neshura

ugh yes? I didn't say women should be stuck with the household chores and if a full time position can sustain a family then 2 part time jobs can do the same. I thought that much was a given

At the risk of sounding controversial here's a rant tangentially related to that little sentence strip.

In order to not go extinct (long term) we need (on average and nowadays) somewhere between 2 and 3 children per woman across the entire world. Historically that was pretty "easy" (nothing about raising a child is easy) to achieve because:

• lack of birth control
• women not working

Now while the influence of the former is pretty clear on the birthrate how does the latter impact it? I mean all things considered the women were working before then already, just at home instead of at a workplace. Yesn't. When women entered the workforce something very crucial happened that I do not see talked about very often but that has very far reaching implications. The workforce almost doubled in a very short amount of time. Initially this didn't result in much of anything so for most families of the early emancipation the result of women entering the workforce was a massive extra income. Reminder: back then a single income was enough to feed a family (and it was not really hard to do so comfortably). However here's the problem that I rarely see talked about: the increase in available labor caused wages to stagnate while inflation started eating away at the "real" worth of those wages. So over time the situation went from:

• one adult working, one adult taking care of the home => able to sustain a family

to:

• one adult working full time, one adult working part time + taking care of the home (usually the woman) => able to sustain a family

  Note: see how the workload for women has already increased here, despite various equality movements' efforts the initial result was/is a higher workload for women?

to:

• two adults working full time with usually the woman doing all or almost all of the household chores => able to sustain a family

  Note: in an "ideal" work household chores should be split evenly but alas we don't live in fantasy land but reality and such is the situation of things

Notice how the overall workload in this household went from 2 full time jobs (1 work, 1 household) to 3 (2 work, 1 household)? Note: there is a debate to be had about the workload in a household, personally I would estimate it even above a full time job if you want the household well kept but the point doesn't materially change with household work weighing more

Imo the resulting added stress and discomfort is largely to blame for the falling birth rates in the west. Not any form of "culture" or "rat utopia" situation. Rather people are simply too overworked to have a family.

Which brings me back to the quoted sentence. This piece of garbage text is a symptom of the entire problem. Instead of making sure that one salary is enough to feed a family (again), whoever that one person in the relationship may be, they just keep piling up the work. Women not being able to reconcile work and family is not the problem, them having to do both in the first place is.

Gonna post this as a reply here so I won't have to copy this 3 times. Also tagging ValiantDust@feddit.org 0x815@feddit.org Enkrod@feddit.org so they see this as well

The original article by the tagespiegel uses language that makes it explicit this is supposed to include men however their motivation for demanding this (equal) home office right is because women are disproportionally affected by the lack of a right to home office work. The marketscreener article has translated this quite badly imo.

Chiplets are a blessing and a curse, on one hand the ultra high end got a lot more affordable on the other AMD using Desktop chiplets in the entire stack also means less of an incentive to sell low-end budget CPU's at low margin

I'll take -30 over 30 any day of the week and that is also the exact same thing you'll hear from me in winter. I can warm up relatively easily when it's cold but there is fuck all I can do about 34°C in the shade (aside from staying indoors all day)

Monkey Paw: Trump and other corrupt politicians being high up the authority chain made sure more evil politicians didn't get authority.

So you kill those as well. Now trust in democracy is crumbling because for some reason a lot of politicians keep mysteriously dying. "Good" politicians enact laws to protect their lives but those laws are bad as well so now you also have to off the good politicians. I hope you see where this hypothetical is going. The world is not so simple that a few well placed assassinations would fix everything, if that were the case it'd have been done before.

34°C is at best 3 degrees away from regular body temperature which, and this might come as a shock to you, means that the body's built-in ability to regulate its temperature is already severely degraded. That is also not taking into account that, as other commenters mentioned, the temperatures in the sun can easily reach 40°C, which also BTW, is when cell lifespans in the body start plummeting.

All that to say: the mortality rates during summer aligning with the temperature disagree with your take.

If anything "Using violence to fix the world" would be the better thing to be good at since it protects you from the Monkey Paw to a certain extent. Exceptions:

• a "fixed" world being one devoid of humans
• a "fixed" world panning out in the opposite way you imagined (everyone is equally miserable instead of happy for example)

So 10 month Hiatus on the entire thing I guess

Good point, amendment: Seems to be a EU + EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) survey not a Europe survey

seems to be an EU survey not a Europe survey

Yeah really not much else needed to be said here. What happened with Crowdstrike is exactly the sort of exploit Kernel Level Anti-Cheat in general has been critized for enabling on consumer hardware.