Not in Africa. The plan is to have billions of Africans migrate to Europe to do the work instead, due to the climate crisis.
When they get to Europe, they are going to expect the same quality of life that Europeans have historically enjoyed. So, just because Europeans aren't reproducing, doesn't mean that they aren't being superseded by a new group of materialist consumers.
There is something really special about European development. Chinese history is absolutely fascinating with a lot of super cool inventions, but nothing stands close to European history and it's power.
You'd need to define that something special, else you sound really racist. More likely Europe stumbled on a couple of things such as reading glasses (that gave much longer working lives to scientists) or the steam engine that gave an advantage.
They don't owe you an explanation just because something they probably said innocently could be construed as having racist undertones. While I'm willing to believe that you believe you are doing the right, anti-racist thing by calling them out, you basically attacked them before knowing what they meant, and that feels more like the bad-faith race-trolling that sometimes pretends to be anti-racism online.
White supremacy is basically this, "we are special". Needs to be called out in its tracks. They don't have to explain, but they can expect push back like I gave and can easily clarify if I was misinterpreting, which they chose not to.
European achievements in the Enlightenment and Rennaissance and Classical Period and Industrial Revolution were special, full stop. You're the racist if you think it's because of their race, as evidenced by you injecting race into the conversation. You see things racially.
That really doesn't sound healthy. Babies need real interaction, they don't need to slap a screen and make funny noises. Screens are flat, they have no texture.
Sadly, babies which are underexposed to stimuli often display developmental delays compared to peers.
You're commenting as if the iPad was the only source of stimulation and the poor baby lived in a white cube of flat nothingness with nothing but a locked down tablet for company :D
This is actually kinda true with doordash etc. Those drivers are completely unvetted, they don't even have an interview.
The kind of people that can't get a job at a pizza place.
Personally, I never order delivery through these services. The incentives are all wrong. Not to mention the costs are super high: restaurants don't make any money, I pay out the @$$, and the drivers are given sub-minimum-wage pay after taking on the risks of delivery driving.
Actually, the earth is subject to evolutionary pressure in a sense.
This is the only planet that supports life (that we know of). That's because it's natural properties endured through billions of years to support life.
It's not exactly an arms race. And it's a different, but similar mechanism. But I think the underlying principles are the same.
In this case, evolution won't look like the earth changing over time. It's more like, there are billions of potential earths out there, and over billions of years, some of them will more subtly change to support life.
So, we may destroy our earth, but that doesn't impair the ability for other earths to evolve. We just may not see it.
Continual selection of entities which survive. For example, sand is the natural evolved substrate of beaches. Shells get ground into sand, anything heavier sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
Personally, I just use my instincts. If my instincts are wrong, well, there's always another lifeform that will evolve someday, even if that's billions of years from now.
Hopefully they will be smarter than myself. If not, a few billion more years and we may get another shot...
Not the op but, I've seen this for lots of reasons.
Sometimes just a roll of the dice. Large companies tend to lay off more. If you've only worked in startups, it's very possible you may never be laid off. I've never been laid off despite working 20 years in industry.
Working in banks, FAGMAN, etc, you are much more likely to be laid off. I guess you could consider that high-risk, but those jobs are low-risk overall imo, because they pay a lot more than startups.
She’s an Australian and the US and Australia do not have reciprocal agreements to enforce civil cases. She’s probably best off contesting that the US court has no jurisdiction over Australian citizens.
Right because if some idiots in a country where you've never been get their paperwork wrong it should bankrupt you... Note that you're effectively arguing for your own book here, this shouldn't require a lawyer and it should have never gotten this far.
I mean... mistakes get made. It shouldn't be hard to get this one reversed if that's all there is to it, but hiring a lawyer is absolutely the right way to make that happen. By all means, try to recover attorney's fees after the fact.
But sticking your head in the sand and complaining about it isn't going to get you very far.
This goes well beyond mistakes, it is utterly absurd that the judge would not look at this more closely absent a defendant in a country on the other side of the planet, especially when this kind of money is involved. It's not a $50 parking ticket.
Imagine yourself in their situation, having to defend a legal case in court in a place where you've never been to that has no bearing on anything you've done in your life. That makes the world's population open to being sued for profit in these courts because the courts simply don't do their job. A mistake is when you pass the pepper instead of the salt. This is ruining someone's life.
From TFA:
"Ms Luke has engaged an intellectual property lawyer in the United States, with an initial engagement fee of $US10,000 ($14,800), in a bid to have the rulings overturned and the damages retracted. "
"The single mother of four said the situation was taking its toll.
"The anxiety that this causes, not knowing if they are going to come and take our house, can they freeze my assets, can they get access to my bank accounts?
"We just don't know and it really is a case of guilty until I can prove otherwise.""
That engagement fee is on the low side and yet I think that 99% of the people that might get caught up in stuff like this have absolutely no way of paying that kind of money to correct something they have part in. Besides, the suggestion that you can recoup your legal fees is not really fair: in practice you won't be able to recoup all your fees and you certainly won't be able to recover your time or the stress.
Questions of jurisdiction, evidence and costs all suggest otherwise.
This person has been dragged into an expensive American civil case .
She was clearly contactable as the corps had found her yet she was contacted with what any person who has any cybersecurity training would dismiss as a spam email.
The jurisdiction is a place she has never been.
This should case should have been thrown out, instead she got a summary judgement.
In Australia she could automatically be awarded costs at trial. Here she's going to have to counter sue.
And last but perhaps most significantly, it's clearly not her. Sure, we don't hear about any of the ones they knock back, but this shit would not even get close to getting up in a good legal system.
