the 53% who said “no” already have a head

That is something that i never got. Isn’t all material that old? I mean it didn’t spontaneously jump into existence at a later time.

deleted by creator

i mean you can already put a link to your blog in your user profile on lemmy. in fact many people do it. (i don’t do it myself because i don’t have a good website to link to)

yeah, exactly. for example, in the sidebar (community description) of lemmy communities.

yeah making content is a lot of work. i can’t blame them.

i’m too young for that :D

i think they took a list of all publicly accessible fediverse instances and then just looked up the IP address for each of them, and then the geographic location for each IP address. most of this process could be automated somehow, but you still need to create the website and the hella cool intro :D

different fediverse services

xD

We already had symbolic software, it was simply called software before AI arrived, now it should probably be called “classical software” or “deterministic software”.

I’m gonna write an article about it as soon as i have the energy to do that; it’s a tedious topic.

Saying that “people need to get paid higher wages to be able to afford having children” is obviously propaganda in an attempt to motivate rich people to pay poor people more money. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t do that; in fact they should; but the fertility rate has nothing to do with it.

There are worldwide studies that families with less money typically have more children, but it’s very important to note that this is only correlation, not causation. In other words, giving people more money does probably not (i believe) cause them to have fewer children. Rather, i think it’s the other way around: Having more children leads to poverty as children are really expensive.

Also i want to point out that the story is really really more complicated than that. I.e. you see a lot of people wanting to have children, but not doing it because they’re afraid that the cost of living will be significantly more expensive in the future. Yes, you read this correctly. It’s not about the cost of living today, it’s about the cost of living in the future. Consider this: Children (if treated properly) live around 80 years, and during that whole time they should be fed and housed. That costs money. If housing becomes significantly more expensive in 20 years, it will be very difficult to house them. You should think about this today, not in 20 years. The fear of future rising cost of living is a reason why lots of people are deciding against having children today.

Also there are many more things that i want to say about this, such as that there is a very directed campaign on social media today to disincentivise leftist people from flirting with other people today, which effectively leads leftist people to be less in romantic relationships, more lonely, less connected, less organized, also less pregnant. This obviously hinders them from organizing properly, which is a top-down attempt to smash rebellions before they happen. This is a scheme that is highly effective of corrupting society, especially leftist people as conservatives typically don’t listen to social media and its messaging, especially when it comes to not flirting with other people (sexual harassment) and such.

Incredibly confusingly written article. The article really tries not to get the point across clearly. Instead of including like a single diagram that actually shows numbers and a curve, they choose to beat around the bush by using words like “less”, “fewer”, etc. which is really hard to estimate the effect size. There was no serious attempt to represent data proportionally and to actually inform the reader. It feels like an emotionally manipulative hit piece to reach out to all the people who might be affected by this.

The dollar is a piece of paper that people believe in and therefore fictional as well, as much as is all the mathematics that the US financial system is based on. Would you consider them insignificant, too?

Americans are working longer and harder for less pay and disappearing benefits, with a bleak future and risk of financial ruin of you get sick or terminated.

I mean you’re right and that’s bad; I’m just pointing out that China has had gruesome 996 working weeks (72 hours/week) for decades IIRC and i’m not sure if chinese people work that much voluntarily or involuntarily.

you forgot “[place] empty in the evening” between these two :-)

but also stagnate

Even in the AI sector

they said relevant future technologies

Yeah i mean isn’t that actually how it is; All plant organisms are eucaryotes and descend from animals (by taking on another extra chloroplast) which in turn descend from fungi, which was the first time that life experimented with putting genes into a special cell department (nucleus) to give it extra stability, so the genetic code can become more complex and more complex organisms can form without the genetic code being disrupted by the metabolic byproducts of the cell all the time.