I don't know about number 3. As a 53 year old Gen X'er, I still haven't come across things that see against the natural order. The main things I don't understand are things like the Humane AI pin, which didn't seem against the natural order, I just didn't see the appeal or usefulness of it. Maybe it just doesn't seem like there is much new being invented.
When I was a child in the 80s, 2026 was in the FUTURE. The expectations I had are not yet met. I have not seen anything that is not just an evolution of what we already had. The only exception may be how the internet usage has changed the economy and the world in general. Maybe we are only allowed one or two major changes in our lifetimes? (maybe AI will be the last change)
Don't get me wrong. The world has generally become a better place, and I would not want to go back in time. But we are so far from where we could have been. I am actually more afraid that we will revert because the rule based world order that we has created stability (at least in the west) seem to be at risk.
I think that if the pattern exists, it is strongly muted for GenX because everything we are seeing (and more) was virtually promised to be here “any day now” during the hay day of science fiction media. If anything, 2026 in the real world isn’t futuristic enough compared to what was “supposed” to have happened by now.
I played Shadowrun. I am both disappointed but mostly glad it is not happening according to that game universe history! I do want cool cybereyes though...
I am GenX and also an avowed fan of Douglas Adams and that quote.
I have to say that recently I’ve been coming to the opinion that making it pointless to perfect the craft of producing music and art is against the natural order of things.
I know I’m just old and the kids will figure out a way to bend and warp the new tools but I don’t think it’s for me any more.
What we see and experience - it's all natural, it's the natural order. :-) When people claim something is un-natural, usually it's natural in that occurs in nature, only - they themselves find it objectionable. It's something they personally dislike, and would rather it not happen.
> I still haven't come across things that see against the natural order.
So many people these days spend hours watching short-form videos spray endlessly from a screen while they stare dumbly at it. They aren't even picking which videos to watch, just letting the algorithm do it.
Every time I see someone doing that, I just absolutely cannot relate to what's going on in their head at all. I'm certainly not above watching some YouTube, but the complete mindlessness of it, they watch it goes on forever, and the utter stupidity of the videos. I feel like I'm watching zombies in an opium den.
But billions of people are doing that shit every day, so what do I know?
I don't want to defend short-form video feeds too much, but "They aren't even picking which videos to watch" is overstating it. Essentially nobody behaves like: watch 100% of a video, swipe, watch 100%, swipe. The expected behavior is that you swipe away if you're not interested, which is often done within a fraction of a second. Accordingly, Tiktok's content selection algorithm heavily weighs watch time as a signal of interest in related content. That actually can create a bit of a perverse incentive; if you linger on a video long enough to report it (as in for a TOS violation) or to click the "show less like this", it can lead to being shown more videos like that.
In many ways, TikTok is kinda like channel surfing. Watch a few seconds, next channel, watch a few seconds, next channel, oh this is interesting, sure I'll watch a "How It's Made" marathon.
> In many ways, TikTok is kinda like channel surfing.
I've been making the same comparison as well. As someone not watching the videos yet still hear the videos being played, the constant switching is very noticeable much like being the one in the room that didn't have the clicker in their hand. You're not in control of the constant switching which I think makes it even that much more annoying.
Rather than just parking on the marathon, choosing to turn it off and do something else entirely is still my preferred "old man yells at clouds" option.
Ha, that’s the thing that gets me too. Also people watching mashed up YouTube clip compilations - these seem obviously designed for addiction.
The other thing is watching the videos in public with the tinny speakers blaring. Judging by reactions on the trains, this is socially acceptable to most people now ???
I find it really hard to relate to people who do that. I never want people to see/hear what I am doing on my phone or computer, especially if it's something dumb or time-wasting. And to broadcast that into the world in a public space?? its crazy how different people are
> So many people these days spend hours watching short-form videos spray endlessly from a screen while they stare dumbly at it. They aren't even picking which videos to watch, just letting the algorithm do it.
This is how TV broadcasts also work, though. You could even argue there's an algorithm behind TV broadcasts too - it's just a kinda poor human-run algorithm trying to maximize viewer numbers.
Unlike many people, I still often watch TV broadcasts to relax for exactly this reason - there's no decision fatigue since I don't need to choose what to watch. Usually there's only one channel with something that's even remotely interesting and it's kind of an obvious choice.
With the (somehow sadly) added value that the TV broadcast algorithm is kinda known by everyone (morning programs, prime time etc), and that if there wasn't nothing interesting to watch, we would just do something else.
yeah but do we really need some trash reality-TV for a "shared social experience"? most of TV's programming was garbage anyway and contributed to a lot of what was/is wrong with the society
>They aren't even picking which videos to watch, just letting the algorithm do it.
As a teenager, I used to torrent content I liked and scoff at my parents generation for letting tv feed then slop :)
It's hard to understand why TikTok is addictive from the outside, precisely because if you look at the app over someone's shoulder you'll see their tailored content, not yours.
Give the algorithm a couple weeks and it WILL find the weird thing that gets you to check. Maybe you find someone restoring books relaxing, or like toy commercials from where you were a kid, or are attentive on news of potential pandemics out of fear. It will learn.
You have to know to look around you, at your peers, and come to the conclusion that this generality is quite true even if you’re personal datum varies.
My experience is that some people (of all generations) react really strongly against anything that involves birth and family.
IVF, gamete donation, surrogacy, gay families, various experiments with human embryos or artificial wombs, much or all of this is banned in many countries of the world mostly due to the "ick" factor. The smarter opponents tend to decorate their objections in the "we must be very, very careful" cloak, but if you dig deeper, you will find that it is indeed just a cloak in many cases and that the underlying root cause is "ick, this is against nature", and "really careful" means "erect impossibly high barriers by law".
This even isn't subject to polarization and seems to be shared across the political board.
IDK, but I have read a lot of objections from feminists as well.
Where I live, the religious population is under 10 per cent, but complete atheists will argue like this as well.
I suspect the "ick" factor is simply inherent here. Kids provoke instinctive protective/emotional reactions in a way that other phenomena don't.
For example, it is quite obvious that Trump faces a lot more popular backlash due to his suspected connections with Epstein than over his actual threats to Denmark/Greenland and war with Iran.
Non-religious people are also susceptible to the FUD about supposedly or genuinely new things. Whatever innate ick there clearly is, it gets co-opted to demonize much wider ranges of things, and conversely can be suppressed like in the Epstein's circle's case. I don't find it convincing that the legislators passing reactionary prohibitions are just driven by a natural ick rather than particular agenda.
A lot of younger people think that building of solar power and wind power in the past years caused decrease of global CO2 emissions. In reality, global CO2 emissions have been increasing each year.
Per region CO2 emissions don't matter, CO2 is a largely non-reactive gas, which is rapidly mixed throughout the entire troposphere in less than a year.
It's the total CO2 amount in atmosphere that determines radiative forcing.
The IPCC summarized the current scientific consensus about radiative forcing changes as follows: "Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 W/m2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system. This warming is mainly due to increased GHG concentrations, partly reduced by cooling due to increased aerosol concentrations"
Regional emissions do matter for the conclusions you draw.
All high-income countries already trend down in emissions.
Global emissions are rising because poorer countries that were basically almost "no emission"/capita in the past are still catching up (but that catch-up is less steep than in the past because green energy is available from the get-go).
Conclusions would be: Emission reductions in rich countries need to be aaccelerated, and helping poor countries peak at a lower level would probably be prudent (but good luck selling such policies to alt-right voters).
"Renewable are not helping" is not a sensible conclusion.
Conclusions would be: it's not that renewables are not helping, it's renewables are not helping enough. We need global emissions tax. The European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a step in the right direction, but still a very small step because it covers only production of few carbon-intensive goods imported to Europe.
To be fair, a lot of younger people also think that human extinction by climate change is a significant threat (it is not), while a lot of older people believe that a nuclear war could eradicate our species (also no).
Stopping marketing mail wouldn’t change the number of accelerations per mailbox. USPS would still need to check each stop for outgoing mail. The only difference would be in weight carried.
USPS would still need to check each stop for outgoing mail.
No they don’t, that’s what the red flag on the mailbox is for. Everywhere I’ve lived, if you don’t put the flag up and there’s no incoming mail for you, they don’t stop.
Depends. Where I live outgoing mail goes into the closest blue USPS bin. And given that most days all mail I receive is slop, removing the slop would remove the need to come to my house.
Of course, where I live the USPS person stops in a general area and does all the outgoing deliveries on foot, but it's conceivable that some days an entire block may receive no incoming mail. Also, we need to take into account things like fuel costs for planes & such throughout the entire supply chain.
The main lesson I learned was I didn’t have to live in a snowy place. I left SW Michigan in 2000 and haven’t looked back. I don’t like being cold, but I loathe snow and ice.
I've lived all my life in Finland, even though all through my early adulthood I was planning to move to some place much warmer. But later (especially now with children for whom the snow is so exciting) I've come to like the four seasons and the balance it gives.
That article was a strange read from my perspective, because here the infrastructure is built for winters as well. I don't remember school ever being canceled due to winter conditions, traffic is only a mess after a snowstorm.
> That article was a strange read from my perspective, because here the infrastructure is built for winters as well. I don't remember school ever being canceled due to winter conditions, traffic is only a mess after a snowstorm.
Seems like the author lives in a rural area where there isn't the support to deal with heavy snow. Also, Finland has frequent snow that falls in small amounts. I'm not sure exactly where the author is, but some mountainous or lake-adjacent areas in the US and Canada the snow falls less frequently but when it does it can come very heavy, like a meter of the stuff in 48 hours is not uncommon which is more than Helsinki usually gets in an entire winter. In Buffalo, NY for example a few years back they got 2 meters in a single day.
Yes but then in spring come the freeze-thaw cycles that make every town a skating rink. Sand & grit barely rate as halfway measures. More-aggressive snow removal and pavement scraping would help.
I've been obsessed longtime about how (or, better: whether) robots could remove the ice from pavements, but I only see tech challenge after tech challenge.
Good point. I've always found high humidity makes things a lot more unpleasant unless the temperature is in a fairly narrow range around 71°F or so. It intensifies the heat of course, but IME it also makes chilly weather a lot harsher too. I get uncomfortably cold really easily when it's e.g. 51°F with a cool damp ocean breeze in places like SF or Monterey, but when I go to the mountains in winter, 25-32°F is totally comfortable -- even in literally the same clothing. I think it must be partly a psychological effect, but humidity seems to play a role too (along with other factors like IR reflection off the snow).
Yeah it is basically don't walk outside much when above 35C. Unless you are a weird person with a body that can handle a 10km run in such conditions! Not me.
Just before the Superbowl, the Boston Globe had an article full of interviews with New Englanders who have moved to California. One claimed to still be a New Englander but didn't miss the weather, "I haven't slipped on ice in 30 years". I had to think, are they really New Englanders if they can't handle the weather? I think that's a big part of it. Having some Patriots and Dunkin Donuts swag doesn't cut it IMO.
Reminder that social security is funded entirely by a separate tax and not debt, so unless you are planning to cut benefits but continue the tax it would do nothing to reduce the deficit or debt.
IIUC, in the future, the SS tax isn't going to cover the benefits that SS will be obliged to pay out. So some analyses model the shortfall as coming out of the government's general budget.
So, yeah, it's "separate" spending in a sense, but it's not totally in its own sandbox.
This is already the case. Social Security has been running a deficit since 2010. It's only stayed solvent because of the trust fund, which is expected to run out in around seven years. So the government is currently keeping it afloat using general budget revenue.
Hong Kong and New Zealand are Berne Convention countries so that would be the grounds for extradition. I don’t remember other countries signing up to enforce Ofcom’s laws.
I don't see any evidence Ofcom is currently asking anyone else to enforce their laws. As far as I can they're currently simply taking the steps they can themselves to enforce their laws - i.e. as far as people in the US go sending letters.
Letters that put them in a position to levy fines and maybe arrest people in the future should they have the opportunity to, for example if the relevant people travel or have assets in the UK in the future. Or if at some point in the future some country does sign up to enforce Ofcom's laws here and relevant people travel to that country. The US is presumably barred (short of a constitutional amendment) from making such an agreement under the first amendment, but other countries are likely not barred.
Just because a government doesn't currently have the power to arrest you doesn't mean they can't internally begin processes to arrest you if/when they get that ability, or that they can't communicate to you that they are doing that. In fact governments of all sorts (including the US) do exactly that against people they can't arrest all the time.
> I don't see any evidence Ofcom is currently asking anyone else to enforce their laws. As far as I can they're currently simply taking the steps they can themselves to enforce their laws - i.e. as far as people in the US go sending letters.
It is even more nuanced than that: whilst Ofcom absolutely has legal enforcement powers under UK law – but they are regulatory / civil powers, not criminal powers like the police.
Therefore, it probably can even be argued (by deduction as I do not have a degree in law) that particularly in the cross-jurisdictional scenario, Ofcom’s whining about the non-compliance of a website with UK law is null and void.
> Therefore, it probably can even be argued (by deduction as I do not have a degree in law) that particularly in the cross-jurisdictional scenario, Ofcom’s whining about the non-compliance of a website with UK law is null and void.
I see absolutely no argument for this. The UKs regulations here that Ofcom is the enforcement agency for are explicitly extra-territorial in nature. That doesn't mean that Ofcom can successfully get other countries to help them enforce their laws (or can invade other countries to enforce them themselves) but they clearly have the power to act within the UK to enforce their laws against people in other jurisdictions. For instance to levy fines that will be on the books should those people come to the UK in the future.
I wonder whether the regulatory / civil vs criminal distinction plays a role here.
It is plausible to assume that, at any given time, a random person from the juridisction A is in breach of compliance of jurisdiction B – knowingly or unknowingly to them. Jurisdiction B granting itself extra-territorial regulatory / civil (not criminal) enforcement powers puts the nationals of the entire jurisdiction A into non-compliance and subject to fines or arrests at the cross-border point. It is, of course, perfectly legally possible, yet surreal.
Curiously, what the UK is attempting in this instance closely mirrors the approach adopted by the CCP with the National Security Law in Hong Kong, wherein they asserted their own authority to indict any individual, of any nationality, residing in any jurisdiction, for alleged breaches of the Hong Kong NSL.
Whilst it is abundantly clear that the primary focus is Hong Kong pro-democracy activists holding multiple citizenships, they have also stated – with calculated lack of emphasis – that non-Hong Kong persons may likewise be targeted.
