Man, don't get too hung up on the last sentence, that is more my personal opinion on how one should approach life, I don't expect anyone to share it, I haven't discovered the ultimate truth. Yet. So, my clearly marked personal opinion:

Don't get me wrong, I hate helicopter parenting as much as anyone. "Back in my days", we'd fuck off into the woods after school, doing all kinds of bullshit, and as long as we were home at dinner time and didn't lose any teeth, all was fine. On the other hand, I can't say that that stopped me from becoming a weirdo. I have seen plenty of people have kids who wanted them and really should not have kids, and I have seen some people go above and beyond for their children, although they were in bad situations, or got them by accident and so on.

If one gets a kid out of boredom, I would argue one is exactly the kind of person who parks their kids on youtube in order to watch their own tiktok slop in peace. Or the kind of person who gets a pet and then neglects it. Only that tying up a kid at the highway truck stop is, much to my surprise, still illegal.

Now, to the facts: the data looks pretty clear to me. Higher standard of living, more education, less kids. I don't know why this is really seen as such a bad thing, since apparently, not all people have the inherent drive to have kids, and in a more "developed" society, there is no hard push that one has to have children or else. Not pushing people who don't want to do something is good, in my not very humble opinion.

I mean, you could say that for a lot of reasons:

People in developed countries, with access to American-style Pizza = no kids, prove me wrong

If we look at birth rates of developed, industrialized nations, we see the same picture everywhere: a steady downwards trend, with the big chunk happening between the 60s and 90s, so basically, when quality of live became decent and the economy recovered in those countries, post-WW2.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?+title=Fertility_statistics https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/birth-rate https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/births-australia/latest-release

Counter-point: Zimbabwe is a country with very high mobile phone usage, and really high birth rates. I have no idea about trustworthyness of Zimbabwe sites, but they all seem to agree: https://technomag.co.zw/zimbabwes-mobile-penetration-passes-100/ https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zim-mobile-phone-usage-climbs-up/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Zimbabwe

However, what is super interesting is the Wikipedia article above: Both births and total fertility go down with child mortality. The obvious conclusion is, if less of your kids die, you don't need to birth so many kids, and interestingly, the less kids you seem to need overall.

So, based on this alone, I believe "high quality of life in strong economy" is much stronger correlated with decreasing birth rates than the invention of the iPhone. I would argue that it is more a case of one not needing that many kids to survive due to improved social and economic situation, and maybe access to education (including sex education of course, less accidents, more family planning).

Sure, entertainment is probably contributing a bit, but I don't see it that far up the list.

Personally, I believe that if you have kids out of boredom, maybe you shouldn't have kids, but idk, get a gym membership or something. How can we say that gifting someone a dog for christmas that may or may not be mistreated and discarded when the novelty weary of is bad, but kids out of boredom is ok?

Anyone saying they’re not having kids because of climate change or anything like this is just making excuses for the fact they’d rather not be taking care of a kid when they could be doing something fun or entertaining

Sounds like you asked all of "them". Me included. Or at least a representative sample size, in which case I'd be interested in your methods and the statistics.

What a load of bullshit. I want to see AI deal with "unprecedented minor emergency no. 42069" while simultaneously serving drinks and reassuring someone that everything is alright, no need to panic and/or start a fight. Physical jobs will be the safest anyway.

Also, "historian"? What the fuck? AI is spectacularly bad at doing even passable science with any accuracy, and in a discipline so nuanced and inherently biased as history? No chance at doing anything remotely science-y. Maybe it can replace the writers of pop-history articles with its surface level rendition of established facts, but even those are supposed to be entertaining and not lifeless, boring slop. Then again, most historians are struggling to find a job anyway, so not much of a change here.

But yeah, most translaters are screwed. Turns out, large LANGUAGE models are pretty good at transforming languages. Sure, legally binding translations might need some human oversight and quality literature translations might hold out a bit as well, but largely, that is one job that I believe has been in steady decline and will continue so.

I can only assume she spoke from experience

They live in a world where 700 million people are currently starving. Do you think you care about the washing machines if your children have nothing to eat?

$ sudo pagan ritual
sudo: pagan: command not found

PS: I am appropriately sad that I am a person that knows linux and not a person that visits moonlit naked dancing rituals. Meh, you can't have it all.

Imagine the Brits actually using spice

how it punishes ~~gender~~ non-conformity

Fit the mold or die. Always the same.

Get a nice cup of tea and calm down. I literally never said or implied any of that. Why do you feel that you need to personally attack me in particular?

All I said was that a supposedly easy topic turned into reading a lot of obscure code and papers which weren't really my field at the time.

For the record, I am well aware that the state of embedded system security is an absolute joke and I'm waiting for the day when it all finally halts and catches fire.

But that was just not the topic of this work. My work was efficient memory management under a lot of (specific) constraints, not memory safety.

Also, the root problem is NP-hard, so good luck finding a universal solution that works within real-life resource (chip space, power, price...) limits.

Except that the degree I did this for was in electrical engineering :(

You are literally describing the idea of Debian. Yes, stable is old, but that is the whole purpose. You get (mostly) security updates only for a few years. No big updates, no surprises. Great for stuff like company PCs, servers, and other systems you want to just work™ with minimal admin work.

And testing is, well, for testing. Ironing out bugs and preparing the next stable. Although what you describes sounds more like unstable, the one where they explicitly say that they will break stuff to try out other stuff.

So, everything works as intended and advertised here. If you want a different approach to stability, I guess you will have to use a different distro, sorry.

I guess when you last tried it, it was at a time when a new stable came out, so testing was more or less equal to stable.

About the firefox: It ships Firefox ESR these days, meaning you get an older, less often updated tested firefox (with security updates, of course). Again, this is the whole point. Less updates, less admin work, more time to find and fix bugs. Remember the whole Quantum add-on mess, for example?

As others have said, you can install other versions of firefox (like the "normal" one) via flatpak, snap... nowadays. The same goes for other software, where you would need the newest and shiniest version sooner. I'm using debian on my work/uni laptop and a bunch of servers, and it works pretty well for me.