> I wonder if someone with my "punish disobedience" attitude
> just wouldn't succeed as a teacher, these days.

Yeah, the problem is the school administration doesn't believe in it, so they undermine you. For example, if you send a misbehaving kid to the office for discipline, they'll generally be given candy or other treats. Yes, really. Every time. Which means every kid who has ever been sent to the office for bad behavior, is going to misbehave again and again, hoping to achieve similar results.

And you *absolutely* cannot punish them yourself; that would end your teaching career.

No, I'm not making any of this up. My sister is an elementary school teacher.

Honestly, at this point I think their population is closer to three times ours; though it's impossible to be precise at all, because death statistics are as illegal to report in mainland China, as any other politically sensitive thing.

We know for certain that their birth rate has been lower than one-child-per-woman and falling for the last couple of decades (and given their demographics -- most of the population being well past child bearing age for a woman -- this definitely implies that the population of domestically-born Chinese people has been shrinking), and we also know for sure that an abnormally large number of deaths went unreported or grossly under-reported in 2020, 2021, and 2022. (We've got satellite images of the backlog stacked up outside of crematoria for months at a time, and needless to say there's nothing in the official stats to correspond to that.) As for immigrants, expats have been leaving China like rats off a sinking ship for the last half decade or so. Estimates of the current population vary wildly; I've seen figures as low as half a billion, and as high as 1.5 billion; but realistically, I think on the one hand it's clear that there's been a significant decline, and on the other hand it's also clear that China is still significantly more densely populated than America. On the whole, I estimate that their population is about three times ours, give or take. And continuing to decline.

Whether this decline is altogether a bad thing (for China, I mean), is another topic for another day.

I don't know about the count of solar panels, but I don't need to, because it's a side issue.

Fundamentally, the article is abusing purchasing power parity, when talking about the size of the entire economy, to make it sound like China's economy is actually comparable to America's. That's *incredibly* intellectually dishonest. Purchasing power parity GDP is only meaningful, at all, when you're looking at per-capita numbers, because in that context it is a proxy for average standard of living. (Even then, _median_ income, adjusted for purchasing power parity, is a much better proxy than GDP PPP, especially in countries with a stupidly extreme wealth gap, like China.) When you're talking about the total size of an economy, as a proxy for the resources and economic power that it can bring to bear, purchasing power is entirely irrelevant, and bringing it up is absolute proof that the writer either does not understand economics at all, or else is deliberately attempting to deceive the reader. Or both.

The article is absolutely propaganda, and furthermore it's _stupid_ propaganda that no educated person should fall for.

Yes, there are, but it's becoming less common now.

We were *told* back in the early 2000s, when USB was still horribly unreliable, that computers with "legacy" ports (PS/2, RS232 serial, and parallel) were going to be a thing of the past "very soon". At the time, it didn't happen. A couple of large manufacturers released a couple of models each with no legacy ports (e.g., Compaq with its iPaq line, and let me just remark on what an early-2000s product name that is), and then then due to popular demand they introduced variants that did have the legacy ports, and the whole thing blew over and everything went back to normal. A few years later, a lot of models started shipping without parallel ports (presumably because they genuinely are physically large to an annoying extent), and in some cases without serial ports as well, but the PS/2 ports mostly remained, for another next twenty years or so. And then they too started to decline (rather suddenly, since the pandemic, though I think that's probably a coincidence of timing), and at this point it's difficult to buy a new PC that has PS/2 ports, but that's a fairly recent phenomenon, and it's still *possible* to get them (new, I mean), it's just no longer the norm, it and becomes more uncommon with every passing year now. Another MS Windows version or two from now, it may not be possible any longer. Which would be unfortunate, because then it wouldn't be possible to plug an XT keyboard in using an XT-to-PS/2 adapter, either, and that would be a shame, because XT keyboards are awesome. I suppose someone might devise a USB hub that has PS/2 ports, but it would probably require drivers and so would likely not work until the OS is loaded, I expect, which for a keyboard would be an unfortunate limitation. Ah, well. On the plus side, it would be hot-pluggable, so there's that. It did always annoy me that PS/2 wasn't (reliably) hot-pluggable.

Now we're being told that USB A ports are going to be a thing of the past, and I anticipate an even more protracted phase-out period for that, because the port has been in use for so long, and is so convenient, that it has became a rather important de facto standard, to the point where even non-computer-related things often support it (as the most common and standardized source of low-voltage DC power), so you have it on things like desk fans and wall-outlet adapters. I don't see it going away in a short amount of time.

When the family doesn't want anyone talking about the cause of death, it's usually self-inflicted, deliberately.

Because there are eight billion people on this rock. The words "smart" and "bed" both exist, so of *course* somebody made a "smart bed", and of *course* there were people who bought the silly thing. Presumably there are also internet-connected toothbrushes, can openers, pencils, cutlery, and socks. Why wouldn't there be?

Are these *popular* products that *lots* of people own or want? Well, no, but that's an entirely different question.

> No one who is just getting by is going to do it out of the the kindness
> of their heart for the environment.

Almost no one, in that demographic, yeah. And I think that demographic
(just getting by) is going to include the overwhelming majority of ride-share
drivers, because it doesn't pay well enough to raise someone out of that
demographic, and it's not really a highly regarded "dream" profession that
a person with other means of support would do because they think it's
important (like teaching school or medical work) or just plain love doing
it and don't want to do anything else (like art or music), at least not for
most people.

The price gap between traditionally powered vehicles and electric ones
is narrowing, but it's narrowing fairly gradually, and I don't know that it'll
necessarily be down to zero by 2030 (for the new vehicle market), and
if you want drivers of older used vehicles to all be using electric by 2030,
the deadline for that price gap to narrow to zero is more like 2010, and
that ship has sailed.

With that said, superficially, a $4k subsidy is substantial enough that it
might *sound* like a real windfall to some people, and fear of missing
out on that deal (especially if it's advertised with a prominent and
imminent expiration date) might potentially motivate some people to
try to stretch for it. Dunno.

(Presumably there will be car dealers who will go out of their way to
provide financing that allows people to overextend and buy a more
expensive car than they can really afford, with a loan term so long
they won't be able to afford the maintenance on the car by the time
it's paid off. It's a sleazy practice, but it would neither be new, nor
unique to EVs.)

Ok, sigh yourself:

First, you're assuming that I either didn't know that "removal" as opposed to deportation, ordered by immigration officers instead of judges wasn't a thing, or that I was always ok with it when it happened under previous presidents. Neither is true. I'm the first to criticize Obama when he did something shitty (which started with why I almost didn't vote for him in 2008--as a senator, he voted to give AT&T immunity for giving the NSA metadata without a warrant. Had McCain not picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, he would have gotten my vote, but McCain had gone through several cancer scares by that point, and I was afraid of ending up with President Palin).

Second, even though the Obama adminstration (and Bush, it was also going on with the Bush administration) removed people without judge orders, they typically did it at the border. They, in my opinion, did so illegally in some cases (some of the people turned away from the border already had been granted asylum by a judge), but the for the most part, the potential for a mistake was minimal. Said previous administrations also removed people under the order of immigration officers if they were within 100 miles from our borders (because in another ridiculous US longstanding practice, anything within 100 miles of the border is considered to be on the border...so you can get searched without a warrant, for instance, as if you just landed at an airport if you're within 100 miles of a border). It is terrible, I never liked it, I criticized it back then.

So, what's changed with Trump administration that makes it that much worse? First, the removals within the 100 mile ring that happened before were all against people who were *convicted* of a crime by a court. So they got some form of due process, even if it's not satisfactory. The Trump administration has included people that were *suspected* of being gang members, without a conviction, often with the most ridiculous excuses. Take Abrego Garcia, who got into a database for being a potential gang member because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat at a Home Depot. And got subsequently accused of human trafficking because once he was driving a car with 9 people in it. And speaking of Abrego Garcia, no previous administration performed removals that sent said people to *prison* outside the country. The Trump administration also abandoned the 100 mile ring thing, and they can take people from anywhere.

Or take Mahmoud Khalil, who got his green card revoked and was arrested because he was taking place in a peaceful protest. He wasn't even *accused* of a crime, the administration is literally saying that his first amendment rights are dangerous because he's protesting against their position on Isreal, and that's the reason he should be deported.

Here's the thing: if you don't get to go before a court, how do I know you're here illegally? What's to stop them from sending you there, and never giving you a chance to show you're a US citizen? Because, guess what? Due Process is how you PROVE they're here illegally, or that you did anything wrong. And you can't deny the Trump administration escalated things from "this shouldn't be allowed by the courts" to "oh shit, this is 1933 Germany crap." Because...again, you argued that the removals were happening, but completely ignored my point that the removal was to OUT OF THE COUNTRY PRISONS WITH KNOWN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

I'm not saying government officials should be required to volunteer anything to reporters. Beyond what is required by freedom of information act. Information that has reason to be restricted can remain restricted, and although I prefer the government to be as transparent as possible, if the pentagon had said, "we're not dealing with the press anymore," I would find that disturbing, and a bad choice by the administration, but I wouldn't call it part of a fascist regime. What crosses the line is that they're saying, "after we give you the information, you have to let us see what you write, and give us veto power over what you publish." And selectively giving information only to outlets that sign that agreement.

Are you seriously going to argue that's not a propaganda office?

No, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I pointed it out because Fox and Newsmax are organizations that typically side with the current administration, but even they agree that's a step too far. It's not partisan, it's objectively worrisome.

As much as I don't like his completely unprofessional and disrespectful to the office attitude, I recognize his trolling. That's not what I was talking about. I'm referring to his claims of having the power to do whatever his wants as *justifications to actual actions he has taken*. For instance, tariffs. The law says only congress has the right to enact those. There's also a law that says he can enact those in an emergency. So he uses the justification of a fentanyl epidemic for tariffs that he *also clearly says are not due to address the fentanyl epidemic, but as part of negotiation tactics*.

He's being open about violating the law with flimsy excuses. Again, how are you justifying this?

Anyone, conservative or liberal, that isn't extremely worried about Trump's authoritarian regime's jailing people without due process in out of the country prisons, attack on free speech of any opinions he doesn't like (such as denying press reporting on the pentagon if it's not cleared by them first, something even Fox News and Newsmax refused to agree to), and overall vague claims to having the power to do whatever the hell he wants are the ones suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I've lived through multiple Republican Presidents, I've disagreed with both Republican and Democrat presidents, I've never been worried for our country before. This isn't political, and anyone who thinks it is needs to wake up from their cult of personality.

I'm not sure I understand how this is price fixing, though.

If two gas stations are next to each other, and can see each other's prices, and set their prices accordingly, that's not price fixing or collusion. You never need to go much below the other gas station, and if one of the gas stations in a more convenient spot next to, say, an interstate exit, they can afford to ask for a higher price. That's just regular competition, you want to maximize your margin, and you're never going to lower your price much beyond your competitors, just enough to get enough of their business to sell your inventory.

The price fixing happens when you set the price artificially high and the collusion happens when the competitors agree to not take advantage of that to take all of your customers. True, that's whether they had a meeting about it or not, they don't have to actually shake hands on it, but the price *does need to be artificially high*. And artificially high means you're sacrificing demand for the margin. So, in the case of the gas station, if you halved your customers, but you're making more money because of the high margin, you must be colluding. In the case of landlords, if they're not able to find tenants most of the time, but when they do, it makes up for it and they make more money, then it's artificially high and they must be colluding. But if they can find tenants, *by definition* it cannot be price fixing.

And yes, I get that shelter is an inelastic demand, but the article itself mentions the supply shortage of housing. The way to fix supply shortages in the free market is by increasing prices to reduce demand to match the supply. Since that's obviously not an option for housing, because everyone needs to live, the ONLY APPROACH is to build more housing, you can't address this problem with price controls.

One of the most fascinating aspects of H2O is the sheer number of forms it can take under different conditions.

...that there's a LOT of minerals and other nutrients in food, only a fraction of which are produced from chemicals in fertilisers, O2, and CO2. If you produce too much with too little consideration of the impact on the soil, you can produce marvellous dust bowls but eventually that's ALL you will produce.

There's a lot of stuff that is on the Internet that doesn't end up in AIs, either because the guys designing the training sets don't consider it a particular priority or because it's paywalled to death.

So the imbalance isn't just in languages and broader cultures, it's also in knowledge domains.

However, AI developers are very unlikely to see any of this as a problem, for one very very important reason --- it means they can sell the extremely expensive licenses to those who actually need that information, who can then train their own custom AIs on it. Why fix a problem where the fix means your major customers pay you $20 a month rather than $200 or $2000? They're really not going to sell ten times, certainly not a hundred times, as many $20 doing so, so there's no way they can skim off the corps if they program their AIs properly.

Let's take a look at software sizes, for a moment.

UNIX started at around 8k, and the entire Linux kernel could happily sit in the lower 1 megabyte of RAM for a long time, even with capabilities that terrified Microsoft and Apple.

The original game of Elite occuped maybe three quarters of a 100k floppy disk and used swapping and extensive use of data files to create a massive universe that could be loaded into 8k of RAM.

On a 80386SX with 5 megabytes of RAM (Viglens were weird but fun) and a 20 megabyte hard drive, running Linux, I could simultaneously run 7 MMORGs, X11R4, a mail server, a list server, an FTP server, a software router, a web server, a web cache, a web search engine, a web browser, and stil have memory left over to play Netrek, without slowing anything down.

These days, that wouldn't be enough to load the FTP server, let alone anything else.

On the one hand, not everything can be coded to SEL4 standards (although SEL4, by using Haskell as an initial language to develop the core and the proofs, was able to cut the cost of formal programming to around 1% of the normal value). On the other hand, a LOT of space is gratuitously wasted.

Yes, multiple levels of abstraction are a part of the problem. Nothing wrong with abstraction, OpenLook is great, but modern abstraction is mostly there due to incompetent architecture on previous levels and truly dreadful APIs. And, yes, APIs are truly truly dreadful if OpenLook is the paragon of beauty by comparison.

The solution is easy. WiFi 6 is only just starting to come out in the marketplace. If TP-Link hijacks the standard development procedure, solidifies a workable WiFi 8 quickly, and manufacturers/users in Europe, Asia, and Oceana all start using WiFi 8, skipping WiFi 7 entirely, the US will be left with an inferior standard that only they have gear for, with no option to use WiFi 8 for many more years because the only manufacturers making it can't sell in the US.