internetOfShit

The future is gonna be fun

Le taux de césarienne par grossesse atteignait 23 % en Europe, 35,6 % dans la région des Amériques, et 24,1 % dans la région du Pacifique ouest, selon les derniers chiffres disponibles de l'OMS (de 2008). Seules l'Afrique (3,8 %) et l'Asie du Sud-Est (8,8 %) semblent épargnées par ce phénomène. […]
[des] études ont permis de démontrer que les taux de césarienne supérieurs à 10 % ne sont pas associés à une réduction des taux de mortalité maternelle et néonatale. En revanche, l'OMS reconnaît qu'en dessous d'un taux de 10 %, la mortalité néonatale et maternelle diminue à mesure que le taux de césarienne augmente.

This can’t be pure price-gouging, since corporate profits haven’t increased nearly enough to be where all the money is going. But a while ago a commenter linked me to the Delta Cost Project, which scrutinizes the exact causes of increasing college tuition. Some of it is the administrative bloat that you would expect. But a lot of it is fun “student life” types of activities like clubs, festivals, and paying Milo Yiannopoulos to speak and then cleaning up after the ensuing riots. These sorts of things improve the student experience, but I’m not sure that the average student would rather go to an expensive college with clubs/festivals/Milo than a cheap college without them. More important, it doesn’t really seem like the average student is offered this choice. […]
It’s almost as if industries have their own reasons for switching to more-bells-and-whistles services that people don’t necessarily want, and consumers just go along with it because for some reason they’re not exercising choice the same as they would in other markets.

I don’t know why more people don’t just come out and say “LOOK, REALLY OUR MAIN PROBLEM IS THAT ALL THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS COST TEN TIMES AS MUCH AS THEY USED TO FOR NO REASON, PLUS THEY SEEM TO BE GOING DOWN IN QUALITY, AND NOBODY KNOWS WHY, AND WE’RE MOSTLY JUST DESPERATELY FLAILING AROUND LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS HERE.” State that clearly, and a lot of political debates take on a different light. […]
Imagine if tomorrow, the price of water dectupled. Suddenly people have to choose between drinking and washing dishes. Activists argue that taking a shower is a basic human right, and grumpy talk show hosts point out that in their day, parents taught their children not to waste water. A coalition promotes laws ensuring government-subsidized free water for poor families; a Fox News investigative report shows that some people receiving water on the government dime are taking long luxurious showers. Everyone gets really angry and there’s lots of talk about basic compassion and personal responsibility and whatever but all of this is secondary to why does water costs ten times what it used to? […]
If we give everyone free college education, that solves a big social problem. It also locks in a price which is ten times too high for no reason. This isn’t fair to the government, which has to pay ten times more than it should. It’s not fair to the poor people, who have to face the stigma of accepting handouts for something they could easily have afforded themselves if it was at its proper price. And it’s not fair to future generations if colleges take this opportunity to increase the cost by twenty times, and then our children have to subsidize that.

Even if you’re making twice as much money, if your health care and education and so on cost ten times as much, you’re going to start falling behind. Right now the standard of living isn’t just stagnant, it’s at risk of declining, and a lot of that is student loans and health insurance costs and so on.

What’s happening? I don’t know and I find it really scary.

Une vidéo assez bien faite pour se projeter sur l'enfer que pourrai être la réalité augmenté.

via sebsauvage

« Finalement la question est: peut-on arrêter le progrès ? Certains auteurs (notamment Ellul) ont relevé le caractère autonome de la technique: elle obéit à sa propre logique, et ne peut pas être contrôlée, tant elle est imbriquée dans notre société. En outre Neirynck[1] relève le caractère coercitif de la technique, le choix n'est jamais laissé: si on ne va pas de l'avant, quelqu'un d'autre le fera avant nous et nous serons forcés par la suite de nous soumettre.

Personnellement je trouve que dans ce genre de sujet le plus grand problème est la sous-enchère éthique (ou morale), ou si un pays ou l'autre fixe des règles relativement strictes, ses concitoyens n'auront qu'à se rendre (ou envoyer des échantillons) à l'étranger. Une bonne solution serait une solution globale, mais il semble cela semble peu probable, l'exemple de la COP21 montre que le consensus global n'est pas facile à obtenir… »