The contentious part of that statement is what constitutes "healthy" and "stable". Look at Japan, stuck in a long deflationary period that looks like it will end very badly and is already going badly. They are very stable though.

That, for me, makes growth look much more tempting as a choice for what constitutes healthy.

I think it’s more likely that people often don’t like being in a noticeable out group, and that females experience that more negatively than males, so they skip it.

No need to blame anyone, and it doesn’t deny the attempt to help females participate.

You buying a doughnut - even half the doughnuts - from a doughnut shop does not increase the price of the remaining doughnuts unless they can't make enough to satisfy remaining demand and people are willing to outbid you rather than wait.

Does that power station have enough capacity to satisfy the remaining demand?

- needing to look in several places

- looking in one place

Easy to see why Twitter wins, even when information isn't exclusive, which it often is (I would've suggested video involved in news events, which is often impossible to find elsewhere but easily gathered on Twitter).

https://github.com/idursun/jjui

That is ahead for the majority of people.

That hinders development.

A more balanced view[1] of the proceedings is available via mainstream news:

> In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation.

> The lawsuit argues there is no “safe harbor” provision for companies that make good-faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person.

> It also says the law’s definition of “intimate part” is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public.

Calm down.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence...

- people are being arrested, charged, and prosecuted, for opinions

- that number is greater than 1

- the number of people being arrested under speech laws, per year, is reportedly[0] over 12,000

- some substantial number of those are for opinions, some are not but we don't know how many either way [0] (and considering the government were attempting to delete the Courtdesk archive[1], I'd say that's by design)

- "convictions and sentencings for the relevant offences had decreased dramatically" [0]

This points to overzealous policing and vague laws.

The criticisms by Americans, who are surely aghast at this state of affairs given their founding principles, cannot be dismissed until better numbers are available, but while the number we do know is > 1, the criticisms are valid if not entirely sound (but may be entirely sound).

[0] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off...

[1] https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/02/ministry-of-justice-order...

Physics is the study of physics, not history, no muslim scholars are relevant to modern physics, whereas Newton is relevant to modern physics. That's either because he's closer in the chain or because his work remains relevant, but either way he gets a mention for being relevant. Not every European mathematician or physicist is mentioned either, for the same reason. Descartes never came up, nor did Brahmagupta, nor did Tesla… the list of greats would be too long to mention and just wouldn't be relevant. Complaining about people nigh on 400 years ago not writing citations properly is an insubstantial complaint, to say the least.

No one else needs to care about your religion but you.