What is the meaning of facts anyway? How relevant are the facts for post-industrial society? We, as a society, are separated from "hard" reality by too many degrees of separation for facts to be of any considerable importance. That is the price to pay for the superabundance and sky-high productivity.
And i understand where it's coming from. People want social networks to be balanced that is, reflect views of the general society/mass of users: balance between left and right. Any thoroughly fact-checked content is a content with left bias too evident to miss. It naturally makes people unhappy: they feel that they are being "pushed woke shit". Because biologically, people are, and ought to have, a significant right bias (insert famous squirrel vs tiger example).
There are facts and history of course, just not on social networks. For people who call the shots - the elite and the intellectuals - things are just fine, but they don't spend days arguing with each other on Facebook.
I think a big question is what outcomes do you want. Let’s say a vaccine is dangerous. How many people are you willing to sacrifice on the misinformation. What if it leads to social upheaval? You could ask similar questions about say, class consciousness, immigration etc. true or not, beliefs have consequences.
But in any cases, it is not the facts, but narratives and manipulators who drive people's behaviour. There is competition between left and right propaganda machines, it happens among intellectuals working for the elite, not between the left vs right masses, masses are just that: masses, they have no conscious and no behaviour of their own, they are a product of manipulation.
Easy to see how trying this in the U.S. will turn into a dystopia. It requires a society with much fewer avenues to wealth, the wealth being a lot less normalised, than America.
Easy to see why aren't they improving. There are legal limits to the amount of housing that can be built, because of zoning and NIMBY. So if they became more efficient, they won't build more - they'd just fire some of their workers. Now unions prevent that because construction industry is heavily unionised.
Fix? There is no fix until less than 50% of voters will be satisfied with their housing situation. Then, pro-housing candidates will get an upper hand.
My belief is that in free society, in long term, housing has to be a limiting factor - democracy itself dictates that, because people want their homes to build equity and these people vote.
Is residential construction heavily unionized? I could imagine it is for apartment buildings in NYC, but I doubt it is for building houses in the suburbs. As far as I know, it relies heavily on independent contractors.
In any case, the "mind center" of the company is in Taiwan, so it couldn't be anything but a temporary setback. In retaliation, Foxconn may start reducing Chinese production.
Well, there was one true part to it: Communist world fell apart and a huge number of people who were once locked in behind the Iron Curtain, were set free. To them, the change was very real.
They did it by one simple trick - becoming the first ones who offered free license for open-sourcers. They invented this idea. After that, they needed to do nothing more, almost automatically becoming a monopoly.
I was there working for one of the early competitors who was thrown in the dust by that decision of Atlassian and was too late to realise they had to do the same - and folded two years later.
You misattribute the cause of the declining birth rate. Younger people are making the smarter (and some would say more humane) decision not to bring a child into this increasingly human-destroying society.
That's certainly part of it. Another significant factor is that many people have come to the conclusion that they simply cannot afford children. It costs something around $30k to give birth in the US, the cost of housing grossly outpaces inflation, wealth concentration is at or near an all-time high ...
Many people are struggling to keep themselves afloat, and adding a family to that mix would be ruinous.
The decline in birthrate is because of social media and dating sites? Source? It already started way before those existed. In some countries for many decades (Japan for instance).
And working till dead was normal throughout almost all of human history.
Isn't it "always" rather than "frequently"? In case of hotels. Hotel chains are brand operators, their job is to build up brand value through ads, enforcing quality standards within hotels of their chain, and managing their loyalty program. They are not supposed to operate hotels, let alone own them.
Because entities that operate hotels (paying royalty to the hotel chain), almost always do not own the hotels per se i.e. real estate. They rent it. From holding companies that did not build it, they bought them ready from real estate developers who start a project targeting several potential buyers usually picking the actual one while construction is near finishing. And the developer is also not building the building, construction company does it, the developer just manages the land deal, licensing, permitting, and architectural designs, asking construction company to do particular phases of work with a particular budget. And that one then subcontracts different things to different entities, who in turn manage imports of the labor force and materials and manage people who do the work... The chain is looong.
And i understand where it's coming from. People want social networks to be balanced that is, reflect views of the general society/mass of users: balance between left and right. Any thoroughly fact-checked content is a content with left bias too evident to miss. It naturally makes people unhappy: they feel that they are being "pushed woke shit". Because biologically, people are, and ought to have, a significant right bias (insert famous squirrel vs tiger example).
reply