Other companies performed so badly that Apple + Samsung account for 105% of the profits in mobile devices.
(Huawei has a business model that involves selling at cost and monetizing on services, so realistically, they shouldn't be considered in this equation.)
How is the battery past its prime already? Quantify that. Is it, like, 10% worse, or 50% worse?
It took about 3 years before I noticed any meaningful degradation on my iPhone 4, and in its 4th and last year, it was still barely getting through the day. My iPhone 6 is only 6 months newer than your M8, and if there's any battery degradation at all, it's not noticeable to me.
See, the problem isn't removable vs. non-removable, it's well made phones vs. not-as-well-made phones. Why is HTC using such low-grade batteries? If the battery lasted 4 or 5 years, you'd probably be upgrading before you noticed anything wrong with the battery.
And that M8 didn't cost that much less than an iPhone at the time.
(My experience is mainly with iPhones, but I'm 100% sure that there are other Android handset manufacturers that don't have this battery degradation in 18 months problem. Maybe consider buying from one of them, removable battery or not.)
Isn't this exactly the thing happening in the streaming market right now? We have low-cost access to a lot of music, and artists getting millions of plays are getting royalty cheques that are just pennies.
This method solves nothing, it just shifts the money around slightly differently. There's a fundamental tension between the content we want to consume and whether or not we're willing to pay for it. If we're not, the content ceases to exist. On the other hand, if it costs too much, the content ceases to exist.
But I think we can safely put to rest the notion that you can 'make it up in volume' doesn't work when the margins are extremely small. But how do you make the margins any bigger now? That genie is out of the bottle.
I don't exactly hold Huawei in high regard either, particularly on the copying front, but Samsung is shameless and prolific in a way that Huawei hasn't had sufficient opportunity to be. Maybe they both deserve this lawsuit, but Samsung will copy anything from anywhere, any time.
Samsung is (or should be) well known for purposely infringing patents with the knowledge that they have the money to fight in court until the situation is no longer relevant. They don't just do it against American companies and in the mobile business, they've been doing it for years in Korea as well.
Samsung is hugely corrupt and rarely follows the rules. They get sued and counter-sue, tie up cases in courts for years, and then when the other company is tired of fighting, they either walk away scot free, or pay a pittance in relation to the profit they made by infringing. Huawei has no way to win this fight, but they're obligated to try for a while, at least.
I would try to stay away from Samsung products on principle, but I can't even buy Apple products without putting money into Samsung's pocket.
This story is about user error, and making sure you have backups.
While the implications are unacceptably clear based solely on their one-word descriptions, depending on what you pick, Apple Music offers you the choice to 'Merge' your library, or 'Replace' it. He must have chosen 'Replace'.
iTunes Match did something similar. I had to forcibly delete my files if I wanted them off my computer when I was using it (for instance, if I'd only had the 128kbit copy and I wanted a higher bitrate one, which Apple provided).
The main fault of Apple Music (and why I won't let it scan my library) is that it uses a much more simplistic method to match your library than iTunes Match, which used a fingerprinting system. For some stupid reason, Apple Music uses a system that relies on meta-data, like the song title and album name, which can cause maddening conflicts if there's more than one release of an album.
I still ultimately pin the blame on Apple--interfaces need to be clear what their implications are, and the results need to be non-destructive. Barring that, it needs to be trivially recoverable from them without resorting to backups. So by the standards they've set for themselves, they've failed utterly. But his characterization of this problem is still wrong.
That's really besides the point. A battery is an extra component that costs the manufacturer something. Given that I can get headphones that have a bluetooth chip, a battery that can drive the electronics and the sound for 8 hours, and they sound pretty good, consumer cost shouldn't be a relevant consideration in this discussion. This is a lot of stuff to get for $30, and wired headphones with a USB-C connector will necessarily be less complicated.
I just recently bought a pair of Bluetooth (MPow Wolverine) headphones. $24CDN, and they sound very nearly as good as the wired Sennheiser sports headphones I used to have. Like you, I tend to destroy headphones; I'm active and they take a lot of abuse.
Anyway, if I can get wireless headphones with a battery that sound quite good for less than $30, I'm not super worried about the cost of USB-C or Lightning headphones.
There are 'activist' investors like Carl Icahn, and he's one of the big reasons behind the buyback. He bought a tonne of stock, and used his clout to encourage Apple to buy back shares. Partly, I'm sure, to boost his stock price and make him even richer, but also because (he claims) he thinks Apple should be giving more money back to investors.
The Mac App Store is a particular weak point of Apple's. It very often seems like its been totally abandoned, and it causes almost as many problems as it solves. Unsurprisingly, it's the Apple faithful that complain the most about it, because it's a really glaring sore point in an otherwise very competent ecosystem. I never use it anymore. I was excited at first, but I can almost always find the app I need better using google, and more of my money goes direct to the developer that way. I prefer the app store model on the phone, but it's really been a bust on the Mac.
Estimates are that they made about a billion dollars more than Rolex selling watches this year. I donâ(TM)t really disagree with the rest of your post, but making a mistake to the tune of $6.5 billion revenue is one that most companies would kill for. The watch isnâ(TM)t (and canâ(TM)t be, if you ask me) the same category as successful as the iPhone, but it doesnâ(TM)t make it a bad decision.
But what difference does that make? How long has computing science been a unique discipline? How long has quantum mechanics been a field of study? Certainly, one can claim that CS is a branch of mathematics, and QM is a branch of physics, which are much older, but climate science is an offshoot of the broader study of atmospheric science and meteorology. Its relative newness as a specific discipline does not invalidate it as a scientific field, nor does it make climate science experts any less expert in their fields.
Seriously, that's a stupid question. All that matters is whether or not the science is good and the results are reproducible.
Nobody would work as a janitor for shit wages, you're right. I guess we'd have to pay them more.
"Wait! But being a janitor is a low-skill job! Why should we pay them more?" Well, because nobody else is willing to do it. There's the invisible hand, working to fill a demand.
If you don't want to do it, and it needs to get done, you need to be willing to pay for it. Or pay for a robot to do it.
You're not wrong that work has virtue. The distinguishing argument is that not all PAID work has inherent virtue, and not all work that you can't be paid for is worthless.
People will find direction on their own--we have a tendency to find the meaning in our lives if we're given an opportunity. Minimum income plans are just a different way to provide *mobility*. If you can eat and pay rent without working a shitty retail job, you can set your sights higher. You can go to school, you can volunteer at animal shelters, or to work with people that have disabilities. There are so many things to do that have so much more value than scraping by, working at a McDonalds for less than it takes to stay alive.
Because all these people who had no money to buy eggs before are now able to buy eggs because they have the means.
There will still be incentives to work and have a business. These systems are all about taking care of people so we know they have enough to survive.
If I had a basic minimum income, I would be able to go back to school and get a Masters degree. I think that would be a net benefit both to myself and to society. But the short-term costs mean that I have to defer plans like that for a while until I'm sure I can survive the transition.
I think everyone that complains about this system is projecting their own laziness into the system. If *I* had some guarantee of income, I could do a LOT. I could take some risks and not worry where my rent and food money were coming from. I'd go back to school and contribute to a much greater degree than I can now, I would just need the support of other citizens to keep me fed during that time. It's not a huge tradeoff.
And if you DO want to stay at home and be lazy on very little money, you know what? Okay. Go for it. Who am I to get in the way of your happiness? Society wasn't meant to be a huge bummer.
It's not just elimination of the people maintaining the system, it's eliminating the need for the system at all.
When they ran the experiments in Canada in the 70s, only TWO groups of people worked less: 1) Mothers 2) Teenaged boys.
The mothers stayed home with their kids, freed from the burden of trying to take care of children and provide for them at the same time. That's bound to have good outcomes.
Teenaged boys stayed in school. Instead of abandoning their education to get a farm or industrial job at 16, they finished high school. The correlation between education level and productivity is fairly well established.
Additionally, visits to hospitals decreased and the number of mental health cases significantly decreased--huge savings in a system that is already government funded. (An 8.5% drop in hospital visits gives an outsized return; hospital visits are far more expensive than normal trips to the doctor.)
Hedging terms like 'could', 'might', 'potentially' are MORE scientific, not less. Science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. Even after you've done your experiment and 'proven' your hypothesis, there's always a chance that you're wrong.
Good science hedges its bets and is skeptical of its own results--this is no less true of climate science. They've made predictions that have largely been borne out. They've modified their models and updated their hypotheses based on new data. If you've got actual counter-proofs that bear up under more than a nanosecond under scrutiny, I'm sure they'd love to hear them.
Actually, what I don't understand is why the electorate DOESN'T hold government and industry more to account.
I sympathise with your position. You made some choices based on what was pitched to you as the ideal way to progress through life. You have a house and cars, a partner and children. Those are all sensible decisions to make. I don't think anyone should blame you for making them.
So given that the problem is being kicked down the road to be a burden on your children, why DON'T more people take it seriously and say, "You know, I was sold this bill of goods, and I was told this was the best way to live, and now you're telling me that I'm dooming future generations. Why should I have to pay for those mistakes? The real bandits are getting away scot free!" When environmentalists say that we need to restrict fossil fuel use and development, and switch to alternate forms of energy and storage, it's really for the benefit of the population. It's the fear-mongers in industry, and by proxy, their bought-and-paid-for politicians that are stopping these things from happening.
So your real avenue for change isn't the lightbulbs in your house (though that's a good thing to do anyway), it's banding together politically with other people, and electing representatives that know that environmentalism doesn't necessarily have to come at the cost of growth and jobs, just growth and jobs in some sectors. And those people can move to other jobs in new sectors, and the government should be there to help that along. That's literally what the government is there for, philosophically--to enact these sorts of societal changes in a tangible way by providing the framework for it to work.
Alternatively, you could consider asking yourself "What framework or philosophy might guide our collective actions in this circumstance, and what methods can we use to help us understand the situation better?" Let me suggest that rather than making shit up as a method or listening to mouth breathing liars as a strategy to understand the situation better, that we could employ science. And lo and behold! Science has already told us what has caused the problem and given us at least a rough outline of how to make things better.
This is the best response to anyone that I've ever read in my whole life. Thanks for that.
Why are you bringing child porn into this? That's its own separate issue. It's non-consensual by definition, but there's no real link between legal, grown up porn and assaulting children on video. It's a total strawman.
Child porn is already illegal, the people that have those sites up are bad people. That has nothing to do with ordinary tube sites.
There IS exploitation in the adult industry, but don't impugn the agency of the people that honestly decide to perform. There are lots of them that do it because it's good money and they enjoy it.
That's an education problem. When so many kids only get told the bare biological facts and nobody talks about consent, pleasure and advocating for yourself, you're going to get a lot of skewed behaviour.
Porn is DRAMA. It's pro wrestling or action movies for adults. Guns and murder aren't actually so amusing in real life, but we still like action movies where 100 guys get shot in an hour. But we teach children that shooting people is bad, killing people is a dark thing to have to do. Even while media glorifies it, most of us try to remind ourselves that that's not the way the world works.
So too with porn. That's not how sex works. It's how sex on display works. It's how sexual theatre works. So if you want your kids to understand that it's theatre, you're going to have to FUCKING TALK TO THEM.
The iPhone is far from 'average'. It may not always be 'best', but average is underselling it by quite a large margin.
The unused cash pile is enormous. It would run the company for an awfully long time.
Apple makes money the same way every other company does: they put products for sale at a certain price. If people buy them, they make money. Apple has made products that nobody wanted, and those products went away. Calling them 'money grubbing' may be true, but no more true of them than anyone else. They just happen to be the best at playing the game.
That's easier that it sounds--and not just by disease or genocide.
Population growth rates are low or negative in a lot of western nations. Countries like Canada rely on immigration to maintain population growth.
So education--particularly for women--and easy access to birth control is a huge benefit to the world. We can really turn around our population in just a few generations if we want to.
Not only did I read them, I read them well enough to pick out the parts that contradict you.
"Wallen approaches the data more cautiously. "It's hard to interpret what the looking data mean because we don't know why people are attracted to specific things. Clearly children recognize that certain objects in their environment are appropriate for certain activities. They could be looking at a certain toy because it facilitates an activity they like," he said."
"And just because you play with a particular toy doesn't mean you only interact with it in a certain way. Dolls can be made to race, and trucks can be cuddled and carried around. Toy preference alone doesn't tell the whole story. So when it comes to girls, boys and the toys that want to play with, any generalizations are murky at best."
"Also, the researchers suggested a social rather than biological basis for the behavior. Because regular stick-carrying hasn't been reported in other wild chimpanzee communities, they proposed that that young Kanyawara chimpanzees may be learning the behavior from each other as a way of practicing for adult roles – a form of social tradition passed between juveniles previously described only in humans."
Oh no! It seems that the science isn't quite settled here! It seems that socialization DOES have an effect! It seems that while NATURE ISN'T NOTHING, NUTURE HAS MORE OF AN AFFECT THAN YOU GIVE IT CREDIT FOR. See, that's the thing I said before.
Keep it up, chum. Maybe one day you'll find someone that accepts links as proof without reading them better than you do.
Slashdot Mirror
What? No. I can't speak to OnePlus, but basically everyone that isn't Apple or Samsung is losing their shirts.
http://www.phonearena.com/news...
Other companies performed so badly that Apple + Samsung account for 105% of the profits in mobile devices.
(Huawei has a business model that involves selling at cost and monetizing on services, so realistically, they shouldn't be considered in this equation.)
How is the battery past its prime already? Quantify that. Is it, like, 10% worse, or 50% worse?
It took about 3 years before I noticed any meaningful degradation on my iPhone 4, and in its 4th and last year, it was still barely getting through the day. My iPhone 6 is only 6 months newer than your M8, and if there's any battery degradation at all, it's not noticeable to me.
See, the problem isn't removable vs. non-removable, it's well made phones vs. not-as-well-made phones. Why is HTC using such low-grade batteries? If the battery lasted 4 or 5 years, you'd probably be upgrading before you noticed anything wrong with the battery.
And that M8 didn't cost that much less than an iPhone at the time.
(My experience is mainly with iPhones, but I'm 100% sure that there are other Android handset manufacturers that don't have this battery degradation in 18 months problem. Maybe consider buying from one of them, removable battery or not.)
Isn't this exactly the thing happening in the streaming market right now? We have low-cost access to a lot of music, and artists getting millions of plays are getting royalty cheques that are just pennies.
This method solves nothing, it just shifts the money around slightly differently. There's a fundamental tension between the content we want to consume and whether or not we're willing to pay for it. If we're not, the content ceases to exist. On the other hand, if it costs too much, the content ceases to exist.
But I think we can safely put to rest the notion that you can 'make it up in volume' doesn't work when the margins are extremely small. But how do you make the margins any bigger now? That genie is out of the bottle.
I don't exactly hold Huawei in high regard either, particularly on the copying front, but Samsung is shameless and prolific in a way that Huawei hasn't had sufficient opportunity to be. Maybe they both deserve this lawsuit, but Samsung will copy anything from anywhere, any time.
Samsung is (or should be) well known for purposely infringing patents with the knowledge that they have the money to fight in court until the situation is no longer relevant. They don't just do it against American companies and in the mobile business, they've been doing it for years in Korea as well.
Samsung is hugely corrupt and rarely follows the rules. They get sued and counter-sue, tie up cases in courts for years, and then when the other company is tired of fighting, they either walk away scot free, or pay a pittance in relation to the profit they made by infringing. Huawei has no way to win this fight, but they're obligated to try for a while, at least.
I would try to stay away from Samsung products on principle, but I can't even buy Apple products without putting money into Samsung's pocket.
Vanity Fair ran a good article a few years ago that goes over it a bit.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news...
This story is about user error, and making sure you have backups.
While the implications are unacceptably clear based solely on their one-word descriptions, depending on what you pick, Apple Music offers you the choice to 'Merge' your library, or 'Replace' it. He must have chosen 'Replace'.
iTunes Match did something similar. I had to forcibly delete my files if I wanted them off my computer when I was using it (for instance, if I'd only had the 128kbit copy and I wanted a higher bitrate one, which Apple provided).
The main fault of Apple Music (and why I won't let it scan my library) is that it uses a much more simplistic method to match your library than iTunes Match, which used a fingerprinting system. For some stupid reason, Apple Music uses a system that relies on meta-data, like the song title and album name, which can cause maddening conflicts if there's more than one release of an album.
I still ultimately pin the blame on Apple--interfaces need to be clear what their implications are, and the results need to be non-destructive. Barring that, it needs to be trivially recoverable from them without resorting to backups. So by the standards they've set for themselves, they've failed utterly. But his characterization of this problem is still wrong.
That's really besides the point. A battery is an extra component that costs the manufacturer something. Given that I can get headphones that have a bluetooth chip, a battery that can drive the electronics and the sound for 8 hours, and they sound pretty good, consumer cost shouldn't be a relevant consideration in this discussion. This is a lot of stuff to get for $30, and wired headphones with a USB-C connector will necessarily be less complicated.
I just recently bought a pair of Bluetooth (MPow Wolverine) headphones. $24CDN, and they sound very nearly as good as the wired Sennheiser sports headphones I used to have. Like you, I tend to destroy headphones; I'm active and they take a lot of abuse.
Anyway, if I can get wireless headphones with a battery that sound quite good for less than $30, I'm not super worried about the cost of USB-C or Lightning headphones.
There are 'activist' investors like Carl Icahn, and he's one of the big reasons behind the buyback. He bought a tonne of stock, and used his clout to encourage Apple to buy back shares. Partly, I'm sure, to boost his stock price and make him even richer, but also because (he claims) he thinks Apple should be giving more money back to investors.
The Mac App Store is a particular weak point of Apple's. It very often seems like its been totally abandoned, and it causes almost as many problems as it solves. Unsurprisingly, it's the Apple faithful that complain the most about it, because it's a really glaring sore point in an otherwise very competent ecosystem. I never use it anymore. I was excited at first, but I can almost always find the app I need better using google, and more of my money goes direct to the developer that way. I prefer the app store model on the phone, but it's really been a bust on the Mac.
Estimates are that they made about a billion dollars more than Rolex selling watches this year. I donâ(TM)t really disagree with the rest of your post, but making a mistake to the tune of $6.5 billion revenue is one that most companies would kill for. The watch isnâ(TM)t (and canâ(TM)t be, if you ask me) the same category as successful as the iPhone, but it doesnâ(TM)t make it a bad decision.
For hundreds of years, under some definitions. Probably since the 60s-ish in its current statistical analysis configuration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But what difference does that make? How long has computing science been a unique discipline? How long has quantum mechanics been a field of study?
Certainly, one can claim that CS is a branch of mathematics, and QM is a branch of physics, which are much older, but climate science is an offshoot of the broader study of atmospheric science and meteorology. Its relative newness as a specific discipline does not invalidate it as a scientific field, nor does it make climate science experts any less expert in their fields.
Seriously, that's a stupid question. All that matters is whether or not the science is good and the results are reproducible.
Nobody would work as a janitor for shit wages, you're right. I guess we'd have to pay them more.
"Wait! But being a janitor is a low-skill job! Why should we pay them more?" Well, because nobody else is willing to do it. There's the invisible hand, working to fill a demand.
If you don't want to do it, and it needs to get done, you need to be willing to pay for it. Or pay for a robot to do it.
You're not wrong that work has virtue. The distinguishing argument is that not all PAID work has inherent virtue, and not all work that you can't be paid for is worthless.
People will find direction on their own--we have a tendency to find the meaning in our lives if we're given an opportunity. Minimum income plans are just a different way to provide *mobility*. If you can eat and pay rent without working a shitty retail job, you can set your sights higher. You can go to school, you can volunteer at animal shelters, or to work with people that have disabilities. There are so many things to do that have so much more value than scraping by, working at a McDonalds for less than it takes to stay alive.
Because all these people who had no money to buy eggs before are now able to buy eggs because they have the means.
There will still be incentives to work and have a business. These systems are all about taking care of people so we know they have enough to survive.
If I had a basic minimum income, I would be able to go back to school and get a Masters degree. I think that would be a net benefit both to myself and to society. But the short-term costs mean that I have to defer plans like that for a while until I'm sure I can survive the transition.
I think everyone that complains about this system is projecting their own laziness into the system. If *I* had some guarantee of income, I could do a LOT. I could take some risks and not worry where my rent and food money were coming from. I'd go back to school and contribute to a much greater degree than I can now, I would just need the support of other citizens to keep me fed during that time. It's not a huge tradeoff.
And if you DO want to stay at home and be lazy on very little money, you know what? Okay. Go for it. Who am I to get in the way of your happiness? Society wasn't meant to be a huge bummer.
It's not just elimination of the people maintaining the system, it's eliminating the need for the system at all.
When they ran the experiments in Canada in the 70s, only TWO groups of people worked less:
1) Mothers
2) Teenaged boys.
The mothers stayed home with their kids, freed from the burden of trying to take care of children and provide for them at the same time. That's bound to have good outcomes.
Teenaged boys stayed in school. Instead of abandoning their education to get a farm or industrial job at 16, they finished high school. The correlation between education level and productivity is fairly well established.
Additionally, visits to hospitals decreased and the number of mental health cases significantly decreased--huge savings in a system that is already government funded. (An 8.5% drop in hospital visits gives an outsized return; hospital visits are far more expensive than normal trips to the doctor.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hedging terms like 'could', 'might', 'potentially' are MORE scientific, not less. Science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. Even after you've done your experiment and 'proven' your hypothesis, there's always a chance that you're wrong.
Good science hedges its bets and is skeptical of its own results--this is no less true of climate science. They've made predictions that have largely been borne out. They've modified their models and updated their hypotheses based on new data. If you've got actual counter-proofs that bear up under more than a nanosecond under scrutiny, I'm sure they'd love to hear them.
Actually, what I don't understand is why the electorate DOESN'T hold government and industry more to account.
I sympathise with your position. You made some choices based on what was pitched to you as the ideal way to progress through life. You have a house and cars, a partner and children. Those are all sensible decisions to make. I don't think anyone should blame you for making them.
So given that the problem is being kicked down the road to be a burden on your children, why DON'T more people take it seriously and say, "You know, I was sold this bill of goods, and I was told this was the best way to live, and now you're telling me that I'm dooming future generations. Why should I have to pay for those mistakes? The real bandits are getting away scot free!" When environmentalists say that we need to restrict fossil fuel use and development, and switch to alternate forms of energy and storage, it's really for the benefit of the population. It's the fear-mongers in industry, and by proxy, their bought-and-paid-for politicians that are stopping these things from happening.
So your real avenue for change isn't the lightbulbs in your house (though that's a good thing to do anyway), it's banding together politically with other people, and electing representatives that know that environmentalism doesn't necessarily have to come at the cost of growth and jobs, just growth and jobs in some sectors. And those people can move to other jobs in new sectors, and the government should be there to help that along. That's literally what the government is there for, philosophically--to enact these sorts of societal changes in a tangible way by providing the framework for it to work.
Alternatively, you could consider asking yourself "What framework or philosophy might guide our collective actions in this circumstance, and what methods can we use to help us understand the situation better?" Let me suggest that rather than making shit up as a method or listening to mouth breathing liars as a strategy to understand the situation better, that we could employ science. And lo and behold! Science has already told us what has caused the problem and given us at least a rough outline of how to make things better.
This is the best response to anyone that I've ever read in my whole life. Thanks for that.
Why are you bringing child porn into this? That's its own separate issue. It's non-consensual by definition, but there's no real link between legal, grown up porn and assaulting children on video. It's a total strawman.
Child porn is already illegal, the people that have those sites up are bad people. That has nothing to do with ordinary tube sites.
There IS exploitation in the adult industry, but don't impugn the agency of the people that honestly decide to perform. There are lots of them that do it because it's good money and they enjoy it.
That's an education problem. When so many kids only get told the bare biological facts and nobody talks about consent, pleasure and advocating for yourself, you're going to get a lot of skewed behaviour.
Porn is DRAMA. It's pro wrestling or action movies for adults. Guns and murder aren't actually so amusing in real life, but we still like action movies where 100 guys get shot in an hour. But we teach children that shooting people is bad, killing people is a dark thing to have to do. Even while media glorifies it, most of us try to remind ourselves that that's not the way the world works.
So too with porn. That's not how sex works. It's how sex on display works. It's how sexual theatre works. So if you want your kids to understand that it's theatre, you're going to have to FUCKING TALK TO THEM.
All of their divisions make money.
The iPhone is far from 'average'. It may not always be 'best', but average is underselling it by quite a large margin.
The unused cash pile is enormous. It would run the company for an awfully long time.
Apple makes money the same way every other company does: they put products for sale at a certain price. If people buy them, they make money. Apple has made products that nobody wanted, and those products went away. Calling them 'money grubbing' may be true, but no more true of them than anyone else. They just happen to be the best at playing the game.
That's easier that it sounds--and not just by disease or genocide.
Population growth rates are low or negative in a lot of western nations. Countries like Canada rely on immigration to maintain population growth.
So education--particularly for women--and easy access to birth control is a huge benefit to the world. We can really turn around our population in just a few generations if we want to.
Meanwhile, here's a fine article on the thing that I'm describing. https://aeon.co/essays/why-are...
Not only did I read them, I read them well enough to pick out the parts that contradict you.
"Wallen approaches the data more cautiously. "It's hard to interpret what the looking data mean because we don't know why people are attracted to specific things. Clearly children recognize that certain objects in their environment are appropriate for certain activities. They could be looking at a certain toy because it facilitates an activity they like," he said."
"And just because you play with a particular toy doesn't mean you only interact with it in a certain way. Dolls can be made to race, and trucks can be cuddled and carried around. Toy preference alone doesn't tell the whole story. So when it comes to girls, boys and the toys that want to play with, any generalizations are murky at best."
"Also, the researchers suggested a social rather than biological basis for the behavior. Because regular stick-carrying hasn't been reported in other wild chimpanzee communities, they proposed that that young Kanyawara chimpanzees may be learning the behavior from each other as a way of practicing for adult roles – a form of social tradition passed between juveniles previously described only in humans."
Oh no! It seems that the science isn't quite settled here! It seems that socialization DOES have an effect! It seems that while NATURE ISN'T NOTHING, NUTURE HAS MORE OF AN AFFECT THAN YOU GIVE IT CREDIT FOR. See, that's the thing I said before.
Keep it up, chum. Maybe one day you'll find someone that accepts links as proof without reading them better than you do.