The increased mass increases the force of gravity on the outer particles which ends up reducing the radius more than the increase due to the layer of new hydrogen, IIRC.

IIRC, death by suicide (firearm) was something like 10k / yr. So, I think it probably still outpaces death by GSW (spree shooting), tho I hear the later is increasing more than TV news can/will/is covering.

EDIT: In 2023, “gun suicides reached a new high: 27,300” – https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2023-gun-deaths-suicide-by-firearm-at-record-levels-for-third-straight-year

If a death is by suicide, it is likely (>50%) by firearm. If a death is by firearm, it is likely (>58%) by suicide.

The hacker known as 4 Chan is BACK, baby!

Global warming is independent of population, emissions can be controlled without population controls.

Yes, they do need more people, and immigration is a possible “solve”, but right now they aren’t getting the immigration necessary – tho largely due to their own policies.

We need less people

No we don’t. And, S. Korea in particular will need more people than they have available, soon.

Smaller economy is fine, I guess – tho deflation has certainly caused problems in the past. Better distributed wealth is a shared goal. Depopulation, and other forms of Degrowth, are largely driven by eugenicist ideas and are neither necessary nor desirable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8vkUY93i8

The future for S. Korea looks bleak, not better.

I agree that infinite growth was always impossible, but in some countries birth rate is well below replacement rate (if they matched, population would be stable, not growing), and in many birth rate + immigration rate is also below replacement rate – we are failing not at growth, but “mere” stability.

I agree with your premise, but I don’t think it implies your conclusion, which I disagree with.

I don’t think it is shrinking globally, yet. But, some countries (e.g. South Korea) are in dire situations due to shrinking and aging population already.

I believe the comparison was between to “good old days” and “now”, so the 92% number remains valid, even if there are multiple contributing changes.

But, sure, maybe the 44% number is closer to correct.

From 1975 to 2015 “deaths are down 92 percent among children ages 15 and under, and down 44 percent annually across all cyclists.” – https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20043115/kids-bike-fatalities-down-92-percent-but-theres-a-catch/

“You” personally might have survived, but about 12-13 times as many kids died from “No helmet, no fear”. (At least very least, 2x as many did.)

Perhaps it is more trustworthy than Fox News? (I don’t know; I just live in my Lemmy/Mastodon social media bubble.)

High, broad trust in trustworthy institutions is a good thing, it makes life in general easier which increases social engagement and, potentially, change.

I’ve never really liked this meme. I quite dislike AI, but just because your NN sucks doesn’t mean NNs or AI in general is fundamentally poor.

I often write very poorly performing programs due to mistakes, lack of knowledge, or just general incompetence. That doesn’t mean all my programs perform poorly. It certainly doesn’t mean all your programs perform poorly.

“AI” sucks for a lot of reasons, but so does this image.

I’m a soulslike vegan.

Chicken’s not vegan?

I can’t say I’m a (normal) vegan, but I’m definitely an AI vegan. I was turned off by the ethical considerations, and the few “bites” I have tried leave a bad taste in my mouth. I avoid using it because much of the training data was (and is) stolen, the power costs are far too high compared to the utility, and it’s basically worthless to me, having a screwed up response to nearly every prompt I tried.

The way I had it described to me was that veganism is against the exploitation of all animals, including “stealing” honey from a hive.

But, “vegan” is a label at least as malleable as “Christian”.

To some people, this Foie Gras might be vegan, if they can’t find the exploitation. To others, large-scale U.S. produce might be non-vegan since it depends on exploitative labor (humans are animals) practices. To a few, mussels are vegan because there’s no mind to suffer or be exploited. To a very few, plants that show a “pain” response are non-vegan, even if that response happens over time, as long as it has a clear trigger in human interference (which is expliotation due to the “pain”), despite the complete lack of a nervous system, which humans (and other animals) use to feel pain.

Anyway, I’m NOT a vegan, but I do try to limit my meat consumption. It just feels like the amount I used to eat isn’t really globally sustainable, and I take up too many resources in to many other ways, too.

Everyone is a Forklift Operator until the real Forklift Operator shows up. Drawfee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjgdyhIuEhw

I think that’s a bad objection. It’s idealistic in the worst way, it’s making “Perfect […] the enemy of the good”. Plus, there are significant practical advantages to a fixed-length addressing scheme, and any fixed-length going to have a maximum. So, under the constraint of fixed-length addressing “big enough” is all we have.

128 bits really is quite hard to fill up, we’ll have to worry about a lot of very different things before the run out of addresses. Like speed-of-light latency vs. TCP (and possibly TLS session) timers for interplanetary connections.

Yeah, the Universe keep making bigger fools (of us all). But, we should still use IPv6 instead of clawing the tattered remains of IPv4. I just wish my ISP agreed.