> The obvious explanation for other country's vaccine recommendations is based in data. COVID kills the elderly (75+) who are more likely to be battling multiple negative health conditions beyond COVID.
That something so obvious was enough to get you labeled a conspiracy theorist and banned off all major social media for close to two years has set back trust in science by decades.
That's good news ... I thought they had added it but were forced to remove it. I think this will make Hy a bit easier to use, especially for those who are more comfortable with CL or Scheme than Python :)
What if women genuinely want to have identity based on what they do? Full time employment is probably the thing which has to go in favor of reproduction, it's akin peonage in that regard.
Let's imagine you want to have an identity of a person working for a hot start-up.
How would you explain that a 25 years old male can be a first developer employee in a start-up, but a 25 years old female can't be a talent acquisition manager there?
And then fail to crop up a period of inactivity in their career to have a child?
You have to sacrifice some things to achieve other things. If you want to sacrifice procreation for a career, you won't be the first to be taken care of by evolution.
There is not much free will, people's goals are informed by what they see about high-status individuals.
It's very regrettable that being a mother (or a father) is no longer seen as an achievement at all.
It's hard making a moderate-income 3+ chidren family the role model. It's obvious how you would like to exploit their fertility but they still have to foot the financial, logistic and labor costs of raising a lot of children.
Especially hard if you expect mother to not have her life while having all these kids, who are then going to depart their home and make her life even more eventless.
As I've already said, you can't buy time, and that's the coin people in the West may have in even shorter supply than their peers elsewhere.
Israel kind of shows that having the life priorities that you desire is possible. But I'm not sure how to do that in practice, or even if it is feasible until the current population Ponzi scheme wears off and then a few generations pass.
A 60 year old woman can't give birth. It doesn't matter what incentives governments will give in 20 years: you can't beat biology. The women who can give birth in decades need to be born today. Yet birthrates are at their lowest levels ever. _Every_ developed country and most developing countries have committed suicide already, it's just that it will take 40 years for anyone to notice.
The West is betting that immigrants will keep magically appearing whenever needed. The problem is that outside of a few countries torn apart by civil wars _nowhere_ are birth rates constant or let alone increasing. To put it in perspective: Bangladesh is below replacement fertility levels today. 40 years ago it had 8 children born per woman. Let me repeat that: Bangladesh today has fewer children born per woman than the US did in 2009.
The west doesn't need other nations to have high fertility rates, it just needs other nations to have people who want to immigrate to the west. Populations keep increasing for many years after the birthrate falls below replacement rate due to population momentum (people individually have fewer kids, but there are more people having kids than there used to be). And even after the population truly stops growing, people will still leave for wealthier areas in search of higher quality of life. If people keep emmigrating from a country with a sub replacement birth rate, eventually the population will get so low that there's no one left, but that would take many decades if not centuries. For example bangladesh has a net migration rate of -0.2%/yr and a birthrate 5% below replacement rate. Even if we ignore population momentum and assume bangladesh's population will immediately start falling, if they keep their current birth rate and migration rate it will take about 250 years for the population to halve, at which point it will still be about the same number of people that Germany has today.
Not sure this is true. Nigeria has population growth of 2.5% and fertility rate of 4.6. I think other African countries are similar. Africa will be the main spawn point for new humans this century.
How accurate is that reporting? Honestly, it sounds more like the ability of statisticians to access accurate data than such a drastic shift in culture.
Interesting paper for finding a function which fits the given data, however they way oversell the ability of any such model:
>Then, an SR algorithm would ideally re-discover the well-known expression
(or an equivalent formulation thereof) F = G × m1 m2
r2 , with G = 6.6743 × 10−11, by opportunely combining
the mathematical operations (here, of multiplication and division) with the variables and constant at play
F in this case is the second derivative of the curve of motion of mass, _either_ mass. Yet given a sampling of data the best you could do would be one equation for the motion of mass one and another for m2. The fact they are equal is not an NP-hard problem but equivalent to the halting problem. Similarly for deciding that the equation is a differential equation.
>In mathematics, Richardson's theorem establishes the undecidability of the equality of real numbers defined by expressions involving integers, π, ln 2 , {\displaystyle \ln 2,} and exponential and sine functions. It was proved in 1968 by mathematician and computer scientist Daniel Richardson of the University of Bath.
A Fourier expansion is a symbolic fitting of data to a curve, yet it provides no information about the systems sampled as shown by the fact that it fits a geocentric model just as well as a heliocentric one.
The idea that an arbitrarily large expression is somehow more understandable than the fourier coefficients of a the first few large terms could only have been done by someone who hasn't looked the the vast array of semi-empirical formulas out there which are as clear as mud.
Well, I think the hope is that formulae reveal relationships. Notable applications of SR have mostly been to physics and other science phenomena. So, you do some SR to understand the mathematical form of the relationship, and then carry on by trying to understand it causally.
The image at the end looked generated and had me worried, but I think the central thesis is in the paragraph starting with "Crucially, education is civilization-building" and I don't think an AI could quite write something that well. Not yet, anyways.
Yes, thank you. Only a smart person like you could notice that. Once again, I can't thank you enough. Please keep up your efforts of informing people about what you think is useless drivel so that brains won't be harmed in the future.
Yes, computers these days can perform very sophisticated statistical calculation to simulate the appearance of intelligence. Very similar to some people that comment on HN. I'm not as smart as you so I often have a hard time telling the difference. Thanks again for your very informed viewpoint. I have learned a lot from these engagements.
That something so obvious was enough to get you labeled a conspiracy theorist and banned off all major social media for close to two years has set back trust in science by decades.