deleted by creator

That’s an interesting point but I’m not sure if the numbers really add up. As I understand it, the number of dependents will be greater from population decline (primarily due to an aging population) than it was during the baby boom

Yeah. But people won’t change willingly. A lot of the suburbs around my city are pretty rich areas. I don’t expect those people to willingly move to the denser inner city anytime soon. More likely they’ll petition city hall to keep their subdivisions running until the city goes bankrupt from the financial burden of supporting a subdivision that does not bring in enough property taxes to support itself

Also the ratio is a lot higher in nursing homes. Yes you might have a ratio of x nurses to y old people, but you also need to consider the people indirectly contributing. Like the trades people who built the building, or the people who pay for the care through taxes or otherwise, the people working to route electricity, the pharmacists making all those medications that the old people need, etc.

Also, we need people to do jobs other than working in nursing homes. We can’t have all our workforce caring for the elderly.

Population decline is a global phenomenon. You can’t offset this loss with immigration when the countries people are coming from are also experiencing a population decline. We (in the West) are currently using immigration to offset this loss now, but when the population decline really starts hitting other parts of the globe (as it is projected to do within the next few decades) then that will no longer be a solution.

The problem with calling it a ponzi scheme is that this would apply in all contexts, even in very basic economies without money. If you have a tribe of hunter gathers and suddenly they have a sharp decrease in their birth rate, they too would have a hard tome taking care of their elderly/children.

The rotting infrastructure problem is made a lot worse by urban sprawl

This is not about communism vs capitalism, its about the ratios. If there are 5 old people for every young person then how are we supposed to take care of all the old people? There’s just not enough manpower.

Theres a current boycott? What’s going on there?

Manitoba may very well be officially bilingual and have French as an official language of the legislative and judicial branches but not have French as a full official language (which is what my original comment was about). I know it’s pedantic but the legal matters like this are notoriously pedantic

I know this sounds pedantic, but this is not necessarily the same as it being a full official language. If you look at the fine print there are ways where Manitoba falls short of New Brunswick, which is fully bilingual.

Here’s a radio-Canada article anout it: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1541550/bilinguisme-francais-manitoba-nouveau-brunswick-droit-linguistique-constitution

(Granted it is from 2020. Maybe Manitoba had given French official constitutional status since then but if it has I was not aware of that change.)

No where in this link does it say that French is an official language of Manitoba. It’s not. Manitoba often allows francophones to access government services in French but that is not the same as it being an official language

You weren’t wrong. The link provided does not say that French is an official language of Manitoba, just that it can be accessed for government services etc. The other commentator appears to be confused

Even burger king is hard to get a job at these days.

I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.

The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.

I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).