notsofunnycomment

After watching this video I am left with this question.

The video ultimately claims that humans will not disappear, but doesn't do a great job explaining why.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the (or a) population to be and remain stable, the total fertility rate needs to be equal to the global replacement rate (which recently was 2.3).

And since the total average fertility rate appears to be currently at this 2.3, any drop in the fertility rate in place A would have to be compensated with a rise in the fertility rate in place B (assuming that, at some point, we would like to stop population decline)?

I guess one way for a population to remain stable, while women are having fewer than 2.3 children, would be to have fewer men? If a population has 100 women and 10 men, each woman would only have to have on average (a bit more than) 1.1 child? (Which would of course also require a collective form of prenatal sex selection.)

I realize that would be bonkers and unethical. Just wondering out loud.

Argentina's team is such a bunch of actors and lying cry babies (Messi). Winning like this is shameful. They didn't deserve the world cup and they don't deserve the Copa América.

El equipo de Argentina era (como siempre) actores y malparidos. Ganar así es vergonzoso.

This is a great way to travel through space and time, and get to know our planet better in a fun and beautifully designed way.

What could be reasons for my rsync, which is syncing two remote servers through ssh, to slow down over time like this? It keeps happening. How to check what is the bottleneck?

Does anyone else experience this? When I upvote a post and then bookmark it, the upvote disappears. I then have to redo the upvote.

Today someone told me that he heard through the grapevine that OpenAI has been selling it's ChatGPT (not sure which version) complete model to one or more key organizations (companies) whose policies simply do not allow it to store any data on external servers. Does anyone here know anything about that?

If banks would not be allowed to lend out more than what they have in terms of deposits, or if they would only be allowed to lend out twice that amount, what would be the most significant difference with the current fractional reserve system (in which the cash-reserve ratio can be as high as 1:9)?

I'm reading that the current system increases the availability of credit, which in turn helps the economy to grow. But if banks would only be allowed to lend out half of what they are currently lending out, wouldn't the supply of money simply go down, and thus the value of money up, effectively leaving banks with the same lending power?

Current system:

• Total amount of money in circulation: central bank money x money multiplier. Most money is created by commercial banks.

Alternative system:

• Total amount of money in circulation: central bank money. All money is created by central banks.

I'm not asking what would happen if this would change over night (e.g. sudden decrease of money, monster deflation etc.). I'm asking what is the benefit (and to whom) of doing it the way it is currently done.

The Firefox extension "ChatGPT Summary Assistant" has been quite useful over the last few weeks, but sometimes I would like to be able to specify a question about an article. Do you know if any extension(s) exist(s) for that?

Hi all, just checking: is there a way to manually sort files (specifically photos)? So not automatic sorting on name or date, but (drag and drop) manual sorting?