The episodes aren’t even 30-minutes. Take a look at the episode length on TMDB, only the last episode is 34min long. Others are as short as 23min and i think you still need to substract the intro from that. And factor in that you waste additional time since you want to ease in and out of each episode, which you wouldn’t with less episodes or if the whole thing was a movie.

My guess would be that it is a proxy for income. As far as i am aware credit bureaus do not have access to information about how much a person earns. However if you are paying off a $2k mortgage each month, then the assumption is made that you have either enough funds or income to afford it. Once you pay off your loan it becomes a black box again, as there’d be no way of telling whether or not this is still the case.

just the right amount of run time.

The overall amount of runtime might have been ok, but imo the short episode duration paired with a weekly release schedule imo was terrible.

Besides that (as a book reader) i felt a bit underwhelmed. Somehow i just didn’t click with the cast. Although i wasn’t as irritated as expected by the fact that murderbot was depicted as male. In the books the gender and appearance is never specified and i somehow had a female mental image, a bit more in the sarcastic direction like glados from the portal games.

you can’t ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they’ll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.

Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn’t just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.

I’d break it up into two parts. Official election material and just general advertisements/media. The first one typically is already quite regulated and arguably for the benefit of all should already follow standards that are not harmful to children. The second one seems like the problematic one. However I’d argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what’s going on in the world. Anecdotally i can say that even at elementary school age children seem to be (to varying degrees) at least rudimentally aware of many things. To give a recent example like when Israel bombed Iran.

We have things like cigarettes and alcohol where we impose age limits, but those are directly harmful things. Hard to argue that voting in a democracy is harmful. Sometimes there might be anti democratic parties (like the afd here in germany for example), but in those cases you’d think about banning those, not taking away the ability to vote. Maybe you or someone else could give me an example of something positive being banned based on age because the state/society can’t provide protection from something secondary.

I would also add that advertisement to a young voting base wouldn’t exclusively need to be a bad thing. Take free school lunches for example. If as a politician you run a campaign on that for example you are banking on gaining favor from a voter base that only indirectly is affected by it. The people directly benefiting from it can’t vote for you.

they have a voice. It’s not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.

They have a voice, but no vote, which is what matters for the politicians in charge. Also “just 2 years” falls flat since my argument is not about the lowering to 16, but abolishing it in general. So for the sake of argument for example an 8 year old, which would make it a full decade. In practice even longer, since elections aren’t every year and you aren’t guaranteed to have one in the year you turn 18.

And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don’t see how that would be an argument against it. If anything i’d see it as an argument that children should also have a say. We also don’t have an upper limit after which you aren’t allowed to vote anymore. And for obvious reasons it would e.g. be impossible to have a rule that says x years before you die you aren’t allowed to vote anymore, since you won’t suffer all the consequences.

Yes, but we are not filtering for maturity and capability in adults. So if this is the argument then imo it is flawed, since we’d filter for something just to stop filtering for it after a certain age.

If one wants to filter for these things then it should be applied across the board. However we are not doing so for good reasons (I can provide some if needed).

Babies and toddlers don’t know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they’re teenagers.

Like I said we don’t make this a prequisite for adults. There are plenty of disabled or old people fully dependent on others.

Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children.

That is an interesting point definitely worth debating. Propaganda would definitely be an issue, but this is the case not just in children, but adults alike. On the other hand with children becoming a voting block it might shift the focus slightly on topics benefiting them.

They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck.

True, although I think children pick up a lot regardless. And importantly obliviousness of issues doesn’t change how it affects them. Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they’d at least have a voice.

I think “teenager” is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.

I can for sure see how opinions can differ on the topic and I’d totally be ok with compromises and accepting some degree of hypocrisy. But nonetheless it’s imo worth looking at the issue from the extreme.

As far as compromises go I think another way to go about it would be to have staggered voting with lower limits in more local votes. I could see how it might be more acceptable there for some.

Edit: also regarding babies and toddlers i’d think that they would need to express a desire to vote in some form, which would probably make it so you don’t have literal 1 year olds voting (unless they are like an extreme genius, at which point they might aswell and it would only be a single vote of millions). Maybe one compromise would be to require some more active component below a certain age threshold, like having to vote in person for the first time or at least having to register somewhere (which if not done prior would happen automatically at a certain age).

Controversial opinion: I don’t see a justification for ANY voting age.

For adults we (rightfully) don’t make voting dependent on mental or physical capacity, being dependent on other people, and there also is no upper age limit.

So i wouldn’t be opposed to allowing anyone elegible for voting to do so when he/she expresses the wish to do so.

Yeah that sometimes happens. Not every show clicks with everyone.

White Lotus had me wanting to know more about what those people were up to.

To be fair in a way Andor isn’t this kind of show anyways, since from before it even started we know how it’ll end in Rouge One.

Do you mean the first couple of episodes of the first or second season? Been a while since I watched the first season. In any case Andor is comparatively a bit of a slower burn, but comes together very well imo.

As far as White Lotus goes I have no doubt that it is pretty good. I’ve heard lots of praise and the likes of Carrie Coon obviously are great actresses. It’s just 4 out of 7? When Andor isn’t short on amazing female performance either, like for example Denise Gough as Dedra Meero, Genevieve O’Reilly as Mon Mothma, or Elizabeth Dulau as Kleya Marki. (I assume they would count as supporting characters)

Yeah it’s a travesty. I haven’t seen The White Lotus, but it has to be the greatest acted show of all time that they for example give 4/7 spots for supporting actress in a drama series to it without even giving a single one to Andor. Also The Last of Us season 2 getting some of those nominations over Andor doesn’t track either.

You and all the companies training their AI models, like Meta for example

Interesting move considering that having design and manufacturing separate for reasons of incentive alignment and conflict of interest seems like the more successful strategy.

But I guess with RISC-V the market is still so small this might help them try and create a niche and induce some demand? Because otherwise I think they have it pretty rough since abandoning the leading edge race. This article from last year reported that clients are switching to smaller nodes faster than expected (which I assume is a trend that has continued) and China probably also has only accelerated their own capacities including for older nodes.

My understanding would be:

• Probabilities: Chance of a certain outcome happening. E.g. Outcome A has a 70% chance B a 20% and C 10%

• Possibilities: what outcome scenarios exist. E.g. there exist 3 (A B C). Those Possibilities might have a probability associated with them

• Plausibility: looks at the degree of truth of a statement. So if it logically makes sense and is the correct answer/is what happened. You might make a judgement of the plausibility of a possibility based on the probability of it happening. Say if something has two outcomes one with a 99% chance and the other 1% then that might be the more plausible one. Or if it has no chance, then it might be implausible

Edit: since someone mentioned the example of a coin toss.

Head and tails have a probability of 50% each (for the sake of simplicity I assume it won’t land standing up)

A coin toss has two possible outcomes (possibilities). Head and tails.

Someone says he flipped a coin and got head 1000 times in a row. That’s not plausible with a fair coin because of the low chance of it actually happening (even if there is a indefinitely small chance). As a result you might assume he is either lying or the coin is weighted for that outcome.

That reminds me of this Tom Scott video, which shares a somewhat similar idea.

Well part of this is because Europe is in fact heating up faster than the world average

Global mean temperature between 2015 and 2024 was 1.24 to 1.28°C warmer than the pre-industrial level, which makes it the warmest decade on record. European land temperatures have increased even faster over the same period by 2.19 to 2.26°C, depending on the dataset used. European environment agency

For many a trip to the US from Europe is a major event. I’d imagine that many people planned their trips last year before Trump was even reelected and had already invested a lot of money, at which point sunk fallacy plays a role.

I also think that for many it still hasn’t registered that they are now also at risk and it’s not just the classic family guy meme anymore, where it’s based on skin colour.

With how reliant we, as a society, have become on digital things the two are connected. Not just for internet access to browse lemmy on our phones, but also for more fundamental parts like managing our increasingly more complex power grids and logistic chains. The article already mentions some of the reasons already.

Recent sabotage/accidents destroying undersea cables have shown how vulnerable crucial links are and how easily they can be destroyed. Satelite connections can be a good (and harder to disrupt) fallback option. On the military side Starlik has shown how crucial it can be in the war in Ukraine, and at the same time the dangers of it being controlled by someone like Elon Musk. Do we in Europe really want this dependence? With advances in satelite imagery and better internet connections satelites networks will also become increasingly more important for the economy. Again, do we want to rely on others for this fundamental part of infrastructure?

Europe must become “a space power once again, with France at its heart,” he said.

This however frustrates me. Because as much as i think Macron in many ways has the right mindset that Europe needs to step up and act like its size, the “with France at its heart” part is exactly why it won’t happen. As long as individual contries have this selfish attitude and try to claim as much as possible for themselves instead of cooperating and putting the collective first, it just won’t happen.