CharonY

I fear the issue is that the norms have shifted so much, that removal of that particular guy might not change future trajectories.

I think it is in direct comparison to the more common brick houses in Europe. In comparison, the wood frames in North America do appear quite flimsy.

If you mean US politicians they are off the charts. But folks like Smith and Moe are trying to get there.

The issue is really that it does not seem to be really protected other than certain political realities. There was an understanding in the US that Roe vs Wade was settled law, for example. But it was built on somewhat uncertain legal grounds and you can see what happens with political maneuvering. While it might be political suicide in Canada right now, sentiments and political landscapes could change. I think there is a consensus that decisions should be kept out of courts and remain an issue of health care. That may make sense assuming that folks are sensible. However, in recent times, politics is starting to creep into health care. The issue is on many levels, including the replacement of provincial health care leadership with political figures who have implemented regulations and procedures which the actual providers call bonkers, to put it mildly. As the world seems to be infatuated with being stupid, I would therefore not take prior precedent as a given.

And not even that. The same folks are also against affordable pregnancy care. Pregnancy-related mortality is especially high in black women (but also generally in low income groups). If I am honest, I suspect that an exception will be carved out for IVF, as it generally a service for folks who can afford it.

Well, you are right that a few people will care. Some enough to make random posts on social media.

That is true. But some folks think it adds validity to their argument if they invoke science (in a poorly understood way) similarly as they would invoke god. You do not even need to go that far. Even overturning Roe v Wade, women were subject related to pregnancy loss. Many states have fetal harm laws, which presumably were intended to protect pregnant women. Studies found about 400 cases between the 70s and 2005 which increased to about 1400 just before the Dobbs ruling. Often times, these convictions were linked to substance abuse by the pregnant mother, though in cases that were investigated, there was often insufficient evidence to clearly link the abuse to loss of pregnancy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, low income folks who are generally at higher risk of miscarriages or other adverse health events anyway, were disproportionately affected, whereas healthy rich folks probably can enjoy their occasional Chianti without risking jail. Now, the mask is starting to fall off and women are charged even without the pretense of bad behavior. Just recently a woman was charged with abusing a corpse, because she miscarried the toilet. Heck, probably about half of pregnancies are unsuccessful, including cases where after fertilization the ovum is just lost without the person knowing they were pregnant. I.e. the only protection against prosecution based on such interpretation of law is really just obfuscation (i.e. having no evidence and knowledge of pregnancy). The first time they are tested positive, their options going forward narrows significantly. The way these laws are enforced make it very, very, very clear that protection of unborn children is not really on top of the agenda. Or middle. Or somewhere near.

Issue is that science as such does not play a big role. Or at least, it cannot solve the fundamental question underpinning the issue. We (humans) want to define things with clear delineation. Nature does not care much for that. And this opens up things for interpretation. Nature (and therefore science) does not define what people are so it is on society to decide on things. And as we see here, this particular interpretation is clearly morally and religiously motivated, with severe implications.

Well, considering the crises that he is managing (border to Mexico, Gaza, Ukraine etc) I think a gaffe is understandable. Not noticing it is a tad worse, but ar least in isolation, I wouldn't be particularly concerned. At least not in the current state if the world.

I think the main difference is that according to Trump, Biden should have called SEAL Team Six for assassination. None of this jail bullshit.

Generally, a normal peer review is prepared by an expert in the field. If one is not qualified to evaluate and improve the manuscript, the review should be ignored by the editor and they will need to look for a new reviewer and give them time to write a review. As many reviewers are very busy this adds to delays. In your shoes I would not like to waste my or anyone else's time.

If a subpar review is provided, it is mostly a waste of time and the authors need to wait longer for a decision, which can impact their careers.

Just contact the editor and let them know that you cannot review it.

I have read something similar, but to be frank, I usually find these types of arguments unconvincing. It sounds like a just-so story to me with little actual evidence with retrospective reasoning. Papers that have discussed these shifts mostly focus on market forces, such as a time of increased regional demand (especially from China), huge investments in local leaders in the semiconductor business. In addition there were specific business developments, such as fabless manufacturing, where many companies design chips but outsource production to foundries. Originally, semiconductor business where dominated by firms that do in-house production and design, such as Intel). However, eventually the fabless model increased its market share and the existing foundries happened to be in East Asia, who happened to have their market share increased. As a strong interconnection with this foundries, fabless industries and the electronics manufacturer is extremely beneficial (e.g. in terms of response time), there was a strong incentive to also create local R&D centers, further strengthening the move to the East. So there are many factors that could explain chip manufacturing which I find more convincing than a somewhat handwavy cultural explanation.

You can always decline, but the issue is that if you agree first and then realize that you won't be able to provide helpful feedback, then the manuscript just sits there and the editor has to find a new reviewer which can take time. So it could be unfair for the authors, to some degree. Generally, one should have a good sense after reading the abstract whether ones background is sufficient to review it (though I had one or two bait-and-switch manuscripts). Yes normally reviewers are folks who successfully publish articles. But the fact that you have been submitting might why editors have your contact info. It is still unusual and probably points to the changing publishing landscape (and some quality issues in science in general- though not sure how much is real and how much is just part of getting old).

Generally speaking, if you have not been successfully through the peer-review process, it is not ideal to agree to write a review. It is time-consuming especially if you are not familiar with the literature in the field. If you mean to say what benefits you will have: none. Peer-review is a free service provided by scholars. I also do not want to be mean, but your writing is sometimes difficult to understand. A review written with similar issues would unfortunately not be helpful.

Due to shifts in life expectancy are indeed getting older and it is inevitable that the median age will go up from the current ca. 30 yrs. A declining birth rate will further the trend. However, the median age increase will also decline, as with slowing birth rates previous (older) generations will not outnumber the next generation at some point. Assuming that there is a steady state, there will be an equilibrium of age distributions, too. I think projections put the median age around 40ish by 2100, so perhaps somewhere between 40 and 50 might be realistic?

Actually I am not quite certain what you mean. The issues of extrapolation? Or the issues of aging populations with lower birth rates?

One should also add that given the glut of journals out there, peer-reviewers are hard to come by. In the olden days, reviewers were picked by editors who are generally also researchers. Now, many editors are, well, not researchers, and seemingly use some automated system to blast folks with review requests (especially the newer journals, but it seems like an industry-wide trend). But assuming this is a scientific journal, it still would be unusual to have the system pick someone up with no formal academic affiliation. At worst, the system usually picks up students who had authorship in a paper that seemed similar (and there at least the university address would be present). The only other reason I could think of is mixing up of names.

You can apply the same argument to multiple level. E.g. within a given population, you could identify those who use a disproportionate amount of resources (e.g. private jets). But you could also look worldwide and look at populations that have a higher per capita consumption. I.e. the main point is that consumption is not equally distributed and folks who worry about overpopulation usually conveniently focus on measures that excludes themselves form being part of the problem, if that makes sense. One thing to note (also based on some of the things that gapminder has been showing): most people now live in places below replacement fertility rates. This is why the population will peak. As second thing to consider is that most projections only look until around 2100. But assuming that fertility does not somehow increase, the decline in in world population likely rivals its rapid ascent. Simple extrapolation suggests therefore that assuming 10 billion will be present around 2085, around 50-60 this will drop back to 8 billion (ca. 2022 levels). And about a hundred years later it may level out around 2 billion. Again, these are just simple projections, but at this point appear to be at least reasonable scenarios. I.e. 10 billion would not be a steady-state, but rather a transitional phase.

! Moderator Note OP seems more about outrage about a CEO's pitch rather than engineering. As it does not seem to foster any interesting discussions either, it is locked.

I think his presentation always comes up o this topic as it strongly challenges many false and simplified notions. Also relevant are his other talks related to gapminder, dismantling many global misconceptions. It is not a coincidence that folk lamenting about overpopulation rarely make the case to first reduce the population that is overconsuming resources.

Just an add on to earlier comments regarding pharna investments https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/big-pharma-spends-billions-more-on-executives-and-stockholders-than-on-rd/

the argument seems a bit backwards as without NASA SpaceX would likely have failed https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-would-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/ Moreover, much of the funding is still government contracts. I.e. whatever limitation of government money you see, it also applies to SpaceX.

! Moderator Note Off-topic discussion split to new topic.