Everyone (including Slashdot) is presenting the study wrong. It's forecasting that world incomes would drop by nearly a fifth relative to what they would have otherwise been, not relative to the present.

Personally I'm waiting for some creative CEO to start using that fact to get people back to the office. Consider what would happen if your wages were restructured so that a percentage was allocated as compensation for your commute. As long as you're in the office every day, nothing changes. Yes, you can WFM, but if you do, you don't get that part of your wages for that day. Legal? Probably. Popular with the staff? Hell no! Would it get people back in the office? Some of them, probably; how many is anybody's guess.

Giving people money for marrying is no different from fining people for not being married in the end.

No. The default result of a marriage is that one person continues to work and the other stays home and takes care of it. That means that one income is now supporting two people, and that's what the tax break is intended to address.

I do think that both parents regardless of their relationship with the other parent should see tax breaks for having children since having children should be promoted.

Really? Why do you think that a man should get tax breaks for fathering children if he's abandoned the relationship and makes no effort to help the mother either by being there or by paying child support?

It's not just a question of whether it's justifiable. It's just simply nonsense to think that they can enforce this. Anyone can run Stable Diffusion on their computer. There's a virtually limitless number of models finetuned to make all kinds of porn. It's IMHO extremely annoying all the porn flooding the model sites; I think like 3/4ths of the people using these tools are guys making wank material. Even models that aren't tuned specifically for porn, rarely does anyone (except the foundation model developers, like StabilityAI) specifically try to *prevent* it.

The TL/DR is: if you think stopping pirated music was hard, well, *good luck* stopping people from generating porn on their computers. You might as well pass a law declaring it illegal to draw porn.

Especially when you consider that she's said to have little patience for basic editing. I've not read any of her work (I'm not interested in that type of story.) but I understand that her syntax sometimes leaves quite a bit to desire. As an example, I once ran across a sample of her work where a misplaced modifier made it look like a woman's eyes were a gift from her father rather than the necklace she was wearing.

Light exposure, depth, degree of exposure, isolated from others or clustered... many factors can affect survivability.

For the record, Steel has written at least 185 books.

Or, if you take her at her word, she's written one book at least 185 times.

While I'm sure a lot of those original movies are, in fact, total crap and deserve their obscurity, there are still going to be some diamonds in the rough - plenty of what are now regarded as classics (cult or otherwise) did not do well at the box office during their original runs.

In part, that's because a large percentage of them were originally made as B movies: low budget films intended to be the second part of a double feature. As examples, all of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies and all of the Charlie Chan movies were B; the only exception being the 1939 feature film The Hound of the Baskervilles that launched the series.

To be fair, there have been times where Earth's temperature changed relatively rapidly.

On the other hand... those times tended not to work out very well for life :

Our current experiment with mass greenhouse gas emissions affecting the climate, Earth itself has kinda done it before, at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The associated Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) left the world such an altered place that we refer to it as a different era (the Eocene). The oceans took the brunt of the hit. Except the differences we have vs. the PETM are *not* to our favour:

  * The arctic was ice-free going into the PETM; ours is not. The presence of ice creates an amplifying feedback process, where the more ice that melts, the more sunlight gets absorbed, creating more heat to melt more ice.

  * We're releasing our carbon an order of magnitude faster (though our methane emissions are similar)

The PETM caused a 5-8C rise over 6000 years, but we're speed-running it, so it's really our best case. The worst case is the K-Pg extinction event

Only the worst excursions in history tend to result in large parts of the earth becoming relative sterile. But they all lead to mass disruptions in ecosystems and waves of global or at least local extinction (but new speciation of the survivors who take their place). Indeed, we probably owe our existence to the PETM - primates diversified and radiated after it. But that's little solace to species that didn't make it. Like, for example, dinoflagellates flourished during the PETM. But do you really want to replace reefs with red tide?

Also, it's actually 1-3 years. The Great Barrier reef underwent mass bleaching events in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022, and now in 2024.

(To be clear on terminology: colony != reef. A coral colony is a cluster of polyps that bud or divide off from each other, all genetically identical and interconnected by the coenosarc to share resources, with each polyp living for a few years. For a plant analogy, the colony would be a a tree, and the polyps, individual leaves of that tree)

Going through mass bleaching events every 2-3 years is not the "whew, let's relax" event you seem to think it is when corals don't hit reproductive age for ~3-10 years, depending on species, with initial reproduction rates being slow and taking time to accelerate (the longest-lived animals on Earth are coral colonies, with certain individuals documented having lived for thousands of years; most live for decades, or in some species hundreds of years). Let alone the knock-on for all the species that depend on healthy coral for their their habitat, which lead to balance in the ecosystem, which is critical to e.g. preventing explosions of coral predators.

It's like taking an old growth forest in an ecosystem not adapted to regular fires, and burning it down every couple years. There will still be "something" living there, but it's just not going to be the same ecosystem it was.

Or they were just healthier to begin with, or more favourably situated. It doesn't mean that they have an inherent genetic advantage.

Corals are not fast growing. They grow about a centimeter per year, give or take half an order of magnitude. The fastest-reproducing corals still take several years to hit reproductive age, while others take as much as a decade. These aren't like bacteria that can quickly get new genes into the mix, test them, and quickly spread them through the population.

Corals need to get off Tiktok and stop with these unhealthy style trends. You're beautiful the way you are, corals!