> We do know that mathematical frameworks cannot be at the same time totally complete and internally consistent.

I take it you're referencing Godel's theorems here, but "consistent" and "complete" have rather technical (and somewhat limited) meanings within that context, so it's not clear to me how they'd usefully map onto the potential relationship between QM and GR?

That's a very good point. In particular, "complete" refers to the ability of the mathematical-logical system to prove every statement that is true within that system, in terms of the system.

This property is completely irrelevant to a theory like QM or GR - it is only relevant for a system that aims to be a universal foundation for mathematics (a formal language in which any mathematical statement whatsoever could be precisely formally encoded, and then proven or disproven).

1) [citation needed]

2) even if this is true, at least we're not, I dunno, dying in our 30s and have things like running water?

Productivity has gone way up in the last few decades, and people can afford fewer and fewer children. It used to be common to afford 8 children on one income. Wake up dude

>Productivity has gone way up in the last few years, and people can afford fewer and fewer children.

That doesn't say much when that's been the long run trend since the industrial revolution.

Having fewer children should be celebrated not looked upon as a failure. The world doesn't need everyone having six kids anymore.

I'm not arguing for having that many children, just that its a basic way to benchmark how expensive being alive is. Clearly these people having so many children werent just randomly taking on impoverished hardship. Things were tight, but they had reasonable economic security with so many children. This points to a dramatic drop in wages in the last 50 years

Financially speaking, kids are an asset in non-industrialized societies, especially farming societies. But they are a liability in industrialized ones. I think that transition from asset to liability for nations undergoing industrialization might explain this phenomenon.

I really hope when people have kids they don't look at them as an asset or a liability, aside from when considering the financial impact. They're not a great fit for our lifestyle, but if my wife and I did end up having a kid I wouldn't think of them as a liability.

I think you're stuffing more meaning into my statement than I intended: I intentionally qualified the statement to the financial perspective only in which case it's appropriate to talk about assets and liabilities.

I say this as a happy father of 2 kids.

No one is saying we need 8, but many aren't having 1.

And the people who are crapping out kids may not be the ones you'd like to be carrying the torch forward into the next century.

Who are you building this future for if not for your children and those of your friends and family?

Tell me that the Quiverfull types who are having 10 kids are the ones who will appreciate your new app and I'll tell you you're full of crap.

Hey now. I was one of eight myself, am now a highly educated (Washington & Lee, Oxford University) and successful (team lead) software developer, and fully intend on having a large family myself. Don't make insulting generalizations like that.

Isn't it "only the poorest can afford children" situation?

> The argument that this is a net positive for society could use a little substantiation.

The majority of societies that have tried anything different were/are significantly worse for the average person. That seems like more than a little substantiation.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment but I think at this point it is good to take a step back and consider the magnitude of the statement you just made.

Consider the extent of human societies that have existed, what it is that we know of them and through what lens we know of them. What do we mean by the words "significantly worse"? Where does this idea of "worse" stem from? And let's not forget the average person. How do we measure what's good for this average person?

Sorry for the random remarks your comment caught my eye for some reason. The point here isn't for some bogus relativism but merely to state the obvious, that the human condition can be far more complicated than we give it credit.

> Europeans have maybe a few words or even just one word to describe snow

Really? In common use: snow, sleet, hail, flurry, frost, hoar, ice, rime, (snow)drift, powder, slush. Less commonly: firn, neve, sastrugi, suncups, ...

Well I understood they had lots of words, some suggestions have been as high as 52 words for snow, but other sources suggest otherwise. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/inuktitut-... but it appears Scots have 421 words for snow. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34323967

But another concept which an AI or aliens may not be familiar with is the concept of time and the way it is visualised.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221103-how-language-war...

> a literal manifestation of two-ness in front of him

Did he though? Are there two gloves, or 100 wool threads, or a 10^23 atoms? Would a different mind see the same thing?

Rely good point!

Repasting the quote without addressing the response does not do much to bolster your position - perhaps the opposite!

> we don't particularly use a lot of them and even when we do, the taste is better, but not extremely so

Speak for yourself!

>> "how Auckland fixed it"

Anyone who lives in Auckland: bahahahahhaha

Technically yes, but in practice I think the victims and survivors of extinction events might beg to differ

>> Lawyers make laws, directly or indirectly

Really? In every country I've live in, politicians write laws, judges set precedents, and lawyers only get to make arguments. True, the first two are often & always former lawyers, but that seems as reasonable as how doctors get to determine best medical practice.

> True, the first two are often & always former lawyers

You answered your own "Really?" question.

And doctors don't determine best medical practices. Lawyers also do that, albeit indirectly through malpractice lawsuits. Thus the "best medical practices" are all CYA maneuvers.