No, it’s because people like eating meat. You may have noticed that people ate meat centuries ago before capitalism existed, and favoured it over other foods when it was available.
But I understand what you meant about growing multiples of food, now, so that’s good.
I think it is a problem if we need to have less free time, or work more for the same things that we do in our free time, because a higher proportion of worker time needs to be spent supporting people who are not working. You don’t want to go back 200 years even if humanity could survive in such conditions. (And the present population probably could not survive)
I don’t think this is true. I checked the stats for caloric supply and the highest value worldwide is (unsurprisingly) in North America where about 3,500 calories of food are produced per day. That is less than double what a person needs per day, so “several times” seems unlikely.
But I don’t dispute the idea that we produce enough food to feed the world. But I also didn’t say we didn’t.
Could you comment on what I actually said, which is that an ageing population (or any situation in which there are more non-workers per worker) will result in less production being available for people on average?
This is not just about food; it is also about other necessities (such as healthcare) but also non-essentials like entertainment. The problem of an ageing population is not that we’ll starve to death; it’s that our quality of life will decrease.
I can’t really connect this comment with what you originally said. Maybe this will help clarify my position: I think countries with public health and social care, just like countries with mainly private health and social care, will have severe problems if they can’t arrest the rate at which their populations are ageing. My comment explains in very general terms why I think that is the case.
You are not talking about what I was talking about, my friend.
At the end of 20 years a child becomes an adult, who will (on average) be a net producer. It’s true that children cost more in work put into raising them than older adults take in work to look after them, yet it is a fact of life that one working human is capable of producing more stuff than just that which they themselves needs or makes use of - otherwise it would be impossible to raise children. This should be obvious, and means that the problem of an increasing birth rate, from this perspective, is at most temporary.
But I didn’t say we should have high birth rates, I said that the problems of low birth rates are not due to capitalism.
It’s pretty plausible it’s just exposed for the other lass and background
Yes, daylight tends to come from above!
Not really anything to do with capitalism. If the ratio of workers to non-workers decreases without a proportionate increase in productivity, a higher proportion of workers’ time has to be spent catering to the needs of non-workers. That means less time spent not working and/or less time spent producing unnecessary stuff that improves our lives like chocolate or TV shows.
If you like one shot films, watch Victoria. It’s set and shot in Berlin and begins at night, but the sun starts to rise during the film, giving it a unique quality.
The director allowed three attempts to get the shot before enacting a backup plan to shoot it traditionally and the actors got it on the third attempt!
That’s explaining the purpose of the document. It’s not any of its provisions.
Because partisanship in the USA means that you will never be able to change it.
In the US it was about 8%, most other countries were lower. Just 5 years later, Canada surpassed 50% internet usage, with the USA not far behind. The pace of change over the 90s was astronomical; there were *no webpages in 1990!
So it absolutely makes sense to separate the “old internet” from what existed in the 90s.
The oldest people in Gen Z were 3 years old in 2000, so I don’t think any of them are speaking about that old internet from experience.
What percentage of people do you think had the internet in 1995?
Yeah I think in English all consonant clusters would not release stops except the possible final one of the cluster?
Thanks for this perspective :) Do you know of any languages which contrast released and unreleased stops?
I guess a difference is that you can’t really have a stop release on its own…
I was going off the statement, “If you are using a generator that combines everything (both bad and good) on the net”. I think “the entire internet” is an OK paraphrase of “everything on the net”, but maybe you meant something else than what I understood.
The original public release of ChatGPT used a small army of humans to generate and curate training data, and it’s still the rule today. So what the average of what the model actually sees is quite far from the average of everything on the net.
The ability of the model to learn different contexts and tones means that all it takes to not land “right on the middle” is a slightly different context, which can all be contained in the instructions given to the model. Sure, the models have their stupid phrasings and stock phrases, but the context was producing a first draft. A competent human can reword those very easily.
It’s the difference between a purely phonetic viewpoint and one based in the language - you’re not really wrong to see it one way, just that there’s another as well.
“means they are one consonant” is the perspective of the language’s speakers, not of the actual sounds they are making. The former is a subjective matter, the latter is essentially objective. Whether speakers believe they are saying one consonant or two, a “ts” affricate always consists of stopping the air with the the tongue behind the teeth (the t) and then releasing it with a lot of turbulence with the tongue still behind the teeth (the s). Those sounds are physically distinct, even if speakers think of them as comprising a single logical unit.
This is also consistent with there being a slightly differently pronounced sequence comprising a t and an s sound which is not analysed as a single consonant! Both are two physical sounds.
In my language most native speakers don’t realise that diphthongs are made of two vowel sounds, but they still are :)
Nah, that’s not how it works. People believe it because they can pay people to repeat their lies, and their success buys them a seat in main-stream media interviews where they can broadcast their bullshit to millions of people. And in Musk’s case, he can just buy a social media company and force it to boost his excreta.