I feel I need to clarify my earlier comment. I was asking how can a user tell, in general, what is the legitimate website of a software, not just how to know what 7zip.com is malicious.
Are the search removals and phishing warnings reactive or proactive? Because if it is the former then we don't really know how many users are already affected before security researchers got notified and took action.
Also, 7zip is not the only software to be affected by similar domain squatting "attacks." If you search for PuTTY, the unofficial putty.org website will be very high on the list (top place when I googled "download putty.") While it is not serving malware, yet, the fact that the more legitimate sounding domain is not controlled by the original author does leave the door open for future attacks.
> Almost no jobs were added net and the few that were, were all in health care, 131K i think the article said.
I wonder what those folks in health care are doing, because (once again) after dealing with the US healthcare system, it seems like it's about 1% doctors, 10% other staff and 90% useless billing/scheduling/collections, designed to extract the maximum possible amount of money from a patient and provide the minimum amount of care.
More jobs being added in health care seems to be an indicator for it getting even worse.
> It seems like all my single friends around 30 talk about how the dating pool is terrible
Let's call it out specifically - few women want to have kids. I'm using an app right now and for every 1 woman who has "wants kids" in their profile, there's probably 2-3 women who say they don't want kids or "aren't sure".
And these aren't young women either, the age range is roughly 29-35, so even on the older side of optimal age for having kids.
Regardless of what men want, if so few women want to have kids - fertility will drop like a rock.
I am on the apps too and have my range set to 29-38. About 80% of the women I'm seeing have selected as "wants kids". I don't want kids and I can barely find any women to match with who also don't want kids...
I think we both have anecdotes though and unless we have data from the entire company, we can't make any real accurate claim here.
At 29-35, aren't >70% of women already in relationships?
Presumably, the majority of ones that want kids, already have them or are in the process.
Additionally, the apps tend to attract more people in hookup culture. So even from the remaining pool, 33% could be misleading.
Also, whether or not you're in a city / high-cost-of-living area makes a difference. That's less than 50% of the total population (in the US at least).
33% for that age group honestly seems high to me. I'd assume it would be lower.
> If you say the culprit is hookup culture, then most people are into that culture and don't want kids.
No, what I'm saying is that an app to hook up isn't representative.
Neither me nor the women I've dated have ever been on dating apps, yet we're together and want kids. We're not in your sample of potential app users. Neither are my parents who had kids. Or virtually every parent who is in a relationship with kids. None of them are in your sample of potential app users.
Yet everyone who doesn't want kids and wants to date, is possibly in your sample of potential app users.
It should be obvious what type of user is likely to join this app, and what type of user isn't. Far more people join for a hookup than for a relationship.
Even if 50% of members join to find a partner on the app to have kids, and 50% just want a hook-up, the former leave as soon as they're successful, leaving the latter group. By definition you're not expected to find a large pool of people on there who want a partner and kids, compared to the number of people who just want short-term hookups.
So are the people you see on this app representative of society? No.
> Now, when all these things don't apply anymore, or you have better replacements, you simply don't need children.
Oh you still need them for all of those. It just so happens that developed capitalist countries figured out you can use immigrant's children for this, rather than paying to grow them in-house, since with outsourcing children you bypass a large chunk of the cost.
Developed countries already sold their own children's futures in exchange for short term equity gains, now it's being done to countries where outsourcing happens.
Capitalism is eating fertility.
> Maybe when children become scarce, and the whole social security civilization collapses, children will again start to be worth something. And then, there would be more of them. But not until then.
Aye, agreed. It will swing back one way or another.
Can't wait to get blinded by lasers when cars are going over bumps and speed humps.
I know you were probably writing tongue in cheek, but that is one of those "solutions" that doesn't stop bad actors and makes good actors more miserable than usual.
Like LED headlights :-). It would kind of be a concern except that geometry in in your favor. The angle down they would have to shine + the size related to speed would result in the lasers pretty much always hitting the street except perhaps if you were at the top of Gough[1].
That giant 5-level parking lot monstrocity could be a transport hub instead that has a warm metro stop, much better lighting and safety and perhaps even some light convenience retail.
> Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.
The extreme mode of 50% of child-bearing age adults going 0 kids is not necessary and will probably end up being disastrous.
reply