>How many cases have there been of groups successfully finding and use private communication services?
Probably a lot, given how booming the illegal drug market is. Obviously you don't hear about the successful ones, you only hear about the incompetent ones that get caught.
One of the original motivations for the First Amendment was the UK's surveillance and censorship of American mail; the UK has been a surveillance state for a very long time.
I also can't help thinking people living in the UK now are descended from people who didn't leave for the colonies, or were too rich to need to. Far too many of us just can't be bothered.
Free speech but a president that can deploy the military anywhere in American for no reason. Free speech but an unthinkable number of children murdered in schools on a regular basis for decades. Free speech but bankruptcy if you get cancer. I think I'm alright with the surveillance.
I was amused by the UK TV show Spooks (aka MI5), from the early 2000s - it showed an organization with a ridiculous amount of surveillance and other powers, acting in blatantly partisan ways, but it tried very hard to make that all seem like a good thing.
The underlying argument was essentially the same one used in the US: almost anything is justified if it helps prevent anything they subjectively determine as “terrorism”.
They might be sadists having the time of their lives. There are few better opportunities in life to get away consequence free with causing pain to a huge amount of people, than working on Microsoft Teams. Not only get away with it consequence free; they're even getting paid for it!
I have not met a single softie who defended the decision to make ctrl shift c the shortcut to start a call in a group chat when ctrl shift v is paste unformatted.
Especially given that the teams client doesn't allow disabling or editing keyboard shortcut.
Microsoft employees may be lazy but unlike Facebook employees (I refuse to call it meta), I don't think they are evil.
The problem will solve itself; political leanings are heritable and in the past couple decades conservative birthrates are significantly higher than liberal birthrates, so eventually the genes that incline people towards prioritising work over family will be bred out.
I have a similar theory, that desire to procreate is heritable, in a way that was previously inextricable from desire to have sex. With easy birth control, those desires can now be fulfilled separately. We're still working through the mass die-off of the genes that mostly just wanted the sex half of the equation.
In a few generations, most everyone alive will be the progeny of people who really wanted children. This is probably heritable and will probably stabilize birth rates.
Maybe. I think the difficulty is that in a place like Korea, the dependency ratio will become extremely high, and so taxes will have to go up sharply. Most voters will be retired and so will vote for the few young people to pay them. This will lead the young people to emigrate unless they’re prevented from doing so.
>that most people don’t receive education how to do that properly.
Incentives matter far more than education; parents have a built-in biological incentive to care for their children, so on average they put in more effort, that's why children at orphanages do so poorly, and homeschooled children do better on standardised testing than public schooled children.
>to the extent that a lower population cannot counter the increasing wealth inequality.
Wealth inequality has nothing to do with it; some of the countries with the lowest wealth inequality like Northern Europe have the lowest birthrates. A hundred years ago wealth equality in most countries was much higher than now and people were much poorer, yet they were still having many more children than people today.
>Anyone tried to move away from this model where there is two people of opposite gender, living together as a family, working, and raising child(ren) at the same time? Why not have dedicated facilities that handle raising children professionally?
People in general have a built-in biological incentive to treat their own biological children well. People child-rearing just as a job generally treat children worse than biological parents, and the empirical evidence supports this (e.g. the earlier children enter paid childcare, the worse their outcomes on average). Only a small minority of extremely moral people treat other people's kids as well as their own biological children.
>When I was traveling in UAE, I was shocked to see some people actually using bicycles for food delivery.
Many of those delivery workers are much poorer than even Chinese delivery workers, so are less able to afford ebikes. Because they come from countries with significantly lower GDP per capita than China.
Many countries with gig economies where the individual can't afford to own the actual method of transport, a rental market pops up to enable people to be able fulfill orders.
This usually does mean they're the first ones to get squeezed. But lesser known who gets squeezed is the rental operator/provider as well. Because many times they don't own their own fleet. They can't charge higher prices like normal car rentals and own the fleet because the individual gig driver is very price sensitive.
It doesn't take too many vehicle losses to really upset the delicate math.
In San Francisco, I noticed that many of the delivery drivers' e-bikes and e-scooters were labeled HMP. The natural structure for these is that you rent the bike from the provider and you keep net earnings post rent. And sure enough, when I came home and Googled there is precisely such a structure: https://www.hmpbikes.com/pages/rental-page
Indeed. I’ve noticed a large number of Pakistani taxi drivers and Southeast Asian service workers. But considering the income of food delivery riders(most of the time > avg salary in the city china. not sure in UAE, but the service like Uber is pretty expensive), buying a not-too-expensive electric scooter seems to be a fairly good investment.
> It’s objectively an unnatural form of communication
Communication with people half the way across the globe at the speed of light is objectively unnatural too, should we ban that? There's no "we" calling for the end of online anonymity excepts for spooks and people who believe people should be identified and punished for expressing opinions they disagree with.
Probably a lot, given how booming the illegal drug market is. Obviously you don't hear about the successful ones, you only hear about the incompetent ones that get caught.
reply