Too many people are wrapped around the ego axle thinking (assuming) their ideas are both them and somehow unique and special.
It usually takes dissolving that, often through difficult experiences, before they can see it as a machine, something that could be separated from them.
Oh yes, and that includes HIV/AIDS, you know, what you are way more likely to get if you're in non-monogamous relationships (which perhaps is more likely for those that aren't married).
And the #1 in general non-communicable risk factor reported here is, surprise, "air pollution." You know, that comes from factories and heavy industry.
No, "my source" (yours is: nothing cited, so pretty hilarious rebuttal) shows 43% of deaths (not under 5, generally deaths) in 2023 from infectious disease and 1.8% from maternal disease.
Lets see your sources on how that 1.8% rises above the 43% even when narrowed to "teenage girls." I saw elsewhere you posted some vague not even nigerian focused data that also included "unsafe abortions" to get to your claim (what does this even mean? Include things like taking a bunch of drugs and hoping it's only strong enough to kill the fetus?)
You're literally proclaiming the data "don't support your perspective" when I'm refuting your uncited perspective with at least something, which is absolutely hilarious position for you to be proselytizing about data from.
>Your source is focused on children under five. If you data source includes children under 10, none of them will be capable of becoming pregnant. If it includes boys, none of them will be capable of becoming pregnant.
Lol so you didn't even look through it all the way. Because children under 5 was only one part of it. It showed general statistics as well. Unfortunately for your claim your provide .... nothing ... while damning those questioning your "trust me bro." You don't get to set an even lower standard of evidence for yourself than you demand of others.
I am replying a second time to try to make things coherent with all the edits you are doing.
Your data source does not seem to break out teenagers over 15. It does focus on children under five. It has some data just on children, which seems to be under 15 in this dataset but I am not sure and don’t have time to continue to dig in on this. Your dataset is unable to answer the question you are posing as presented.
The vast majority of deaths in countries like Nigeria are young children, old people, and men. Girls and women aged in their teens, which you did not seem to find any specific data for, generally have relatively low mortality. The leading cause of death globally, centered in less developed nations, in this population, is complications from pregnancy. This was until recently generally put down to improvements in western medicine and childbirth being dangerous. Since about 2020 people have started to realize child marriage is the issue.
The reason for this is mechanical: their pelves are underdeveloped and not ready to birth a baby with a big head.
Unsafe abortions is exactly what it sounds like, and a health risk specific to pregnancy. It can be in order to prevent death in childbirth, whether done early and quietly, or during childbirth in more tragic cases.
Show us how you get to the 1.8% overcoming the 43% for the "childhood pregnancy" in "teenage girls." I believe that will include, generously deaths that occured from 13y to ~18y9m if you want to be assured of any pregnancy that occurred at some point that met the condition of both "childhood" and "teenage." Show the specific data. And don't bullshit it with 19 year olds, that is not "childhood pregnancy" (your words) or by excluding 13 or 14 year olds (you said "teenage girls").
I also want to know exactly what it means by "unsafe abortions" whether this includes things like "decided to kill the fetus, and myself" which technically is still an unsafe abortion but more like suicide.
So far you haven't shown the data at all, you did a bunch of handwaving angry at other data which more than clears your standard of evidence of nothing while setting a much looser standard of trust-me-bro for yourself or the non-datapoint of what a vague uncited blurb I had to hunt down elsewhere in your comment links to about 15-19 year olds which is 2/5ths adults. You're holding me to a high (higher) standard of evidence. Remember, we're talking about a claim you originally made for which you have the burden of proof, so don't try to bullshit me by holding yourself to a different standard of evidence than me. I'm not going to continue play the fuck-fuck game where I have to get the data concerning your own argument for you (as I did) and you lazily declare it's not good enough.
Your perfect dataset probably doesn’t exist. There may be specific countries where something else overshadows it (suicide, a specific disease) due to other conditions or lack of medical care. But we are interested in the effect of education on girls and child marriage and pregnancy, which is not an issue specific to Nigeria anyway.
The only thing I even saw there was a non data conclusion of the following:
Pregnancy complications and unsafe abortions are the leading causes of death among 15-19-year-old girls.
18 and 19 year old are adults, and the lions shares of 18 to 19 is periods during which it would be physically impossible to be linked to "childhood pregnancy." 13 and 14 year old "teenage girls" are also excluded from that range.
Is there data here or just a conclusory statement that also is conditioned on adding in some undefined idea of what a unsafe abortion is? The fact it's imperfect is one thing, but not only is the range only a little better than half-correct but I also can't figure out what data source the conclusion comes from.
It's trivially easy to find, but now I have to write the WHO about why their vague statement applies to your entirely different assertion. But we mustn't trust the data showing a general 20x rate of death by infectious disease because it would be presumptuous of us to think that would apply to teenagers well enough that it can overcome maternal mortality.
The WHO didnt even make your claim. Yours is based on nothing, not even a spitball (or even an appeal to authority of the WHO since thats not what they said), which i did because you cited absolutely nothing when you asserted it. And now you want me to bear an entirely different standard of evidence than what you set. Dont dish out what you can't take -- your entire argument is a bald faced fabrication.
Your source is focused on children under five. If you data source includes children under 10, none of them will be capable of becoming pregnant. If it includes boys, none of them will be capable of becoming pregnant.
This is not a one-off study. There is a long record of similar studies showing that the number of years of education a girl receives delays marriage, and while longer schooling delays marriage longer, it is not just because girls are busy. Schools inherently provide female social support, and education provides increased self-reliance.
This is pretty easy to reason through: if a girl knows nothing about the world, a safe place for her to be is with someone who knows more. If a girl knows how to function in the world on par with a boy/man, or at least has visibility into a future where she can, there is no longer that fear/dependence cycle locked in.
Indeed, we know this, "educate girls to fix society", already for many years. The other "societal fix we know for year to work" is reducing economic inequality.
I suspect there would be broad agreement across the political spectrum that more education means later marriage and later first pregnancy. The disagreement would mostly be over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Complication from pregnancy is the leading cause of death in 15-19 year old girls, and second in 10-14, only because many of them are not yet able to conceive. We have excellent data on this.
Later marriage/first pregnancy is clearly a good thing.
When I looked up causes of death in Nigeria, malaria blew away anything maternal related[]. Not that I would want to die of either.
Another big one was HIV/AIDS. I guess it depends on cultural factors whether early marriage might reduce the number of partners that could introduce HIV/aids. If non-married people are less monogamous it's conceivable the increased risk of HIV/AIDS could overpower the risks of whatever additional childbirth is associated with marriage.
Also note pollution was one of the bigger risks present in Nigeria. So as people get educated to go slave away in a dirty factory (or a city full of them where educated people work) it might actually be worse for their health than staying at home and marrying into some pastoral herding tribe or something.
And more roads means more pollution. It is questionable if the answer is “make everyone dependent on cars”, although doing so obviously improves some outcomes.
Even if true, your "leading cause of death" statement is meaningless as young women are not generally going to die from any other cause. If you "solve" teenage pregnancy, it might well become swallowing food without chewing.
I bet pregnancy is not the "leading cause of death" among 80yo women. That must be the best age to start having children.
Anyways, I couldn't find the reference to your statement by following the link but I found that risk of pre–eclampsia(only clearly stated risk to the mother) and lower birth weight is higher than in 20–24 —no mention of other age ranges.
The report mentions that adolescent childbirth is correlated with low socio–economic status and education. Did they control for that when doing the risk assessment? It is not clear.
No mention of genetic risk to the offspring. No mention of the lives of the offspring that were "terminated" in the making of the non–pregnancy statistics.
Just some vague "abuse" statements that do not include figures for abuse of non–female young people.
Beyond rare risk of death to the mother, I think the health of the child to be born and the potential for younger siblings is an important consideration since we are talking about reproduction.
In Europe, marriage and pregnancies below 18 were rare and people did use to average 21 before "female education" as well but other cultures differed and differ and I don't know to what extent it is appropriate to have "global" organizations mess with their reproductive lives from a Western perspective whether it has 1820s views or 2020s views.
They are included in the statistics for "high risk" adolescent pregnancy in gp's reference which I take as a condemnation of both adult and minor teenage pregnancies and pregnancies in general.
The value judgement is saying the changes you want are worth doing because they might reduce it. Social and personal choices are weighed all the time that include risks to lives, suggesting something that might reduce risk does not end the debate.
We would generally want to prevent people dying in horrible aviation disasters too, we could do that by ceasing non essential air travel.
If the value that the “other side” is espousing is that “it’s okay for girls to die giving birth”, well, we can safely discount that as a valid position to hold in modern society.
I believe nothing is *absolutely bad* in modern society.
For example, the best way to stop pregnancy-related deaths is to forcely termination any high-risk pregnancy regardless of the pregnant woman's own wishes. But seems no one would agree.
Sure, but this provides an argument for postponing marriage (and educating women) at least a little even if you want to coldly maximize birthrate with no regards to their feelings.
This narrative gets thrown around a lot by certain groups in misleading ways, and it's super annoying.
Women tend to advocate for themselves better in healthcare, especially mental healthcare. Women aren't, like, more depressed than men, they're just getting it treated.
The gender gap in compassion is always surprising. There is never “educate boys to fix society”. The argument is as follows: “But girls get raped, so we need to save them” “Who rapes girls?” “Boys” “What opportunities do they have?” “Drugs, army, and the street” “Wouldn’t they too deserve to be given care, notably the care that was too given to girls?” “No, [various reasons]” “But don’t you care that girls get raped by boys?” “Yes” “So what do you do?” “Take care of the girls”.
Males want to attract females and get married. They way they can do this is by achieving money/power. If education is profitable and possible, then executing it takes care of itself. If it's not possible, well it was a moot cause anyway unless some outsider will come in and help.
Females are valuable just for their ... personal assets ... so bootstrapping is a little harder because they have intrinsic value they can fall back on (someone is going to get angry at me for saying that, but it's just the way it is). If I can just marry a rich man I might be okay with that, or whoever makes the decisions for me might be okay with that. You have to get someone to come in and force enough of them to feel like they're a failure for not getting an education and then eventually they'll socially reinforce it themselves without further outside influence.
I believe this is why it's much higher yield for the enlightened outsider to come in and declare their moral and intellectual superiority and tell the females they are losers (or less happy, or less independent, whatever the politically correct terminology is used nowadays) for not getting an education, and get (read: bribe) their families to put them into it.
Every human is equally valuable in the moral sense.
But value is subjective when we are talking about relationships and we can only generalize about this value.
High income women are more valuable to low income men.
High income men already have money. They value other attributes.
And this is the paradox successful women can face. Their success doesn’t attract the mates they desire, quite the opposite. And worse, they were never told that. They were told the opposite.
I've been told men are intimidated by successful women my whole life. Women aren't being tricked into having careers.
The whole framing of "women are only valuable for their personal assets" only makes sense from the perspective of a certain kind of man. My whole point is that this is entirely subjective. People talk about it like it's the natural state of things but it's a cultural belief.
Successful men are not intimidated by successful women, they just don't desire them (for their success)...in general.
The intimidation comes into play when men are put at an income disadvantage. Women also don't find men who make less than them desirable (in general). So it's a double wammy.
A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k.
He would rather someone available to take care of his needs while he can take care of the financial needs.
This is the opposite of what successful females want.
> A single mutli-millionaire guy is not going to be impressed by a woman who works 50 hrs a week and makes $400k
Sure he's impressed.
People date/marry people from their caste/social circle. You want your partner to fit smoothly into your existing life which means having a similar upbringing and career trajectory.
The work vs take care of needs is a false dichotomy. The person that'll 'take care of your needs' is the person you are on the same page with - assuming you're looking for a long term partnership, rather than the equivalent of a prostitute.
Sounds nice, now imagine the dynamics are in rural Nigeria and 10-15% of kids shit themselves to death or die of malaria before they reach adulthood. Your parents are looking at some men and some are rich, others are thoughtful, others are both. Having a funny thoughtful man is nice but first and foremost you want good water and food so your kids aren't shitting themselves to death before they reach adulthood like what happened to 1/7th of your family. Probably going to want a man that can provide for you and buy nice clean food and one of the cleaner wells / bottled water sources more than you want someone in the same equally positioned caste that 'just gets you' or makes you laugh or whatever. Also nice if he's a bit powerful so that the next time the cattle raids happen, his 10 cousins show up with their muskets or machetes. If polygamy is allowed in this region, you might even prefer to be the second wife of that rich/powerful man over being the first wife of someone in your own caste.
The data in general shows women exhibit relative hypergamy. This makes sense as they have a higher reproductive cost and investment at the time of birth, and probably even thereafter.
As in, women are valued just for having a womb. Men are not valued just for having a penis, or for having bigger muscles, or for being taller, unless they will use those assets on their person to go do something for someone else.
I do not interpret it, as you seem to, to mean, "the only valuable thing about women are their bodies." I do not see how you could come to such an interpretation, unless you are pattern matching the redpill memes you see in the other user's comment and extending that to, "(s)he must believe this, if there is anything remotely related to redpill in the comment".
> If I can just marry a rich man I might be okay with that, or whoever makes the decisions for me might be okay with that
Fyi, “just marry” incorporates a lot of things would disqualify the use of the term “just”. The least of which is pregnancy and the risks thereof, especially in these poorer societies without healthcare.
You say this as if you are providing new information. I suspect >99% of the Hacker News population, including the commenter above you, already knows this.
There is a history of international legal action as a result of them violating privacy laws, nevermind being privacy friendly:
France’s data protection regulator (CNIL) fined Google €325 million in 2025 for displaying ads between Gmail messages without consent and for placing cookies during account creation without consent. This is on top of prior fines of €100 million in 2020 and €150 million in 2021 for cookie violations, so this is a documented pattern.
The Dutch government commissioned Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) on Office/Microsoft 365. The 2018 report found Microsoft collected 23,000–25,000 different telemetry events from Office and called it “large scale and covert collection of personal data”
The FTC went after Zoom in 2020. The complaint alleged that since at least 2016, Zoom misled users by claiming “end-to-end, 256-bit encryption” when it actually provided a lower level of security, and Zoom saved the cryptographic keys that would allow it to access the content of customers’ meetings.
You could also just go read their own policy documents, or ask AI to explain what is possible under those to you if they are too dense.
>The FTC went after Zoom in 2020. The complaint alleged that since at least 2016, Zoom misled users by claiming “end-to-end, 256-bit encryption” when it actually provided a lower level of security, and Zoom saved the cryptographic keys that would allow it to access the content of customers’ meetings.
Your argument is that since it is common in a bubble to make circular deals, there is no conspiracy. But you seem to suggest that people committing tens of billions of dollars aren’t looking any further down the pipeline than the name on the receiving bank account? Have you ever been anywhere near a large deal?
That's a lot to imply from my simple comment. My viewpoint is actually the exact opposite of what you claim: it all feels like a house of cards that is set to collapse at any moment. I can also tell you're quite passionate about this and I wonder if that emotion is clouding your interpretation of what was meant to be an innocuous comment.
My point was that there is a lot of this happening, it is not a unique statement nor is it surprising to see at this point.
I made no attempt to dismiss or justify any of it.
Altruism predates humans, but we are the best at it, and this behavior long predates Christianity. That you associate altruism distinctly with Christianity just discloses massive gaps in your experience and/or education.
It isn’t an insult to say you’re speaking about something you’re clearly not educated in when you clearly aren’t educated in it. A lot of people might take offense I guess, but an insult would be directed at you personally, not something you could easily rectify.
The rest of your comments confirm what I said. I am really unclear how you think I have misinterpreted your comment.
If you were interested in demonstrating my lack of education, I'm not sure you have done so.
But I'm happy to conclude this exchange with your feeling satisfied on that point. I don't imagine you're interested in an actual debate on substance, given that your only argument is essentially that I'm ignorant, and I don't know what I'm talking about.
Thank you for lending your expertise in this matter.
My argument seemed pretty clear to me. Altruism, which is generally defined as helping others without expectation of benefit, is not at all specific to Christianity, despite that being your impression.
I would be happy to discuss the topic in more detail but your responses have so far consisted of telling me I don’t understand what you’re saying, but without clarifying your position further.
I don't think that altruism is specific to Christianity. I clarified that in a sibling comment (which you seemed to indicate you had read?), and that what I meant was Christianity specifically requires that good deeds must be purely altruistic. It's not considered true charity to do something with the expectation of any kind of reward. Am I wrong in thinking this is distinctly Christian? I'm genuinely interested.
I’m trying to understand the distinction you are making. Pure altruism exists in animal communities. It is evolutionary. Are you contrasting belief systems with karma with Christianity?
Who cares whether the people who control the majority of the planet’s capital actually care about other people or just the preservation of their image?
I do. I will accept the donation either way, but in terms of so much else, I fucking do.
the point of my comment is very specifically about not caring about motivation behind charitable actions, because regardless of motivation, the charitable action still occurs.
if you want to be mad about other things, like how wasteful super yachts are or whatever, by all means go for it. but that is outside the scope of my comment.
I understand, and as I said I would take the money for the cause, but I still don’t agree. This kind of passive acceptance of shallow behavior is disappointing to me. We should expect more from humanity.
> 2) Range hardcapped at ~1m due to how ultrasound works, you can't centralize detection. Their answer is to give everyone in the household a wearable receiver, which is eeeeeeeh idk, doesn't look consumer-friendly to me.
Sure yes if you could do this with an always-listening smartphone or smartwatch that would be workable, but even then it constrains it to an occupant-activity detector.
Fixing that would require in the best case prompting an app install when visitors arrive. And still it is deaf to any other changes such as a door closing in the wind.
All possible, but feels several technosocial cycles away. Interesting to think about anyway.
Variations might be better for underwater or surface impact detection, but for now, congrats to them on the reinvention the 1950s Zenith ultrasonic remote.
My grandfather used to love to show off how he could jingle his keys to turn on his TV.
Also, without regulating the ultrasonic frequency space, I imagine this would be prone to interference from other devices already employing ultrasoud, today, like Google Home.
It usually takes dissolving that, often through difficult experiences, before they can see it as a machine, something that could be separated from them.
reply