I’m all for the enthusiasm I’m seeing with Harris, but am happy to see someone like Axelrod pointing out the polling. He’s absolutely right in that it will take work to win, and mistakes to lose. Fortunately Harris seem to be working and Trump seems to be making mistakes for now. Let’s hope it doesn’t flip soon.

Take Simon with a grain of salt, but this Warographics on What a war might look like along side the context of RealLifeLore background on US, Iran relations might give some further understanding if you are after some short intros.

Based some of the revealed history of some of these agencies, I feel like Hollywood is both closer and much further off than the reality of what happens. Closer in that history is stranger then fiction, and much further off in that these agencies are not monolithic decision makers and the hydraheaded nature of a political/bureaucracy makes for some strange decision.

Alternative link

In 2021, Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, denounced women for leaving abusive husbands. The same year, he also decried allowing rape victims to abort their pregnancies, claiming all pregnancies should be forced to term, “even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient.” Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson also spoke. In the past, he has argued that raping underage girls is less bad if the rapists marry them first, and complained about rape shield laws that protect the identity of victims.

This is part of the Trump campaign’s strategy of shoring up support among younger men by appealing directly to the Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson fanboys. The tactic runs the risk of backfire. If female swing voters learn how much the GOP is built on apologia for sexual violence, focus group information suggests it will turn them away from Trump. With Biden as the nominee, there was a real chance this issue would stay on the back burner. Even though he was the author of the Violence Against Women Act in the 90s, Biden has proved incapable of making Trump’s sexual violence a defining issue. He’s tried, even using the word “rape” to describe Trump’s behavior. But Biden’s overall problems communicating got in the way of this message.

Harris, however, is not hobbled by the issues with talking that plagued Biden in the end. More than that, sexual violence is an issue that she can speak about with a level of authority that Biden — really, most male politicians — never could achieve. Her gender is only part of it. As she often discusses on the campaign trail, Harris got her start in criminal law by working in the sex crimes division of Alameda County. She spent years talking about these hard issues in a court setting, and it shows in the way she strikes a deft balance between sensitivity and frankness when speaking about sexual violence. I recommend watching this co-interview she did on MSNBC with Hadley Duvall, a child sex abuse survivor who has been speaking out about abortion rights. Harris tells the story of her high school friend who told her that her stepfather was molesting her. “I said to her: ‘you have to come live with us. I called my mother and my mother said, ‘of course she has to come stay with us.’”

It’s going to be a much better race.

Feasible if you found one at a junk yard, but copper tubing is $20-30 and some fittings makes a tubing idea sub-$100 probably. An AC is about $300, a new radiator without fittings starts at $70 and are built for cars not box fans so it might be more challenging to get to work.

With that being said, environmental, energy, and other contextual concerns might out weigh the cost. A mini-split heat pump is probably the most sane thing to actually install, but that’s a big ask.

As a kid I used tubes, a box fan, a cooler, and bucket with a siphon to cool me down.

You could easily set that up with just the water from a sink and some hardware store parts.

Search for ‘diy fan cooling tub copper coils’ as a start.

As an example: Homemade AC - The “Copper Coil” Air Cooler! - (Simple "Box Fan …

Copper coils have the best thermal efficiency, but plastic tubing would also work.

Favorite quote:

But the left’s determination has already reassured many politicians. “They can’t back out of this, because the first person to do so will end up with their head on a spike,” said Sandrine Rousseau, a prominent Green MP.

For Lemmy.world a donation would help keep it alive without all the crap. Servers are cheaper then they were, but still not cheap.

Two point one: That’s how many children everyone able to give birth must have to keep the human population from beginning to fall. Demographers have long expected the world will dip below this magic number—known as the replacement level—in the coming decades. A new study published last month in The Lancet, however, puts the tipping point startlingly near: as soon as 2030.

It’s no surprise that fertility is dropping in many countries, which demographers attribute to factors such as higher education levels among people who give birth, rising incomes, and expanded access to contraceptives. The United States is at 1.6 instead of the requisite 2.1, for example, and China and Taiwan are hovering at about 1.2 and one, respectively. But other predictions have estimated more time before the human population reaches the critical juncture. The United Nations Population Division, in a 2022 report, put this tipping point at 2056, and earlier this year, the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital, a multidisciplinary research organization dedicated to studying population dynamics, forecasted 2040.

Christopher Murray, co-author of the new study and director of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), suspects his study’s forecast is conservative. “With each passing year … it’s becoming clearer that fertility is dropping faster than we expect,” he says. Because the 2030 figure is already a hastening of IHME’s previous estimate of 2034, “I would not be surprised at all if things unfold at an even faster rate,” he says.

SIGN UP FOR THE SCIENCEADVISER NEWSLETTER The latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily A drop below replacement fertility does not mean global population will immediately fall. It will likely take about 30 additional years, or roughly how long it takes for a new generation to start to reproduce, for the global death rate to exceed the birth rate. Even then, because countries’ fertility may vary dramatically, global fertility rate is a “very abstract concept that doesn’t mean much,” says Patrick Gerland, chief of the Population Estimates and Projection Section of the U.N. Population Division. But he says the trend points to a world increasingly split between low-fertility countries, in which a diminishing number of young people support a burgeoning population of seniors; and high-fertility countries, largely poorer sub-Saharan African nations, where continued population growth could hamper development.

Estimating when the world will reach the turning point is challenging. The new model from IHME is based on how many children each population “cohort”—people born in a specific year—will give birth to over their lifetime. It captures changes such as a move to childbirth later in life. But full cohort fertility data are thus far only available for generations of people older than 50, and so the IHME model builds projections within itself to try to capture trends as they are unfolding.

A steady decline Global fertility has been dropping for several decades. Low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and high-income countries such as the United States and Japan are expected to dip below the level needed to sustain the human population in the coming decades. But a new model says the global fertility rate could drop below the replacement level as soon as 2030.

D. AN-PHAM/SCIENCE In contrast, the U.N. and Wittgenstein models are based on each country’s total fertility rate, or the sum of age-specific fertility rates, typically for those between the ages of 15 and 49, which is considered reproductive age. As a result, temporary fluctuations in childbearing behaviors—say, people decades ago delaying giving birth to children so they could advance in their education and careers—can throw off their projections, and they can miss longer term changes in childbearing behaviors. These models may have been prone to undercounting fertility in the past, then finding a temporary rebound in fertility rate, and therefore predicting a longer time frame for world population decline.

ADVERTISEMENT This is one reason that Wittgenstein is considering moving to a cohort model, says Anne Goujon, director of the Population and Just Societies Program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, one of the three institutions that form the Wittgenstein Centre.

Other factors also contribute to the differences between the projections, including how the IHME model accounts for four variables that impact fertility, including access to contraceptives and higher education among those who give birth. (The other two models generally do not, although Wittgenstein considers education.)

Regardless of when the turning point comes, “growing disparity in fertility levels could contribute to widening of [other] disparities,” says Alex Ezeh, a global health professor at Drexel University, who was not involved in the Lancet study. For middle- to high-income, low-fertility countries, falling below replacement level could mean labor shortages and pressure on health care systems, nationalized health insurance, and social security programs. Meanwhile, low-income countries that still have high fertility are at heightened risk of falling further behind on the world’s economic stage, Ezeh says. “They will not be able to make the necessary investments to improve health, well-being, and education” with too few resources to support a booming population.

Although some experts, including Goujon, think there isn’t yet reason for alarm, others call for urgency. “This is going to be a very big challenge for much of the world,” Murray says. “There’s a tendency to dismiss this as sort of like, yeah, we’ll worry about it in the future. But I think it’s becoming more of an issue that has to be tackled sooner rather than later.”

Dumb question for the Lemmy lawyers, if enough redditors joined could a class action lawsuit be filed to be paid for their content… Or is that so outside of the TOS that it’s not worth considering?

Yea, is there a ‘best of’ yet?

Carbon reduction ouught to be about kicking corporation into reduction as consumers are a much lower percentage of the issue. And deforestation (now as compared to was) is as much a Palm Oil issue as anything, which is a food product issue. Then saving soil is more of a general agriculture issue combined with irrigation and it’s salt salinity, plus runoff, and…

Yea this meme nails how I feel, I just wish I felt less disenfranchised about the knowledge I have about how the next generations are going to go to hell in a hand basket.

As a guy who struggle to date because I respect women as best I can, I sympathize with the mentality indicated, but also disagree that it is just a dating app issue.

Distilling it to a few points is, I believe, disingenuous to the very complex situation that modern dating is.

Although there is argument about the science, the book Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan is one of many that can help reframe the physiological and psychological background of partnering. Not insofar as it is valid, but that what we think we know is really much more under review and debatable.

Add the increase of women in the workplace, Title 9, the increase of an educated women (nay thr dominance of women in many masters and above programs), the urbanization of society, the increase of population dramatically and it’s associated demographics shift towards an increase in women, etc, etc. There is a lot going on. Which definitely includes the change of technology in reaching peers and potential dates.

Our physiology has not changed nearly as much as the knowledge base has however. Which means many things, but among other things it means that physiology can be manipulated by technology. In this, I would agree there is a basis for arguing that dating apps are interrupting the interpersonal interaction.

Having said all that, anecdotally, I will also say not using apps and meeting people is impressively challenging for all the previously normal reason dating is painful… Assuming you can find a place to meet someone compatible.

I’ve got one to sell if we could figure delivery out. How can I contact you?

https://lemmy.ml/post/1450855 sparked multiple memes, and obviously the expectation of more wonderful weirdness.

!holup@lemmy.ml

https://lemmy.ml/c/holup

Text of the article:

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, we can expect tensions between the political left and right to intensify. That being said, it’s essential to understand the psychological forces at play that may predict a rise not just in disagreement, but in violence. The social psychology theory known as terror management theory offers a powerful lens through which to view the growing polarity and potential hostility, and how that could manifest as violence depending on what happens with Donald Trump — legally and politically — in the coming year. Terror management theory explains how existential terror — the fear provoked by anything seen as a threat to one’s existence — motivates us to adopt cultural worldviews. Examples of cultural worldviews are religions, national identities and political ideologies. To keep our fear in check, we often cling to philosophies that make us feel safe and give us a sense of purpose amid chaos and uncertainty. Terror management theory is particularly relevant to current political events because it provides a scientific explanation for tribalism. The theory suggests that in the face of threat or fear, we bolster our worldviews, and become more ideological. We also become more tribal, which will strengthen our support for like-minded others, while at the same time making us more prone to aggression toward those who are not like us, and who do not share our worldview. This is precisely what studies have shown. A particularly amusing experiment demonstrated this by weaponizing hot sauce. Scientists divided students into two groups and tasked them with writing an essay — either about their own death or a neutral, non-threatening topic. The students were then introduced to someone who either disparaged or respected their political views, and then asked to choose the amount of mouth-burning hot sauce this person would have to consume. Consistent with the hypothesis of terror management theory, participants induced with existential terror wanted to punish those with an opposing worldview with more hot sauce. The control group did not. While this study was designed to be completely safe, the results suggest that, in real life, the same psychological effect could lead to actual violence, and likely does all the time. ADVERTISEMENT A more disturbing terror management theory study conducted with Iranian and U.S. college students found similar results. One group was instructed to ponder their physical death and describe the ensuing emotions, while the control group was given analogous questions related to dental pain. The results were revealing: Iranian students contemplating death were more supportive of martyrdom attacks against the U.S., while those in the control group opposed them. Similarly, existential fear led U.S. conservative students to endorse severe military attacks on foreign nations that would kill large numbers of civilians. Through these studies, one can clearly see how fear and polarization can strengthen nationalism, exacerbate bias against other groups and fuel hostile behavior. Not only does existential fear increase tribalism and aggression, we also know that it can directly increase support for Trump, who is again seeking the Republican presidential nomination after losing the presidency in 2020.

Then-President Donald Trump rallies with attendees at the 2019 Teen Student Action Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C. Photo: Gage Skidmore In a study at the College of Staten Island, 152 students were split into two groups. Similar to the previous example, one group was exposed to exercises triggering thoughts about death, while the other underwent similar exercises about pain. Afterward, both groups were questioned about their support for Trump and their likelihood of voting for him in the coming election. The results were telling: the group primed with death-related thoughts showed increased support for Trump, irrespective of their initial political leanings. This suggests that an atmosphere of existential fear would simultaneously promote aggression while strengthening support for Trump, who regularly projects a “strongman” image and suggests violence as a remedy to political matters. This is a very scary combination of psychological effects. For this reason we must be aware of this problem, which will become increasingly salient as the 2024 presidential election begins to heat up. How do we know that the threat is real — that this is not just more fear mongering? I would argue that we have already seen the dynamic that terror management theory describes in action. Heather Heyer, a counter-protester protesting the Unite the Right rally held in Charlottesville in 2018, was run over by a white supremacist, and 19 others were injured. In 2020, a man drew a hunting bow on protestors in Salt Lake City before being taken out by the crowd, a chilling moment that was captured on video. And on the day of the Capitol riot — a collective display of Trump-inspired aggression — a pipe bomb was found a few blocks from the Capitol building. Earlier this month, purported Ku Klux Klan members threatened LGBTQ activists with guns at a peaceful rally in Kentucky. Now that the election is on the horizon, we can expect similar events to transpire. For example, what will the response from Trump supporters be if their political messiah is found guilty on a charge that warrants prison time? What if Democrats attempt to ban Trump from running for president over his legal issues? What if he is allowed to run again but loses? What might we expect if Trump rallies his loyal troops and commands them to retaliate? Is another Jan. 6 attack inevitable? Is one that’s even more destructive possible? It’s not just the cult of Trump we have to worry about, though. The left is not immune to the effects of existential fear, and there is no doubt that we are seeing increased tribalistic behavior among liberals, too. This means that conscious effort must be taken to keep cool, calm and collected as our fear centers are activated and we inevitably become prone to aggression, be it written, verbal or physical. To use Newton’s third law as a metaphor — for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since aggression from one side provokes fear and aggression among the other side, a dangerous feedback loop gets created, which will continue to divide the nation to such a degree that something like a civil war emerges. It may be a “cold civil war,” but such a development would almost assuredly result in violence, destruction and death. As we stride toward an uncertain future, it’s crucial that we understand and educate the public about the psychological dynamics at play at both the individual and collective level. A keen awareness of the cognitive factors contributing to our emotional and tribal responses can cultivate more conscious decision-making and potentially diffuse the threat of aggression and violence. So, we must be empathetic during these times, but we must also be vigilant. If we stay on the current trajectory of increasing polarization, we can almost be certain that a whole new level of unrest is headed our way. Now the question is whether we have the ability to use this knowledge to avert the coming train wreck. But I’m an optimist, and I think if we can predict something ahead of time, we can figure out how to prevent it. That is precisely why science has been such a powerful force for human civilization, and it’s time we start applying that knowledge to solving the existential threat that is the culture war in America.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A digression, but it is the same high quality niche information that LLM’s are after I believe. I’d be curious about what you think the trove’s longevity in terms of relevance is? I ask as the more timeless it is the less chance it will be replaced, and the more valuable it is a s a learning resource.

I woulad also agree that it makes sense to split your time, personally. I hope some of those communities begin to shift, but it is a idol dream.

Why did you not trust him? A history of invalid models, or personality?