> 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 feel like this is merely an anecdote.

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.

> Few women want to have kids. I'm using an app right now

I'm on an app where you can discuss wedding dresses and most women are interested in having children!

I'm joking of course. But a dating app embedded in hookup culture isn't a representative sample of women.

Not all dating apps are focused on hookup culture.

Besides, that's how people match these days. If you say the culprit is hookup culture, then most people are into that culture and don't want kids.

Well, that's self-selective?

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.

> 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.

Target market being whales who don't engage in critical thinking much?

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].

[1] SF drivers will get that.

Going back to cobblestone roads.

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.

They already have this. It's called a metro.

> There's been a seismic shift over the past 5-6 years

Nah. It's been at least since 2009 (GBC), if not longer.

It started happening with the advent of applicant tracking systems (making hiring a nightmare, which it still is) and the fact that most companies stopped investing into training of juniors and started focusing more on the short-term bottom line.

If the company is going to make it annoying to get hired and won't invest anything in you as a professional, there's 0 reason for loyalty besides giving your time for the paycheck. And 0 reason to go 120% so you burn out.

What's concerning isn't that they pushed AI and then walked it back.

What's concerning is that they lack judgment and proper insight into why pushing it in the first place was a bad idea.

If your OS truly is a product, users should not be beta-testers. This isn't an indie kickstarter game.

Right, that was the question.

Is there a net benefit?

There is a net benefit. Your heart gets stronger and spends less effort for pumping out the blood.

Your resting HR becomes lower and blood has more oxygen. And this happens 24/7. Assuming you’re running 5K 2 times in a week.