tock

Have you actually looked into the allegations and the response from Jane Street? By your logic companies can commit any fraud in India because if they get caught you can just say: hey cant trust the country.

No the claim that religion is a major reason for science.

> How could there have ever been religious men of science?

Oh I have no problem with this. There will be religious scientists and non religious scientists. Just like there will be scientists who like red vs scientists who like blue. Being a scientist doesn't mean they are immune to broader cultural trends.

Perception is reality! Its great as long as it doesn't hurt others.

> This is your second post in this thread insisting things are unconnected which is of course a commendable attempt to validate the atheist religious belief that everything is random and pointless. I don't subscribe to your religion.

I am not an atheist. Nor do I think everything is random and pointless. You have 11 comments on this topic. Discussion is the point of this forum.

> religion and lack thereof correlate almost perfectly with birth rate

No arguments there. More religious people absolutely do have more kids. I want to point out that poverty/development and lack thereof also correlate almost perfectly with birth rate. Check out the countries who still have very high TFR.

But I was pointing out that non religious countries still had tons of kids before. Birth control and more choice for women have certainly brought down birth rates. India's birth rate is down to 1.9; And its a very religious country. There has been incredible progress in women's rights and they choose to not have 6 kids.

"There's a reason no atheist society has historically arisen and thrived in the way that you are suggesting. If it was possible why hasn't it happened. The idea of atheism is ancient - why has it not worked?"

Your words. I am saying its not connected to society being great. The population being religious isn't why America or Europe grew to be super powers. If your entire argument is that population is correlated with religion then I agree. I disagree that happiness and the state of a country is tied to that.

> I'll give you one data point about birth rate collapse. In the US atheists have fertility rate of 1.2 (half of replacement) somewhat religious people have the rate of 3.3 and "orthodox" closer to 6.

PS. can you post your sources for those TFR numbers? Because they seem wildly exaggerated. Maybe I am looking at the wrong sources? "Data on religious fertility differentials for the 2020-2025 period in Pew Research Center projections shows a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.9 for Christian women, 1.6 for religiously unaffiliated women, and 2.0 for women of other religions."

> Can you justify that claim?

Can you?

> Feynman is a good example of that.

"Do you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist? Feynman: An atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this."

> > If feynman didn't have his father (for whom religion was integral) I doubt he'd turn out who he was.

Right. If we are just gonna reach for stuff like this then I'm gonna say Feynman wouldn't turn out to be who he was if he believed in religion.

> As per above I don't see it that way.

Belief without evidence. Hey I get it now!

Every society has had gods at some point in the past. Why didn't every society improve then? And China's growth has been very recent(after the 80s). And birth rates have absolutely collapsed across the world. It's not some unique Chinese/Japanese situation. Before their silly 1 child policy change China had insane population growth. As non religious people. Almost like these aren't really connected at all.

They were scientific in spite of being religious. Not because of it.

> that I don't think are matched by atheism at its best

There are plenty of scientists including Feynman and Hawkings. These are unrelated things.

Large sections of China, Japan, etc are atheists. Why do you think it hasn't worked?

Counterpoint: I know plenty of very religious families with multiple kids who are deeply unhappy.

In my experience friends and family are the primary contributor to happiness. Provided they are good people. Else its a train wreck. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.

Interesting. You save 200 euros(in germany) but lose significant CPU performance. As long as its not a chromebook its usable.

It's surprisingly fine. Not the fastest though.

What is a cheaper but good enough alternative in your opinion?

Its $600 in the states. $500 if you are a student. What is a cheaper but good enough alternative in your opinion?

The Neo changes things. Only $600.

Yeah poor people don't have sex. Neither do middle aged people. Lmao.

It's conditioning. We cannot be happy idle because society deems idleness as bad. Just like people cannot be happy with a balding hairline because society has deemed it to be ugly. If the trend changes in a century and balding is suddenly hot then the same people would be happy.

Ah I believe codex has similar issues. Terrible code quality but goes to show it doesn't really matter in the end.

Huh what moronic failure did Anthropic do? Every Claude Code user I know loves it.

It's entry-level obscenely rich club.

What do you think is a valid doomer warning that came true? Or do you think literally everything that is pessimistic is doomerism?

I disagree that being born to rich parents == you have better genetics.

It's mostly privilege. And just being born in America is one of the biggest privileges wrt career and wealth.

> Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?

Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households.

> For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.

Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition.

I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem.

On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly.

How is China bad? Their education system did take them from absolute poverty to #2 superpower in a few decades.

Raw test scores are a good idea in many countries because it reduces scope for corruption + gives even the poorest kids a chance. Though I would argue there needs to be multiple chances a year and not just 1.

> potentially more intelligent than the poorest group

It's easy to think this but its not true. There is just a ton of privilege involved in life. There are groups in India who purely tutor slum kids to the top IITs(the JEE exams in India are very hard).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_30

1. There are far worse places to work than China :)

2. I was comparing everyone against EU. NA included.

Not surprised because most people in the world only have time to work/commute/sleep. Stuff like hobbies, sabbaticals, vacations, etc are quite rare. I've only seen the contrary when I met Europeans.

Huh? I value myself and my family at infinity. Meaning no-one else or no amount of money can replace them. So no we are in fact extremely non disposable and non replaceable to the people we love.

It's a M1 Macbook Air substitute with significantly better single core performance. Any comparison with a chromebook is just hilarious.