You have no moral obligation to have children at all, even if they'll predictably have a happy life. So if their life will instead be predictably horrible (or if they will predictably ruin the lives of the people around them - plenty of severe mental disabilities seem much less horrible for the people themselves than for their caretakers), it's very reasonable to avoid it.

I agree that there's a lot of space between "considered disabled" and "horrible life", but OP said "suffer their whole life" which I associated with the latter.

What happened there? These are presumably calculated automatically, so does the second item has its mass listed as 2kg?

That's true, though the simple solution is to not be on such platforms. You do not have to let them "shove it in your face until you can’t help it".

By "Sam Altman said" in a "series of posts", this article means these two tweets from 10 hours ago: https://twitter.com/....
This is a screenshot of a tweet talking about an article written about two tweets by Sam Altman. Is this really the world we're living in, now?

Have you considered just not watching shortform video like tiktoks and youtube shorts?

All money is "entirely fake". The only difference is how big the value fluctuations are and to what degree you can exchange it for other currency. Crypto has a big problem with the former and minor problems with the latter, but generally speaking it's not much less real than, say, the US dollar.

Day ???/???? of downvoting every post with advertiser-friendly censorship in it.

What is happening with this image? The quality is low because OP lazily reposted it from some other secondary source, but what's that yellow rectangle?

...this screenshot is from lemmy.world.

If you actually read the article, this is just a normal-ish (although peer-to-peer, which is interesting) free VPN, it isn't actually oriented towards cheating. The funniest part is that if the article is to be believed, the "cheating" consists of simply increasing your ping. Which... you don't really need a VPN for.

Yet, people suffering from it can lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Sure, it's possible for a person with a severe disability to grow up happy. But when one is making a decision in real life (like having a child), one should consider an average case, not a exceptional one. And the average case for an example like Down's Syndrome is pretty bad. It is a bit unclear how to quantify the suffering in this particular disease's case because the main harm to the child is lifelong mental impairment and assorted physical disabilities - but it is at least going to inflict suffering on the child's family, since caring for a child with a severe disability for their entire life isn't exactly fun.

It is a slippery slope that, if not navigated carefully, has historically leaded to atrocities.

I don't see the relation. You'll notice that I'm not proposing killing off disabled people for the "improvement of society" or whatever it was that nazis called it. I am not doing this because nonconsensually killing a person is a harm to them. But deciding not to have a child isn't the same thing as murdering a person - it's not harming anyone who exists, and hence may well be morally better than having a child.

(Oh, I suppose you might mean that I'm arguing that there are circumstances in which it's morally bad for a person to have a child, which is similar to nazi eugenics in that I'm deciding whether or not people should have children? In that case, my answer is that the difference is that I'm a person, not an authoritarian government, and I don't have power (nor, indeed, the desire) to force people to obey my personal moral judgements.)

You should explain what "stuff" is "coming out", then, instead of vagueposting.

Oh, that's really cool. I hope there's more linkage between the twitter-like and reddit-like islands of the fediverse in the future; I'm somewhat interested in reading the former but it seems to be complicated to actually get federation with it.

There seems to be something wrong with the image quality. Here, I improved it for y'all:

Hmm, interesting. Somewhat compelling, but:

• it's a rather small (n=38) Chinese pilot study
• the effect on the sleep latency is sizable (a latency decrease from 31±14 to 18±12 minutes, effect size of 0.85), but there's no effect on actual sleep duration.
• the sleep measurements were subjective (sleep diaries, not actigraphy)

I'm also a bit concerned why it's the only study with this methodology in this later meta-analysis - all of the other "behavioral intervention" studies in it experiment with stuff like "extended time-in-bed". In other words, there seems to not have been any followup or replication of this study.

You generate it when needed, using one of the known sequences that converges to π. As a simple example, the pi() recipe here shows how to compute π to arbitrary precision. For an application like pifs you can do even better and use the BBP formula which lets you directly calculate a specific hexadecimal digit of π.

It kills parasitic infections caused by worms. Cancer is not a parasitic infection caused by a worm. It’s like asking if a mouse trap can fix climate change. No, because they are in no way related.

That's not a convincing argument. It suffices to say that ivermectin was considered as a candidate for a cancer drug as early as 2018, with a proposed mechanism of action and everything. It's not as simple as "cancer is not a parasitic infection", because pharmacology is never this simple. That paper also mentions positive study results both in vitro and in vivo. There is also a lot of later research (search ivermectin cancer on google scholar), but it's potentially biased by the horrifying memetic war that happened in America during the covid pandemic.

My conclusion from ten minutes of googling is that quite possibly it's a real weak anti-cancer drug much like the already-known ones. It's hard to be sure of those things - we're in an age where there's enough research and publication bias and politics that you can't trust individual studies^1^. And you can't fully trust meta-analyses either, but I can't even find a meta-analysis of ivermectin as used for cancer, so.

(It's pretty safe to say that it's not an amazing cancer drug much better than all existing ones (like some people seem to think) - both on priors, and because if that was the case it'd be extremely obvious from all of the studies already made.)

^1^ I don't mean fraud, I mean that if a hundred teams over the globe try a study of something that doesn't work, five of them will find p<0.05 results by pure chance and quite possibly only those teams will publish it - so until several good replications come along, it'll look like there's a real and well-supported effect. And there can be much subtler problems than this - see, say, how well the studies of psychic powers go.

If you can't even fly around as an owl and eat voles in your free time, what is even the point?