rates and age limits on single and childless households, it won’t be phrased like that but rather involve being excused using cost of housing or the privilege. Personally I don’t think this birthdate decline thing is unwanted. It’s a lot cheaper just for industry to have less to output slowly over a few decades, than pay for the social changes needed to combat climate change.

This shouldn’t be the case for anything except third-party data. Even then, it should be held to a standard of what’s reasonable. A business should be able to know when a customer visited, what they looked at, how they arrived, and what search or referral brought them in. That’s reasonable as a default. Instead of regulating the data collection industry around what’s fair to collect and sell, the burden was pushed onto visitors at the cost of businesses. That’s what makes this a ruined internet. All of this goes away inside walled gardens like the Facebook app or the Google app. They can still collect data with far wider reach and with far less friction. So really this is just anti business and consumer and pro big business.. it was practically handing them a way to deepen their exclusivity .

Gen z have lower average debt balances , are much less mortgage and auto loan debt and tends to be more debt-averse none of which helps you establish credit rating.

Oh, so that’s why we haven’t gotten proper http3 support in like close to 6 years too busy with code of conduct and naming conventions for social justice.. thank god they’re focusing on the important stuff.

To be honest, I think we tend to go out of our way to classify masturbation involving others or consensual molestation of others as sex for sake of the feelings of those involved. We use euphemism to craft socially acceptable terminology that sound sex like blurring the line to effectively make anything sexual actual sex or rather shifting the biological meaning to a social one.

It seemed inevitable that their days are numbered, better build up the negotiation power for those retrenchment packages,

No one says we need to be using the same maps or western maps Africa ought to like say Asia use a different orientation or projection of the map that emphasises a different status quo.. but like, why would other regions need to change their maps

You are peddling myth. Most countries that have legalised and well regulated sex industries have very throughly studied their industries and only show regulations reduce the harms but don’t eliminate them nor bring them into norms deemed acceptable outside of it. PTSD , rape, violence, crime and trafficking remain a significant problem well above the rest of the population. It is an industry that even at its best thrives with exploitation. This is not an ideology informed truth or some moral panic that sells it is what every single bit of research shows, at best there is a reduction of harm nothing else.

Sex work has always happened, but the acceptance at a modern industrial scale not so nothing wrong with wanting to regulate an industry. Saying making sex work illegal harms sex workers is paradoxical, sex work harms sex workers and sex work harms punters. Lots of studies and research we conveniently downplay in such discussions proves that, not that that wasn’t obvious. The solution here isn’t a black making it illegal or white normalising it. It should be like smoking, shunned because of the toxicity to the individuals involved and society as a whole but legally tolerated while controlled because of the alternative. Hookers and pornographers should work out of well regulated brothels and no advertising or private selling outside of a licensed environment. You get your cake and eat it too.

You know what the worst crime of ai is? It gives people like you who cast lazy aspersions against others with it any time they fail basic comprehension. In your case I would prefer an ai would explain this conversation to you because maybe then you’d have the capacity of understanding the conversation being had here.

Again the only loss so far in the us ea/apple cases were relating to anti steering of their payment gateway and their behaviour surrounding the enforcement of said steering. All of this was a California only win for ea and a not federal one though apple hasn’t so far decided to limit that outcome to California. No they can’t prevent apps from telling them about alternative means of in app purchasing by redirecting to third parties, no commission on alternative means of in app purchasing by redirecting to third party and no they can’t ban apps for it. None of is this relating to allowing competing app stores on their device. No, in app purchasing by redirecting to a third party is not analogous to allowing third parties to sell and install apps on their device through their own on device store front.

Just for you I got ai to rewrite summary for the above just because you love ai so much : “ This is a narrow, California-only win about anti-steering and external payments. It is not a precedent for third-party app stores or sideloading. Apple lost a finger, not a limb — and they’re still the gatekeepers of U.S. iOS app distribution.”

I just looked, the only thing they lost was the appeal to dismiss the monopoly case.. I think you’re mixing this up with their loss about the anti steering laws in California by banning companies that violated its payment policy.

That’s the real issue here I think, google and co will do to ai that they did to search.. you’ll get a response alright, right after this ads or integrated into the text of the response.. in fact it will probably end up that you’ll get paid responses.. like.. you ask it what’s a good product for x and it will tell you about how much better Kia is than Lamborghini this all will be tied into social media activity too.. it will start insisting that the only ethical neutering involves neuticles (tm) after a while governments will step in and define for ai what it’s allowed to say (like how the west bans all non western news sources from being quoted in results ) and some rich dude will get some kind of disease and then try convince the public via ai that it’s actually not a disease but exists on a spectrum bc he flooded the net with fake articles that look legit to an ai.. the new war will be about who can produce the most ideologically correct ai..