Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | b65e8bee43c2ed0's commentslogin

why did you even bother reading it past that intro image? it was clearly going to be yet another impotent "current thing bad" opinion piece from yet another perpetually agitated member of terminally online intelligentsia.

EU is dystopian enough without UK in it.

>...does not mean that we should no longer live in a diverse society.

it is of course too late to reverse that now in the UK, but you will serve as a cautionary tale to countries like Japan, who have not yet doomed their aboriginal population to being a minority in their own country.


You are simply racist.

ok, Muhammad (Mohammad? Magomet? which spelling of that pedo warlord's name is the most popular baby name in the UK these days?)

the state hates, hates, HATES paying for children, to the point of occasionally forcing victims of rape, infidelity, or fraud to pay child support.

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05238.h...

>In October 2000, however, when appearing before a Family Court hearing examiner to answer Shondel's petition, Mark{*7 NY3d at 325} requested DNA testing. The hearing examiner ordered genetic marker tests, which revealed that Mark is not the child's biological father. The hearing examiner then dismissed Shondel's paternity petition, and Mark abandoned his petition for visitation, having severed his relationship with the child. Shondel objected to the hearing examiner's order, expressing doubts about the laboratory tests and stating that she would be able to show that Mark had always recognized the child as his. Realizing that the hearing examiner had exceeded her authority in dismissing Shondel's petition, Family Court sustained her objection and appointed a law guardian for the child.

>...

>Family Court entered an order of filiation and awarded child support retroactive to the date Shondel commenced the Family Court proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that "Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the subject child to equitably estop [Mark] from denying paternity" (6 AD3d 437 [2004]).[FN1] We agree, based on our precedents, the affirmed findings of fact and the legislative recognition of paternity by estoppel.

and that not just the US, Europe is equally batshit, with France in particular fucking banning paternity tests outright.

they aren't going to pay anything resembling a livable wage for child rearing. firstly, that defeats the purpose, secondly, it would be expensive as fuck.


That one's about someone who acted as the father for almost five years before suddenly questioning it. It's not about paying for children, it's about seeing a responsibility you took on through to the end.

Mandatory DNA testing at birth would solve a lot of these, and bring in new problems.


>That one's about someone who acted as the father for almost five years before suddenly questioning it. It's not about paying for children, it's about seeing a responsibility you took on through to the end.

your argument is absurd. there is a world of difference between "taking a responsibility" wittingly and being misled or defrauded into it.

it is particularly absurd in this context, given that even victims of statutory rape can be forced to pay child support, even if they never had any contact with the child and assumed no fucking responsibility whatsoever.

>Mandatory DNA testing at birth would solve a lot of these, and bring in new problems.

yes. "problems" such as the state having to assist the mother financially, because 95 out of 100 men would not stick around. that is exactly my point.


Who takes care of the child if his father suddenly leaves and stops paying anything? Or do we punish that child?

you appear to be agreeing with me that it's about the money. the state doesn't want to shoulder the bill for supporting the child even in these extremely rare cases I've brought up, it sure as hell can't/won't fund a goddamn breeding program the GP is suggesting with ""It just has to be a "Job" you get paid to do. People will absolutely sign up.""

>but you'll won't solve the demographic crisis without them.

you won't solve it with them either. all of that feel good crap would bump the TFR of an average civilized country by 0.2. how can you have access to all the data in the world and still believe that the reasons are economical and not cultural?


I agree it's primarily cultural. I wonder whether there's anything that a non-totalitarian government can do that would significantly change the cultural side of it.

I don't think even totalitarian governments can do anything about it now. with few exceptions, the only places on Earth with TFR above replacement are undeveloped countries or underdeveloped areas within developed countries. what could China or Russia even do, undeveloped themselves? dismantle their cities and uneducate their people?

Communist Romania did it simply by outlawing all forms of contraception. TFR jumped from 1.9 to 3.7, nurseries were very busy, and the rivers were full of dead unwanted babies (as that is the thing humans seem to be hardwired to want to do with unwanted babies). It didn't last as people found ways to get contraception anyway within a few years.

banning contraception in the present time would have even less impact. the percentage of single/never married fertile age adults today is much higher than it was in communist-era Romania. "NCFMR analyses of ASEC Current Population Survey, 2022" says 73% of men and 65% of women among 18-29 in the US.

it is however one of those "stick" things both totalitarian and non-totalitarian countries will inevitably attempt at some point in near future, now that it's clear that none of the "carrot" things make any fucking difference. likely not with outright bans, not even in China, but by artificially limiting availability and raising prices of condoms and pills with tax. like the rest of those things, it will predictably have little to no positive effect.


Google and Cloudflare mark whole ISPs as "sketchy" and there's fuck all you can do about it.

magazines and newspapers costed money to print and distribute. that cost is now near zero.

Gell-Mann amnesia expressed by people when a corporation says something they like is both baffling and disheartening to see.

Altman, Amodei, and the rest of them are anthropomorphic grease. their personal wealth is tied to the value of their respective companies. everything they say and do is self-serving.


did you campaign against data centers before 2023-2024?

>they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".

fyi, there are tens of torrent trackers with every game/movie/album/etc under the sun. had been for two decades.


i was unaware torrenting copyrighted content was made legal, thanks for the update

I think their point was that lots of media is easily piratable but still makes money and companies continue to produce more of it.

Yep another lost soul at the parent that thinks piracy equals death.

that is not what i think.

>they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".

yes, i wrote that.

right now that would be illegal to do in most jurisdictions.


despite that, people have been doing that for over two decades, but publishers continue to publish.

right. that is because most people would rather buy the game than take the risk of downloading it illegally. if you remove the risk, the math changes.

publishers also have legal recourse. remove that and the publisher's math changes.


people pay for convenience. when was the last time you heard about someone being prosecuted for pirating something?

Just yesterday when I saw the Leonhart French video about the NVIDIA piracy case.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: