Not to mention, even if it proves satisfactory to the existing userbase, any new users will start with no history to draw inferences from, wouldn’t that tend to imply that any existing users unaffected are essentially “grandfathered in”, but with the same privacy concerns for everyone else in the long run?

It does say “as a baseline” so presumably its just there for comparison’s sake

I wouldn’t say print books have no place today, it can’t be assumed that one will have access to electronics in all circumstances after all and many people do prefer physical media, but it’s definitely an indictment of the sort of cheaply made basically disposable books made in larger quantities than needed to fill their current niche, and of the way unwanted (by their owners) but usable goods are dealt with in general.

Sure, but it is rather a waste of paper, ink, manufacturing and transportation capacity etc. It’s not the only instance of this of course, waste of unsold inventory exists in just about any industry that sells physical products, but it’s still frustrating to see it.

Honestly I think his ideas for the country fit right in about 100 years before that. Considering the end of the 19th century in the US is mainly known for imperial expansion, rolling back of civil rights, corrupt political machines, monopolistic corporations run by a handful of rich people, anti-immigrant sentiment and laws…

I suppose the rate at which nobel peace prize winners start wars is probably quite a bit higher the rate at which non-nobel-peace-prize-winners start wars, if only because that prize has been given to a few heads of state that have gone on to do that, while most people simply don’t realistically have the capacity to start one if they wanted to.

I think that everyone should afford to have kids, and if they cant, they need to be provided the resources do so.

If people were to say that people shouldnt have kids because of most other unchosen life circumstances (for example, “you shouldnt have kids because you belong to a cultural/ethnic group that we dont like”), that sentiment would be seen as prejudice. If one was to go further and suggest that government policy should reflect this, that policy would be seen as an injustice. But if people say “you shouldnt have kids because you’re poor”, that’s somehow seen as wisdom, and advocating that government policy reflect this by cutting off support systems is somehow seen as an acceptable position to hold. Given that people dont exactly choose to be poor, I find this inconsistent.

In any case, kids are not merely some expensive luxury. They are both something that any society needs a certain number of to sustainably function (since obviously, a society simply cant exist without people, and people dont live forever), and which represent a significant amount of generally unpaid labor to raise. Not everyone needs to have them, and some people just arent good with them or dont want them, but when your society’s birthrate is below what is sustainable in the long run, telling some of the people that actually do want to have kids not to, because you expect those people to pay for everything themselves without help from the society that eventually needs those people, is a stupid policy, and not exactly fair. Why should everyone else get to avoid the consequences of an aging and declining society, but expect only those that choose to be parents to pay for that?