Are they? Most studies I have read on that matter are… not good science, to put on nice words.

There’s not even the need for empathy. If people voted for their best interest instead of the interest of the 1% we’ll be better.

People can’t take a joke

I cannot upvote you twice. But I think it was funny and clever.

We have different concept about what great news is.

Compiling to an interpreted high level language is crazy. I just refuse to believe we haven’t got a better solution to yet.

Sell “seasons”.

Put a prize on all videos released during each year. But once that’s paid I can have those videos forever.

No point on having to pay a monthly subscription forever to watch a video made 10 years ago from a youtuber that’s no longer active (maybe even alive).

Pay por the permanent ownership of the sold product.

As they say. If selling isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing.

If a seller doesn’t give me option to own their products I will certainly never steal them.

Why no vote equals a vote for Trump instead of the contrary a vote for Harris?

You are assuming that all people not voting or voting other party would vote for Harris, but this is probably not true.

Many of those people would vote for Trump if forced. Thus it would be better for the Harris campaign that they stayed home or keep voting for the Tea Party or some other third right wing party without representation.

I like the topic system. Allows to post and see without worries of duplication.

The problem is that the niche community exist. In fact it probably exists several times, one in each instance with a small number of followers. Which makes really hard to go and decide in which community you want to invest.

It’s one fundamental problem of federative systems and to be solved some of the federal nature need to be partially given away, but I think is necessary. I propose two solutions:

1. Automatic merging of communities. All communities with the same name within a federation are de facto replicated. So a post in any community just replicate in all. It will make it seem like there’s only one community.

2 Discourage. Everytime you try to create a community that already exists in other instance a pop up appears that encourage you to just go to the other community. For already duplicated communities messages are sent to concentrate in the biggest one.

People are well known for never ever running over anything or anyone.

Do you have a source of that Germany museum?, I do not find it online.

Same in Spain.

Everything is digitalized and you have the right to do everything digitally. I’ve never mailed anything to the government.

AI is nothing more than a way for big businesses to automate more work and fire more people.

All technology in human history has done that. What are you proposing? Reject technology to keep people employed on inefficient tasks?

At some point people need to start thinking that is better to end capitalism that to return to monke.

Literally the only big problem with china one-child policy, was that sexist parents were practicing selective abortions to ensure that they get one male kid.

No sexism = no problem

By simple math each of those 1 billion people should be able to live with 10 times more resources at hand that if we had 10 billion people.

I don’t think there’s a way to live better without resource consumption and environmental damage. So the question keeps being the same. More people living worse or less people living better.

Each human needs a LOT of land to live to their fullest.

Do you want to live like in the 30s only to house more people?

Also it’s an unsustainable point of view. If you defend letting people forever grow there’s going to be a hard natural stop to that. Because at some point nature will make you stop.

I support a stable point of view. One billion of human beings on earth. Plenty space for us and for nature, les pollution, less emissions. Lots of chances for massive natural reserves…

The more humans we have the worse we will live.

I suppose it’s a moral choice. More people living worse or less people living better.

I prefer the later. Specially because the prize is just having less children, it’s just a small cultural change.

I get nothing out of a crowded world where I have to be miserable just to make space for more people.

Less people being able to live to their fullest seems the more humanist approach.

Then maybe it’s not only US and Europe the countries which should control birthrate.

The thing is that there is too many people. Land cannot house so many. We are destroying nature just because some people insist to bring more and more and more humans to this world.

My european country population keeps growing each years and birth/death rate while was good over some time (more death than births) is turning around once again and births are again skyrocketing.

We only had a few sensible years of decreasing population, since 2018 aprox population is again on the rise here.

Pretty sure US population has also being growing lately instead of decreasing as it should.

Derived problems were product of a sexist society should be avoidable, you know, ending sexism…

Or are you supporting that people should be able to want male babies over female ones?