The "epidemic of loneliness" (in the western world) is a made up thing by the media. There is no actual data to support it, there is some data that shows the opposite.
There is some data that suggest very old people are more lonely but that might just be became on average they are much longer alive and independent after their partner dies compare to past generations.
Another day another "journalist" posts about Tesla in a misleading way.
>But it comes amid news that Tesla recently recalled more than 2 million Tesla vehicles over a safety issue related to its Autopilot software — specifically, a feature called Autosteer, which is part of the driver-assistance system. The recall affects nearly all the cars Tesla has sold in the United States.
The "recall" is an OTA update.
The "safety issue with autopilot" is that people apparently do not need enough IQ to trick it that you pay attention. In other words, people are the issue, stupid people.
Its a common myth that our cells all die and are replaced by new ones, but that is not actually true, it is true for the vast majority of cells tho.
One of the most extreme example where this is not true, are the female gametes aka the egg cells. They are all created before birth and are never replaced. Quite the opposite of the male counterpart where the production of gametes starts 10+ year after birth and usually continues for the rest of the life.
Some clever guy, can't remember who it was, once said that if there is a simple reasoning for something then it is more likely to be the correct one.
This whole article seems to miss the most obvious reasoning and that is that the education sector is absolutely dominated by left leaning people, therefore the more time you spend there the more likely you adapt to this or also the other way around, if you don't adapt to it well you are more likely to leave education as soon as possible for whatever you try to achieve.
Then there is also the fact that the highest education does not give the most wealth, in fact the most wealth comes from inheritance and for self made people more relevant than education is the time at which they started to "collect" wealth, which is later in life if they get higher education so they had less time.
> Some clever guy, can't remember who it was, once said that if there is a simple reasoning for something then it is more likely to be the correct one.
Dont know if you're being serious but for brevity I think that's Occam's razor!
I do not think that your 'indoctrination' theory is either the most obvious, or correct.
My (equally simple, imo) explanation is that critically thinking about the world and the people in it is both the main purpose of academia and far more of a left wing ideal.
The "those who support my political opponents don't just have a different perspective/ideology, they are also uncritical and stupid" has seldom been useful - or accurate. It's basically self-congratulatory.
The issue is that you can not make a law/regulation that says statement X about products Y is not allowed because its wrong/misleading.
A court has to decide if it is wrong/misleading AFTER the fact and someone sued.
30 Years ago any statement about any modern vehicle feature would have been misleading no one had to preemptively make them illegal. Such "laws" should simply not exists.
>The issue is that you can not make a law/regulation that says statement X about products Y is not allowed because its wrong/misleading. A court has to decide if it is wrong/misleading AFTER the fact and someone sued.
Yes you can, and they have. You might like regulations to work that way, but they don't. The government has appointed agencies to determine what is wrong or misleading, and the authority of those agencies has been backed up by the courts.
Individuals and companies that disagree with specific ruling by agencies do have the right to go to court of course, and have done so.
Since when is a ingredients list and ad? None of the ads related laws apply to ingredient lists. This utter nonsensical comparison that isn't rooted in any law, just a random idea some journalist apparently had.
Also since Tesla does not officially make ads (may have changed recently, probably the reason why they looked into the law), this whole claim relates to the law limiting speech not to anything Tesla ever said in anything that could be considered an ad.
The issue here is that the law forbids certain statements. That alone is the issue. Whether or not Tesla could/would/want to make these statements about heir car and if they would be truthful is completely irrelevant.
There isn't any allegation that the law was broken, the allegation is that the law limits speech that could be truthful and protected. (I'm not the court I wont decide if this is correct.)
Open Tesla website. Does it show information about a product it's seling? That's an ad. Have they provided information about said products elsewhere? Where those... advertised to people, let's say, via the CEO on a publishing platform?
I dont know where you got the statics from but these do not seem to be comparable values.
It most like includes accidents and suicides which have entirely different factors than gun violence and for obvious reason are more likely to be committed with a gun if its easier to get a gun legal.
Overall there is however no correlation with more suicide with better firearm access. Suicide attempts/surviving rates can be slightly lower (for obvious reasons).
Either way none of these should matter since suicide isn't gun violence.
Next time some article about shootings in the US or shows up on HN, will people remember these exact points?
So many probably mostly Europeans and Australians have a completely unrealistic views on actual risk of getting harmed by guns in the US. Yes, they have many shootings there but just like in Sweden or pretty much anywhere in "the west" with gun violence, it is mostly criminals shooting each other not terrorists, mass shooters and the police shooting random people.
In places with better access to legal guns there is also often a huge portion of gun induced suicides that are thrown into the statistics for no good reason.
We are all most likely killed by someone close to use regardless of how, so pay attention who you and your loved ones hang out with.
We are all more likely to be killed by hands, feet, knifes, random tools than by the evil AR-15 or a similar type of rifle.
The chance of even getting harms by a gun is incredibly small if you aren't a criminal and you dont point a gun at yourself, its basically a non-existing risk.
> it is mostly criminals shooting each other not terrorists
Nobody is born a criminal. Gang violence is expanding like a plague because of the collapse of society / government / whatever you want to call it in the lives of young people. A young person (usually adolescent) who is victimized by criminal gangs (and they need victims to exist) will not receive any protection or help from neither the police, the military, the schools, parents, family or anybody. Usually they're told just to take it and keep their head down. Criminals exploit boys by having them run errands or just squeeze them for money, girls are instead exploited sexually.
The civil society has nothing but bottomless contempt and even outright hatred towards teenage boys, so there is no dignified route of life for them unless they come from one of the few families that care for their future. Joining a gang becomes the easy way for them to find some dignity and respect among their peers and even in civil society. This has been going on for decades among the poorest in places such as the US, but now it happens to "middle-class" boys in Sweden and other places, because this middle class would rather see their own children be victimized or killed than make any effort to pass on their middle-class status to their kids. So it's not "mostly criminals shooting each other".
Shortly after the lowest average temp in the last 10k years the temp goes up a tiny bit and that is bad?
Maybe it is bad, who knows, but it sure seems better than if the interglacial would have ended and the temp would drop 10°C in the next few hundred years then another 10°C in thousand years and then a 90k year long ice age or something.
You may or may not remember the warnings about the coming ice age.
Overall the chance that human caused CO2 will case some kind of mass extinction due to warming is about as high as that a random ice age that should have started already but didn't (and we dont know why), causes a mass extinction.
> Shortly after the lowest average temp in the last 10k years the temp goes up a tiny bit and that is bad?
A degree in 20 years is not “a tiny bit” in this aggregated form. That’s why the ice age scenario you suggest is also bad. There is little evidence that scenario is happening right now though.
It seems to be much more than 20 years, but does it even matter? We have no clue about the climate of the future, even if all the warming we attribute to our pollution is 100% correct, we still do not know if this will cause problems for future generation or help them cope with an ice age. Both is at best equality likely, the ice age is probably more likely because whatever causes it, is a much much bigger force than human pollution, there is probably not enough human accessible fossil CO2 to prevent an ice age.
There is some data that suggest very old people are more lonely but that might just be became on average they are much longer alive and independent after their partner dies compare to past generations.
Here is a short ~5min video about the topic https://youtu.be/rVsKWQp-sq4