I recommend downloading it from f-droid if you want full functionality (like self-hosted sync) for free – the one in the play store is monetized (however I do recommend donating to the dev if you don’t want to pay the subscription fee).

This isn’t necessarily about the sheer size of population, and has more to do with birth rates, but this Kurzgesagt video also outlines well the need for a higher birth rate.

Almost all countries need to reduce their population.

On the contrary, actually, we need to increase our populations. Assuming that you mean an equal reduction in all demographics, the existence of productive, and hyper-productive people is mostly a game of statistics. A larger population means that more of such people will exist. Such individuals are necessary for pushing humanity forward. A nation with a larger population means a larger natural defence. A larger gloabal population decreases the chances of a mass-extinction event.

it’s stressing the system.

What specific stresses are you referring to? We have no lacking in resources, nor space. Economic activity is proportional to those acting within it.

For reference, the article does point out the following:

The United States said it was discussing with relief agencies how “safe areas” could be set up for civilians in Gaza. “One of the things that we did discuss with [Israel] was the need to protect civilian lives in Gaza, the need to establish some safe areas, where civilians could relocate to be safe from Israel’s legitimate security operations,” said a senior U.S. State Department official in briefing reporters. “So we’ve been engaged with the International Committee for the Red Cross, the UN relief agencies to work through the details of what that might look like. It’s still work that’s coming together. The Israelis are committed to it,” the official said.

The article also provides a map of the total evacuation area, which I assume was also provided to the Palestinians. Given that this evacuation area only applies to the north of the Gaza strip, I would assume that the evacuees could flee to the south. I’m not arguing that this is practical given the circumstances, but there technically are places to go.

Please correct me if there is extra information that would suggest that evacuation to the south is also not an option. There’s a lot of information out there regarding this situation, and I am not at all fully educated on the matter.

That said, the use of fallacious arguments is the tool by which one gaslights. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Fair point in that they aren’t mutually exclusive, but I would disagree that logical fallacies are then only means used to gaslight. Gaslighting is the action by which an abuser sews doubt in one’s own judgement, and beliefs – that can be done any number of ways.

When you use fallacies intentionally to convince someone that their basic and true point is wrong… That’s a form of gaslight.

Gaslighting isn’t necessarily attempting to convince someone that what they believe is wrong, it’s meant to cause someone to question reality, their own sanity, beliefs, memories, etc. This can of course be used to sway average public opinion in the direction of a desired agenda, but it’s not trying to convince change in one’s opinion, I would argue.

The term doesn’t need to only apply to relationships. Political gaslights have become increasingly prevalent through social media.

Oh, for sure. A simple example would be the official denial of a true event’s occurence.

What is the context behind this post?

I agree with the statement that you are making, but, if I may be pedantic for just a moment, the way that your example was worded is not an example of gaslighting; it is actually an example of something called “affirming the disjunct”.

What is your rationale for making that statement?

You can still edit it.

I certainly could link my server into play as well just to keep an always online device in the mix

Yep! That should work perfectly fine.

Neat idea! Although, it would probably be more practical to use a centralized model since if one peer is offline, then the syncing would not occur. That is, if my assumption is correct that you are thinking of directly syncing between 2 devices.

Would you mind defining “we don’t really know how it works”?

I understand that you don’t think it is necessary, but I’m curious what your reasoning is, as to why?

Still, I would be very hesitant to make such a claim.

What I like about the free-ish markets

Pehaps, you may benefit from the term “competitive free market”.

free market would punish bad actors

The free market punishing bad actors (depending on how we are defining bad actors) is inherently dependent on the morals of the consumer.

Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

The question would then become: “Whose morals are truly virtuous?”.

What, specifically, are you meaning when you use the term “capitalism”? There is a difference, for example, between an anarcho-capitalist, or fundamentally free market, and a competitive free market. One is alright with the existance of monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour, and the other is not.

It’s just like socialism; great concept, but impossible to perfectly implement

Would you mind defining “impossible to perfectly implement”? I don’t want to draw conclusions based on interperetations of that statement.

I think it’s clear that “maximize individual freedom” is a BS marketing phrase given how much nuance you had to use when rejecting the “freedoms” I proposed.

Again, it should be strongly noted that the maximization of individual freedom does not entail that such freedoms are at the expense of another. Also the usage of the term “maximization” is intentional in that it does not describe a destination, but, instead, an aspiration, subject to the practicalities, and nonidealities of the real world. It should also be noted that you are affirming the consequent in your argument by rejecting all other examples by arguing from, most likely unintentionally, cherry picked points of contention.

No problem with coercing workers to do 80 hour weeks? I don’t think you’ve ever been in a situation where someone had that kind of power over you.

When one enters the employ of another, a contractual agreement of one’s expected working conditions is signed. If one wishes to give consent that their employer has the ability to demand an 80+ hour work week, at the risk of termination, then that is their prerogative. One’s ignorance of their own contractual agreements should not be my concern. Furthermore, a competitive, free-enterprise system would ensure that there is another employer available to take up that disillusioned employee. And, of course,

And selling junk but “safe” medicine is as dangerous as selling cyanide labeled as aspirin.

In what way? Also, it should be noted that selling “junk” medicine is not an immunity against independent audits on it’s efficacy.

Or are you content suing the drug company after your kid’s asthma rescue inhaler was actually just full of nothing and they asphyxiate to death?

Hm, this is under the assumption that a company doesn’t care about it’s own longevity, nor profits. If a company falsely advertises, this is a surefire way for that company to quickly go under. Furthermore, proper tort law would assure that all those involved are held accountable for damages, and that appropriate remediation is ordered. One’s ignorance in consumption really should not be the concern of another. Also, there is a 3rd possible option that wasn’t mentioned in that the FDA could instead serve the role of being a certification body, rather than a regulatory body. What I mean by this is that a company could go through the motions of ensuring the safety, and the efficacy of their drug in order to get an FDA approval stamp on their product. This approval would then be the guarantee that a consumer could look for if they wish to buy a pre-approved (and, presumably, more expensive) drug. A company would be incentivized to go this route as it would ensure them preferential treatment with consumers in the market. A consumer could, of course, still buy a non-certified drug, but they assume the risk associated with that.

But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

Why? The right to the freedom of speech is not a right to not be offended.

I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

I am an advocate of the use of one’s voice over the use of violence.