Aren’t lighting strikes on aircraft a pretty common occurrence and even without that the charge on the skin of an aircraft flying through the air is quite substantial.
The nuclear family worked when you could easily have a single household provider, it doesn’t work anymore and the recent trend of having multi generational households seems to be completely driven by people not being able to afford to move out.
I always pondered if child baring should be done as a generational leap.
As in how would society look like if people have kids in their 20’s with the grandparents who are in their 40’s being the primary caretakers and rinse and repeat.
Seems that this combines the best outcomes in terms of biology and still being able pursue educational and career goals.
But this is a very major shift from where we are today. It’s going to be far more likely that more and more people will start having children in their late 30’s and even 40’s and 50’s. If we are going that way then freezing sprem and eggs at a young age should be much cheaper than it is now and people should really start considering it.
Presume that a majority of women of reproductive age per generation al cohort do not want children, and intend to exit those fertility years childfree. What then?
I see no crisis, only total fertility rates reaching a neutral rate based on women empowered to make the best choice for themselves.
Society will have to correct itself somehow, either through social change or technological advancement that or we will all go extinct…
I actually wonder why this isn’t a bigger talking point, we are probably not at the point of no return yet but many countries are getting there and people will be caught by surprise as whilst the effect is delayed human life expectancy isn’t that long and it doesn’t take more than a couple of generations like ours until we are going to be facing a major crisis.
I really don’t know where we went wrong, and I’m not sure it’s purely financial either (tho it is for many), at least from my anecdotal experience.
> I really don’t know where we went wrong, and I’m not sure it’s purely financial either (tho it is for many), at least from my anecdotal experience.
The problem is welly explained in the video: the society in East Asia (South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, etc.) is too toxic for the youth and it is too hard for them to live a decent life.
Young people there are constantly competing with others of their generation. Households are unaffordable for the majority of the population, and for the lucky ones, it takes approximately 30 to 50 years to buy one. Traditional culture encourages people to work extremely hard, to the extent that they don't even have time for social activities or to form relationships. Meanwhile, promotion is often difficult because management-level positions are occupied by older individuals.
People are stopping having children not only because they cannot afford it, both financially and in terms of time, but also because they do not want their children to suffer. It is expected that the situation will persist for generations to come.
The population ballooned because women were not educated and empowered. Now that they are, and have robust access to family planning, TFR is coming down rapidly and population will eventually follow.
Where we went wrong? Women not being empowered in the first place. This is the fix, not a problem. This is a success story.
I don’t know what’s right or wrong but can we agree that TFR below replacement isn’t sustainable in the long term?
Even if you don’t see shrinking population as a massive problem which it will be, if the TFR remains below ~2.1 humanity won’t be here for much longer.
I disagree. The world has ~8.2B people, and has blown past 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries while headed to 9-10B people by 2100 (due to population momentum). Humanity will successfully continue on with an order of magnitude reduction in that number 150-200 years from now, based on a median global TFR of ~0.5-1. TFR isn’t going to 0. We can plan accordingly, if we choose to. We are currently on the unsustainable path; a lower TFR puts us closer to sustainability.
You can disagree all you want but if the TFR of the world becomes as low as the one of Chile we will get to below 1 billion people world wide within less than a century and go extinct within a millennia and the latter is based on that life expectancy won’t change and if there will be that big of a reduction in population life expectancy will plummet.
I’m also not sure how much empowerment anyone will have once we are forced back to living as agrarian subsistence farmers within a few generations.
So I don’t know if you are trolling at this point or not…
Not trolling at all. Actually bootstrapping a non profit to buy unwanted fertility from people who don’t want it, to sell into carbon markets to spin up a flywheel to help everyone who doesn’t want kids to be empowered to not have them. So perhaps we just see the future and individual agency and empowerment differently.
Immigration seems to be the answer, but not so easy to pull off. Are there countries that have done this well? I would argue that for a long time, the US has done this quite well until maybe the last decade.
Australia and New Zealand have 30% of population born in other countries. Housing growth seems to be keeping up in my city (Christchurch).
I'm unsure if immigration is a sustainable solution - immigrants also get old and retire. But perhaps it works out because immigrants have more kids than people that were born here?
I'd recommend Australia, for anyone considering moving, because it has better economics and a wider choice of locales and jobs.
Unless you want to Balkanize yourself immigration is probably not the answer.
The US is also probably not the best example because it’s a very different situation. Even in the 19th and 18th centuries natural birth rates accounted for about half of the population growth in the US.
The current projection for the UK is that between 2021 and 2036 immigration will account for 92% of the population growth, and based on the previous 2-3 years this might actually be an underestimate.
If you don’t have a massive amount of data to backup, used LTO5/6 drives are quite cheap, software and drivers is another issue however with a lot of enterprise kit.
The problem ofc is that with a tape you need to also have a backup tape drive on hand.
Overall if you get a good deal you can have a reliable backup setup for less than $1000 with 2 drives and a bunch of tape.
But this is only good if you have single digit of TBs or low double digit of TBs to backup since it’s slow and with a single tape drive you’ll have to swap tapes manually.
LTO5 is 1.5TB and LTO6 is 2.5TB (more with compression) it should be enough for most people.
> But this is only good if you have single digit of TBs or low double digit of TBs
That's not so enticing when I could get 3 16TB hard drives for half the price, with a full copy on each drive plus some par3 files in case of bad sectors.
You could, it’s really a question of what your needs are and what your backup strategy is.
Most people don’t have that much data to back up, I don’t backup movies and shows I download because I can always rebuild the library from scratch I only backup stuff I create, so personal photos, videos etc.
I’m not using a tape backup either, cloud backup is enough for me its cheap as long as you focus your backups to what matters the most.
How is it better than having any phone + a backpack solar charger?
If you are looking for a doomsday scenario then LTE isn’t the way to go, handheld radios is the way to go.
In virtually any large scale disaster scenario cell networks are one of the first things to go, they get overwhelmed and if there is a power loss then cell towers go down.
The SoC we use will also be gaining support for non-terrestrial networks soon. It’s the same feature that new iPhones have for Satellite based SOS when you’re outside of cell range. We’re not sure when it’ll be ready yet, or what the power consumption will be, but perhaps that could be something useful for this sort of use case. As far as I know it’ll support regular data traffic too, not just for emergencies.
Voice is possible over LTE-M but it’s sort of the wrong technology for it. It’s designed for low power so the data rate is quite slow and the latency won’t work for two people trying to talk to each other.
It’s a similar speed to Bluetooth LE (not Bluetooth audio which headphones use). Sub 100kBps
NTN will be even slower. Few kBps. Really intended for sensor data or machine related actions
As long as it can signal emergency services it'll be fine for what I'm thinking of.
Texting emergency services a preset message like "Paramedic requested, at GPS cords..."
The value right now is learning which prompts work, which strategies work, what is the sweet spot in terms of model size, is it better to run a model that costs 10 times more per token vs smaller inferior models that might need have 3 attempts at it, what are the best RAG and other enrichment strategies etc.
You can only really get that when you have a large market share.
When your IDE makes a call to OpenAI they get to see only half the picture they don’t know how the user reacts to the output.
So there is a lot of value in being in the client loop also and seeing the full picture.
No single person on this planet can know everything about a product as complex as a phone or any other modern device, and the expectation of some people form execs even ones who were engineers is simply unrealistic.
If you know everything about your product down to the most low level technical detail your product is either a brick (and I think that even that is too complicated) or you greatly overestimate what you actually know.
Plastic/paper paintable or painted Easter Eggs are like $8-10 for a pack of 50 even on Amazon and much cheaper than that on the direct from China sites…
I haven’t seen people use real eggs in the UK for Easter Egg hunts like ever they are always plastic or paper for those which are more environmentally inclined.
Egg prices aside using fucking potatoes that rot makes no fucking sense so ill file this under the razor blades in candy scare we get every year during Halloween…
Netflix was unique it basically was a repeat of the early days of cable.
When cable came about it had access to a massive library of content that people didn’t know how or well couldn’t effectively monetize due to the fact that you had only limited number of channels and thus didn’t knew what it was actually worth.
You used to have 100’s of channels on basic cable that all now could broadcast 50+ years of TV and film content.
Cable broke through the bandwidth limit which at the time was basically the number of channels available. Instead of the 20 or so channels that were possible on broadcast TV you had 100’s.
Once people realized what their library was worth and how relatively cheap it was to setup your own cable channel things turned and we got premium cable.
Streaming was the same it basically took out the time multiplexing out of the equation completely.
However as just like cable it was an unproven business model especially when Netflix came to the scene people weren’t sure if it was worth the investment so Netflix had effectively a monopoly on a vast library of content which it licensed for pennies on the dollar.
Once it proved that the model is viable all the content holders jumped on the bandwagon.
We will never have another Netflix moment as the most likely next big jump in entertainment is most likely bespoke or at least viewer tailored AI generated content.
reply