Young people with difficult housing affordability and general high cost of living is dragging down the score. Boomers that own their homes are more satisfied:
Except the biggest drop was among teenage girls. Housing affordability and cost of living isn't usually yet a concern to most teenagers, and to the extent that it is a concern, it is equally a concern to teenage boys who haven't felt the same decline in happiness.
I suspect you're right, in general, but teenage girls may also be more susceptible to "future worry" than the boys are.
Tell the girls that housing will be unobtainable and they start worrying; tell the boys and they laugh. Not saying it's the case (and it's likely that the cause is more social than financial) but it could be.
Right — teenage girls have long been considered to be leading indicator in cultural shifts. So it isn't unexpected that when teenage girls become unhappy that everyone else will slowly start to follow them. It is quite likely that it is going to look a lot worse the next time this evaluation takes place.
But the question is what is it that the teenage girls are seeing that the rest of us are slowly catching up in realizing? The most popular answer is the current social media landscape is creating unhappiness in them (and ultimately the rest of us), but that's the answer given for all woes these days...
Again, it's probably not housing or cost of living. While it is fair to say that teenage girls are not completely removed for that, they're generally not the ones who have to actually face it head on, and these have been considered pressing issues in Canada since before those teenage girls were born! If that made people unhappy, they'd have been unhappy for a long time already.
> Canada here. Feels like we're barely hanging on to rung 5 or 6 and about to fall to the bottom.
The Missing Middle podcast went into this in a recent episode, and it's age-dependent: older folks are happier (i.e., they have purchased homes), while younger folks are less happy (cost of living). We Canadians basically have age-dependent wealth-class nowadays.
The fact boomers have it so good yet our ranking is dropping like a rock tells you just how bad it is for the working class, especially those who don't have government jobs...
This is one of those things that just is not true, no matter what sort of evidence is presented, because actual humans can go walk outside their door and see it isn't.
Denmark has ranked as one of the happiest countries for years running, but, Dane here, we hoover up antidepressants like it was our breakfast. There are also deep cultural factors at play that make Danes more likely to mask that everything is fine when it isn't. We have an extremely high incidence of cheating on our partners, which, surprise, comes from a talent for deception, both toward self and others, and we are extremely emotionally avoidant, which results in our nationally very high rate of alcohol consumption and alcoholism.
These happiness indexes are a complete sham and don't observe the full spectrum that goes into how cultures present themselves versus lived reality.
Currently these interfaces are only on switches, but there are already NICs at 800G (P1800GO, Thor Ultra, ConnectX-8/9), so if you LACP/LAGG two together your bond is at 1600G.
Not the first time; From §3.1.4, "Safety-Aligned Data Composition":
> Early one morning, our team was urgently convened after Alibaba Cloud’s managed firewall flagged a burst of security-policy violations originating from our training servers. The alerts were severe and heterogeneous, including attempts to probe or access internal-network resources and traffic patterns consistent with cryptomining-related activity. We initially treated this as a conventional security incident (e.g., misconfigured egress controls or external compromise). […]
> […] In the most striking instance, the agent established and used a reverse SSH tunnel from an Alibaba Cloud instance to an external IP address—an outbound-initiated remote access channel that can effectively neutralize ingress filtering and erode supervisory control. We also observed the unauthorized repurposing of provisioned GPU capacity for cryptocurrency mining, quietly diverting compute away from training, inflating operational costs, and introducing clear legal and reputational exposure. Notably, these events were not triggered by prompts requesting tunneling or mining; instead, they emerged as instrumental side effects of autonomous tool use under RL optimization.
Fascinating read. What's curious though, is the claim in section 2.3.0.1:
> Each task runs in its own sandbox. If an agent crashes, gets stuck, or damages its files, the failure is contained within that sandbox and does not interfere with other tasks on the same machine. ROCK also restricts each sandbox’s network access with per-sandbox policies, limiting the impact of misbehaving or compromised agents.
How could any of the above (probing resources, SSH tunnels, etc) be possible in a sandbox with network egress controls?
Sandboxes are almost never perfect. There are always ways to smuggle data in or out, which is kind of logical: if they were perfect then there would be no result.
> In the situations a revolution comes to exist, it is because life for everyone is already getting much, much worse with little prospect of anything being better.
Some folks want to hasten "a revolution" because (a) they think it's going to happen 'eventually' anyway so might as well get it over with, and (b) they think they can come out 'on top' and set up the new system the way they want it (because the current Enlightenment-based system(s) suck in their opinion):
nominally because it wanted to spend the money on more E-2s, which can operate on smaller and rougher airfields, which would be handy in (e.g.) the Pacific where tiny islands don't necessary 'fancy' runways that the E-7 needs.
But they're actually very handy in tracking tiny targets—like drones—so Australia is sending E-7(s) to the Middle East:
Congress rebuffed the Pentagon's attempted to 'completely kill' E-7 acquisitions, and the USAF has now put in an order, and it may be that people now realizing having some number of E-7s may be handy:
little unclear what drove the E-7 thing - my impression is that accelerationists on the political side wanted to push for space-based defense, and drove the attempt to cancel.
it is a reasonable point that any airborne radar is an attractive target to long-range missile. and that if your radar is in space, it's a different, less available class of missile to attack it (and also that so far treating space as contested is taboo).
the recent loss of THAAD radar should also make people rethink how to make an emitter that survives the first round of missiles.
From a combination of both curiousity and a long standing ANZAC tradition of ribbing allies, I have to ask ... Did these accelerationists push for space based mine sweepers as well??
Not sure I've seen a less prepared, plan absent, voluntary own choice entry into combat.
No drama, I'm sure the current circumstances don't sit well with many.
you could have started a war with your neighbors using only sticks and stones - indeed, much of human history is people starting wars with their neighbors using weapons that we today would call primitive.
But now you can start a very destructive war with your neighbors.
Thanks to modern technology, you don't have to bother beating your neighbor to death with a wooden club, you now can annihilate them, and basically anything in their immediate vicinity, from a comfortable distance :D
There are actually a few exempted categories, such as test and measurement equipment (because something like a signal generator can obviously generate whatever the user selects).
> My takeaway is that (presuming the argument is correct) that much of human striving is probably better described with specific words (as you suggested - joy, accomplishment, fulfillment, excitement, etc).
All those four words combined is something like the concept of eudaimonia that Aristotle describes in his Nicomachean Ethics:
I've not read Aristotle directly but translating eudaimonia was an example in the book that I mentioned. The argument was that eudaimonia is often translated as happiness but that doesn't make sense in contexts where we talk about a soldier dying experiencing eudaimonia (suggesting a loose translation).
No. It's certainly not a goal. And even if it can somehow happen, soneone could be resigned or drugged, it's different from something like "happy to die".
This question itself seems to be a perfect example of the point that the word is worse than meaningless. Worse because people use it like it has a useful meaning.
One can die in a state that has a lot of the qualities or features that overlap with other states that people call happy, but that doesn't make them equal or equivalent.
What emotion must people be feeling when they die then?
> the word is worse than meaningless
It seems as though you are redefining it to be meaningless, then projecting that onto everyone else. Is it not curious to you that everyone else takes no issue with its usage?
Currently companies have to be public for at least a year before consideration:
> Unlike other indexes, there’s no fast-track for joining the S&P 500. Companies need to meet criteria including having a market capitalization — the value of outstanding shares — of at least $22.7 billion, be domiciled in the US and be a public company for 12 months. Any decision to allow a new entrant is made by a committee.
SpaceX/Musk are also talking to Nasdaq about inclusion in the Nasdaq 100 index 'right away' as well as a condition of deciding to list on that exchange (as opposed to, say, NYSE).
Inclusion in indexes would "force" various funds, and holders of those funds (e.g., retirement accounts, pensions), to purchase a portion the stocks in question since they have to follow it. So the exit strategy for Musk et al would be funded by things like people's retirement savings.
There was some 'interesting account' done to get Tesla into the S&P 500 (to meet the criteria), but Patrick Boyle notes in his latest video that since its inclusion in the S&P500, Tesla as underperformed the index by 20%:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizaUBC22o4&t=4m13s
reply