Not only is he unfairly dissing nerds, he's also being unfair to men. Whats with this idea that women on the whole are the more virtuous sex? Seems sort of an oldfashioned notion to me. Women can and are just as dirty, underhanded, and evil as men. Its just that they tend to exercise their power more through social and psychological means and not through bruteforce as much.
How exactly does it make sense to believe that the 2nd Amendment was to effectively protect the military's right to bear arms? The Founders obviously were talking about grassroots organizations and the people and not just another branch of the federal army like the national guard is now.
Whatever is true the majority of the climate change industry and powers that be must not be too concerned. Why else would they keep banging their head on a primarily ascetic solution that has been proven not to work? Whatever they claim to believe countries simply will not accept the standards the IPCC wants, will fail to meet the standards they accept, or offload industry on countries that have no standards. And many say that we're all doomed anyway. This has been shown time and time again. Yet they keep pushing these failed tactics of economic downsizing and regulation that will coincidentally enrich and empower them while at the same time virtually ignoring, actively blocking, or only paying lipservice to nuclear and technological solutions.
Not to make any conclusions but It seems that all they do is run a bunch of simulations on a computer then pull this sweeping hypothesis from nowhere without an ounce of biological data or actual study of real humans.
as we're always told I think they'll have no problem making up their own mind about what they want to do without the media constantly telling them. And they'll be perfectly capable of doing it without any need for outside paternalistic advantage or encouragement.
We should never forget that robots should be designed to help people...not replace them.
Then I think they should just drop the pretense of being some sort of transformative world expanding service, remove all the mixed signal features, clearly state rules instead of mysteriously disabling accounts out of the blue for having too many friends or messaging too much etc and just admit they are a glorified rolodex.
Now they do everything in their power to discourage networking. They should just remove the people you may know feature. You're likely to get your account locked down if you try it. Basically all you're supposed to do is tend to your small garden of friends you meet in RL and thats it in which case its better to pick up the phone anyway.
Yet another article wants you to kneejerk sexism but I think this is more an interesting reminder on how we process information. People don't judge things just using a blank slate but use demographic shortcuts from their past experiences and ideologies. With only a paper likely filled with lies and exaggeration to go on the human brain is designed in these situations to mine for information not just in direct but indirect ways, it doesn't automatically mean they're wrong. Obviously it would be better to get to know the person, but mental shortcuts in certain situations are a valid strategy that the brain naturally gravitates toward because it overall works. In fact everybody with a functioning brain uses shortcuts including demographic shortcuts all the time everyday, anyone claiming not to is lying.
This would actually be a huge boon for students looking for a research mentor or PI. I spent months trawling through google and WoS looking through faculty and it was a gigantic mess trying to separate out who was who. The professors of Asian origin were by far the worst to get through as they had 200 other guys with the same name boosting their publication counts to absurd levels. Its made worse by the habit of moving around the country and name abbreviations. Algorithms and narrowing the search criteria could only get you so far since you still have thousands of Chens working in biochemistry at the same time. This could make an hour long search instantaneous.
Obviously no one wants a population will kill everyone but its debatable whether we truly are there. But if we could overcome the environmental obstacles a bigger population with productive people is certainly better than a smaller one. So we should ultimately be working for a population that can sustain growth rather than one that simply shrinks.
Population growth should be seen as an extremely powerful tool with obstacles to overcome rather than an inherently bad thing. A larger vibrant population of (intelligent productive) people means more science, technology, goods, art, and everything else we need as a society and most importantly survival. A shrinking or stagnant population will lead to doom.