Really? You did not expect spin from the BBC? Odd. They barely ever report objectively on anything.
746 karma · joined October 8, 2022
Even ZFS was way better integrated with the Linux kernel even while Solaris was supposedly maintained.
Same with Instagram, they need a way to report AI.
In the US it may not take this exact form, but there does seem to be significant fraud tied to people who have an immigrant background [1].
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-fraud-schemes-what-we...
Immigrants are also less likely to have full-time jobs and take more sick leave than Norwegians, so that 67,5% employment among immigrants is also a bit deceptive.
Many immigrants in Norway who have not worked a day in their lives manage to raise 5 kids without any problems, even sometimes with their first or second cousins as spouses, so I think Norwegians will somehow manage, but if not maybe the solution is to give Norwegians a few more benefits and immigrants a bit fewer benefits.
I, personally, know an immigrant lady who has not worked a day in at least three years, has two children, and got a 700,000 EUR house from the government. Not just to live in, but it's now her property. The reasoning for giving her a house for free was that she would never be able to buy one because she does not work and likely will not work again. She is not the exception.
A Norwegian would have to save many years before they can afford a house like that, and will likely not be able to afford it before they are well into their 30s.
And regardless of how many immigrants "work" or not, the data remains what it is, on net, immigrants cost Norwegians and the more immigrants the worse off Norwegians become. The simplest solution to stopping the damage is to just stop all immigration and start rolling it back.
Actively destroying Norway will not resolve any problem we have with ageing population.
I also don't trust the people who implemented it poorly to do it better in the future because I have every reason to believe that they implemented it the way they did because their primary concern was not the wellbeing of Norwegians. At every possible junction choices have been made which benefit immigrants and hurt Norwegians. If there was a more random pattern in the choices I would say that it could have been honest mistakes, but the pattern is not random, choices only ever go one way, and it's the way which has the worst outcome for Norwegians.
If we want to solve the problem of an ageing population we have to look to other solutions than mass immigration. One solution may be to give more tax breaks to working Norwegians who have children rather than giving their tax money to immigrants who don't work. Another may be to stop using public funds to indoctrinate the youth to view child-rearing as a net negative. And we could, of course, consider measures to reverse the damage that mass immigration has already done to Norway.
If the government said that you never have to pay income tax again if you have 5 children, then more people may have 5 children, this would be super low risk to try, much lower risk than mass immigration.
That being said, I don't think there is any evidence that survives scrutiny that immigration has been a net positive for any western country, and if I take Norway as a specific example, we have good data that immigration has been a net negative [1]. And furthermore we have the peculiar problem that whenever a statistic does show that immigration has a net negative effect in Norway, that the government rapidly stops collecting the statistic as a mere coincidence [2].
I think we could potentially change our immigration policies so that immigration becomes a net positive, but I'm not interested in that. I just want it to stop.
The people who sold mass immigration as being an economic benefit did not actually ever care about the economy, they just thought it's the easiest way to convince people, and they have already pivoted to other reasons for supporting mass immigration because the thing they want is the mass immigration and the resulting consequences.
The people who sold mass immigration on economic grounds also never had any real data behind their claims that it is economically beneficial, and institutions like universities, media, entertainment pushed the unfounded claim uncritically, like good little soldiers, and then retroactively worked as hard as possible to only ever paint it in a positive light and to dismiss negative consequences.
The result in me is a complete distaste for the very idea of immigration. I just want my country back.
[1]: https://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/her-er-ssb-forsker-holmoys...
[2]: https://www.nettavisen.no/artikkel/alle-overfallsvoldtekter-...
The 4th top reply on this submission is: "the current admin are working hard to destroy the U.S as if they're foreign agents."
If I were a less patient man I would also find this inflammatory, but I know the person saying it just says it because they genuinely believe it, they aren't saying it to make me angry. Furthermore, because of the political bias prevalent here, most people here would agree with it, instead of disagree with it, so they would not find it inflammatory at all and do not consider what people with other political views than their own think of it.
I get more people will disagree with my comment than with the comment I quoted, and downvote my comment, but that is their choice. I posted it because that is my sentiment on this matter, this is what I genuinely believe. This to me is good news. As good as news can be. This is just the reality, and there is nothing intentionally inflammatory about reality. It just exists.
"Long-term planning" has never once given us a quantum leap in technology. Having humans "plan" AI evolution is dumb. This stuff is happening. You can cry about it, but nothing you do will stop it from happening.
The best you can do is stop it from happening in your country, and the only result will be that your country will become completely insignificant within a couple of years.
The US does not use crude oil from the Gulf to generate electricity. The US could scale electricity production at least 100 times without needing to import anything from the Middle East.
> there will be more once rivers start drying up
Rivers will not be drying up because of data centers.
yes.
The only threat to stable and affordable electricity supply is government regulations. The idea that we will from here on just have degrown and decline is insane. I'm not up for that. Which means we will always need more electricity, so time to get building more power plants. There is no bounds to how much electricity humans need, and the more we have the more prosperity we will have
As for water supply. Data centers barely make a blip on the water usage.
> The water, light and noise pollution?
The only one of these which actually has any validity is noise pollution, and the US has one of the lowest population densities of any country in the world, and data centres don't need to be close to population centres.
> The threat to jobs?
CEOs saying they are laying people off because of AI is not the same as anyone losing their job because of AI, but even if that was the case, it's about as smart as not using an electric drill to save jobs.
> The threat to truth and transparency?
AI does not only not threaten truth and transparency, it makes it easier to find the truth and to circumvent transperency restrictions.
> The threat to privacy?
It's not.
No. I'm not. The post I responded to literally said: "By burning the institutions down", which is why I asked "Which institutions has Trump burned down?"
> Take the EPA for another example
EPA is not an institution, it's a regulatory body which is part of the executive branch of the US government.
Also very odd that you did not actually address my question: how much less was spent on "scientific funding" by the US government in 2025?
Can you share exactly how much less was spent on "scientific funding" by the US government in 2025, and how exactly that amounts to Trump burning down the institutions?
[1]: https://www.independent.org/article/2025/12/30/2025-festivus...
What relevance does the common ground between countries have to morality? How does the common ground between Turkey and Greece, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Russia and Ukraine, North Korea and South Korea, China and Japan "discover" morality? Countries almost by definition don't have common ground, the closest they have is contested ground. People may have common ground, but it's somewhat fanciful to suggest that the representatives of the 18 countries who drafted the UDHR somehow was in any position to act as the moral representatives even for the 18 countries they represented.
They were some diplomats, probably all thoroughly immoral people if we somehow ever manage to figure out what the word moral actually meant, which I doubt.
Can you elaborate on this process as you understand it? I just can't quite wrap my head around this. To me, it seems that at best this process will result in something that exactly no person in the world would recognize as moral. A bit like Solomon's proposal to split the baby.
How do you define morality if you think the UN can discover it? Is there any way to check their work? Can I do a test to see if they made a mistake as I can with any other scientific disciple which discovers things about our world? Does their work make some prediction that we can actually check against reality to see if it's true or false?