Secondly: The rot is a lot deeper than you seem to think. 10-20 years ago, maybe it was a vocal minority. Now it is a vocal minority and a large majority that got hired because they are on board with the program, and a very tiny minority that are hanging on despite how bad it has gotten. You don't get universities directly stating in job postings that they will only consider women and minority applicants when it is a tiny minority pushing an otherwise disliked agenda, you get it when everyone is on board and there is no one left in the room to say "Uhm, this is a really bad idea, and probably illegal."
Academia has been an increasingly left wing echo chamber for a long, long time now, and the left has no limiting mechanisms on the ever more rapid descent into progressive woke madness. The academy has selected not for intelligence or truth seeking but for conscientious and creative rationalization of conformity to orthodox opinion, which is exactly where the midwits excel.
I got that It was a joke. I just didn't think it was clever or funny. And since you are still defending the position, I was correct to treat it as a serious statement.
I never said TINY minority. I said minority. I'd agree the problem group has grown in size too.
I agree many are keeping their heads down, hoping not to get caught up in the shitstorm, rather standing up for right and that emboldens the ones causing the problems but that does not make them midwits.
A refundable child tax credit (with a >4 taper) would certainly help both materially and as a signal that child raising was valued. It might be structured so that it was little more generous for two-parent families. Firms coud be given tax credits (above deductibility) for paternity leave, care-leave days. Land use and building code reforms would also help beyond their economic cost benefit value.
These things work as long as money is free and comes at no cost elsewhere. Enough countries have tried cash and encouragement with no discernible effect
Large families come from children being born to young parents, and parents don't have children unless at a young age they (specifically the woman) values having children ahead of working or going to college. If you are working to support your family life then you can have a large family, if you are having a family as part of your identity as a woman then you are going to have a degree, husband and house before you have kids, and when you do have kids you will aim for 1 or 2.
I didn't say, or imply, that you had to skip college, what I said was about priorities. You can go to college and have multiple kids. You can go to college, have a career and have multiple kids, but having large families means you are prioritizing having a large family and those other aspects have to be reduced in value. You can go to college and get a degree and then have children but that means looking at your degree differently than if you use that degree to start an ambitious career.
“parents don't have children unless at a young age they (specifically the woman) values having children ahead of working or going to college."
I'm not sure how to read this other than meaning not going to college. Either way, most people don't have what I'd consider an "ambitious career," even if they sometimes work more than 40 hr/wk.
Because a value is what you use to decide on an action. A person who values their children can still work, but their motivation for working is primarily for their children/families benefit. A woman might go to college and study early childhood education and then teach for a few years before having children because she wants that experience for raising her own kids, or she might have that same early progression for different reasons entirely. The difference could be (just to invent an example) a person who waits to have children so they can afford a good number of creature comforts, and then has 1 or 2 and drives them around in a luxury SUV vs a person who has children earlier and has 4-6 and drives them around in a used Minivan.
For the most part I have no idea what you point is or what you are responding to but the decision to "waits to have children so they can afford a good number of creature comforts" is entirely independent of whether someone goes to college, ignoring secondary impacts of college debt and higher salary which make it harder and easier respectively.
It's a matter of how well the woman juggles her time commitments between age 18 and "hitting the wall" or infertility, both of which come early enough to surprise the majority of women.
Of course, those of us whose primary concern is preventing the Great Replacement should be looking at dismantling LBJ's welfare system, which heavily subsidizes single motherhood and thus discourages families from forming or staying together. Read Sowell about that.
The point was simply that both being a mother and having a career outside the home is much harder than feminists would have us believe, and that feminist supported labor laws have made it even harder, not only by making it more expensive to hire women than men (paid family leave + the Equal Pay Act) but also by making it too dangerous to try to date a co-worker.
Don't get me wrong, I do not hate women. But however much fairer we are being by giving women more choices, the effort is self-defeating because it is causing both the unproductive poor (single mothers) and Muslims to outbreed us, and when they outnumber us enough they will enact sharia and women's choices will be entirely gone. I would like to put a stop to that path of change while it is still possible, if it is.
“Getting back to having some people with large families would require some combination of raising the status of large families, encouraging people to marry younger, reducing the effort that parents must put into caring for children, and enhancing fertility of women in their late 30s and beyond.“
As noted below, financial incentives in many countries over the past decade or so don’t really appear to work. There’s a reason pretty much any family with more than three kids is probably much more religious than average.
Of the options Professor Kling listed, I’m most dubious about the last one. It’s not just fertility, it’s stamina and endurance.
In your mid to late thirties, what person has the energy to do all or most of what is needed for one newborn through four to five years old? There’s only so much child rearing you can outsource before you’ve effectively given up your kids for adoption.
Now extend that over 3 or more kids and you’re probably into your late forties or fifties, at the kind of child-spacing millennials engage in. Exhaustion wins over desire for most.
Until they come up with a pill for near perpetual youth, in which case you won’t need children anymore, allowing people to delay child birth into later years isn’t going to fix this problem.
I hate passkeys. They’re great for Google but terrible for people. Imagine you are traveling with your phone and laptop and someone robs you and steals them both. Guess what! They’ve stolen all the hardware credentials that prove you are who you are. So how do you get back into your gmail now with a different device? It will certainly be complicated and perhaps impossible since there’s no way to contact a human there.
Gmail and other accounts ask you to nominate mobile number or other email accounts for recovery purposes. In the event disaster strikes, you can request they send info to these to begin recovery procedures. In any case more websites have ‘I forgot my password’ procedures.
Something similar happened to me with a "smart key" phone app. An Airbnb host decided that having a smart key app to access an apartment is flexible, easy and reliable. What if I can't use my phone? I'm not only locked out of the apartment but also have no way to contact the host, in a foreign city where I don't know anyone.
I probably didn’t read the early descriptions of passkeys closely enough but ... You ca. lose your device. That’s Ok! To sign up, you have to designate someone to be your backup holder. Their device will allow you to authenticate a new device. Hmm. So the true friendless loners have a new problem. And everyone who has their spouse or significant other be their backup, only to enter into a nasty divorce gets to add more problems if they don’t promptly change their backup. And there are probably other scenarios that I can’t think of. Is this really the wave of the future?
I wonder if your perspective on passkeys isn't pretty widely shared. I've been hearing about how passwords are going away for about four years now, I think, and yet I have more of them than ever. At this point, it's beginning to seem like the IT version of a fusion reactor: perpetually just a few years away.
As someone with a close-up view of a large non-profit - I will say that there is a divide between those at the top (principally in D.C.) and those "in the field" across the nation. There's an almost total incongruity between what the former do and promulgate and celebrate and interest themselves in - and what the actual employees do (which is, time warp like, much, much closer to the organization's chartered mission - which incidentally the folks in D.C. haven't had the courage or felt the need to change despite having abandoned it as their priority).
There is a feeling of struggle, as against hostile forces. It would thus not be fair to say that the midwit contagion affects the whole organization - it really is those at the top who seem to have no common sense (as for instance, about consideration of donors and of potential political differences or even the simple, non-political fact that the nation is not homogeneous, the map is not the territory, etc.) and no genuine interest in the stated goals of the organization [which are important *and nowhere else replicated unlike leftist/woke ideology which has tens of thousands of its own dedicated non-profits doing whatever needs to be done on that front*] and no notion whatever of why people have traditionally liked and supported the group.
And do not effing tell me I should post under my own name. We are not all of us independently wealthy armchair pundits with academic sinecures and nothing to lose.
There are several solutions to this. Mine is to have a simple plaintext file, with a non-obvious name, that lists all my passwords, and keep it on my encrypted Linux machine. I still have to memorize the passwords needed to unlock that machine, but not any others, and they are all gobbledygook passwords that no dictionary attack will turn up. The encrypted machine ensures that if someone steals my PC he will not have my data -- he will have only a PC that needs to be formatted and a new operating system installed before he can use it.
For those not up to setting up an encrypted machine, next best would be to keep your PC locked in a cabinet or drawer when you're not using it.
Mother has a couple of ruled notebook pages in a drawer with lots of scratchouts and even an occasional referent to what the password goes to, but also some question marks. Nonetheless enough of them share a theme that has caused one grandchild to become tagged as "the favorite". The public library username and password are taped onto the ipad, however. They can do it if it really matters to them.
I recall the SNL "Back Home Ballers" skit skillfully wove in a joke about parental passwords.
There is an additional consideration about passkeys and biometrics vs passwords: by a quirk of the legal mind, a court can force you to surrender your passkeys and unlock devices with your biometrics, because those are considered merely a kind of physical evidence, but it cannot force you to surrender your passwords because that involves your mental faculties.
Yes, if someone knows your passkey and has device and can use it having stole your PIN, fingerprint (which is all over your device) or built a 3d model of your face, they can do whatever they want...until you tell Google (or other passkey provider) of the theft, after which they have no access. (How you get access back isn't quite so clear; you need the provider to know of another device.)
So no, it isn't good enough for CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, spies, etc..
You may have a workable alternative that is more secure for you. But you would be in a small minority in that case, and be aware of the problems. I would bet someone with access to John Doe's phone could already do anything they like by resetting passwords, starting with the email password.
Passkeys work pretty well in day to day use. Are they more secure? In theory yes. In reality maybe not so much. There are no current sites with Passkeys that don't also require passwords. I guess one possibility is that the Passkeys might give more users the confidence to use unique random long passwords.
“Instinctively, I would rather see a bunch of sub-optimal security systems in the ecosystem than for everyone to depend on one supposedly unbreakable security system. “
Very good example being the Enigma machine used by the Germans in WWII, its billions of random combinations supposedly unbreakable, which led to a false sense of security, yet code breakers led by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park did the ‘impossible’ and did break it. The British were reading communications almost as fast as they were transmitted, and sometimes before the intended recipient read them. It is said it reduced the length of the war by 4 years and saved millions of lives.
The problem isn’t the password system, it’s the Human element. People use weak passwords, and give them to scammers. I have a password manager which generates complex passwords and stores them encrypted, so I don’t have to remember or write them down. Biometric passwords, are convenient and secure to a point, but they still involve Humans - that’s the weakest link. I have iPhone (face recognition) and iPad (finger print) which if switched off require a PIN when switched on again, and periodically require the PIN when waking them from standby. So there is some protection if somebody chops your finger off or rips your face off. But of course, they can always torture you to give up your PIN.
Regarding the Warby comment, I am afraid the problem goes well beyond the "midwits." A key feature of modern Liberalism, i.e., the politics of the transformative future, is a radical or normative individualism. This is the idea that, to paraphrase British philosopher John Gray, there is nothing of ultimate value beyond individual states of mind or feeling, or aspects of individual life, and therefore the claims of individuals should prevail over those of collectivities, often embodied in custom and tradition. In such a situation, it is unlikely that a valued evolved way of life can be maintained across generations. The individual is conceived of as sovereign in his moral authority, but no one would have any reason to listen to him. Moral reasoning is always within some moral community and appeals to shared values. When there are none, or they are only very weakly shared, morality becomes quite crude - just a matter of visceral reactions; i.e., there is no moral reasoning.
The lack of epistemic humility — a deference to the reality of structure, to the wants, wishes and perspectives of others — is rooted in this normative individualism and gives rise to the toxic uselessness of moral narcissism to which Warby refers. It ensnares even quite intelligent people among the "anywheres," the professional and managerial classes. However, the non-virtuals, the "somewheres," those who live and work with physical reality, are less caught up in it.
> A key feature of modern Liberalism, i.e., the politics of the transformative future, is a radical or normative individualism.
This may have looked true from a certain point of view in the 50s or the 60s, when what you call Liberalism was engaged in breaking down its predecessor and raised the cry of radical or normative individualism against its stultifying social conventions etc. etc., but today it's just bullshit. Individual states of mind and feeling are obviously not valued equally (some are, in fact, valued most negatively). Claims of some classes of individuals (collectivities) are treated as much more legitimate than those of other classes of individuals. No amount of radical or normative individualism explains the preoccupation with global climate change or equality of outcomes, or the idolization of certain demographic groups. Even in an issue like abortion / female reproductive rights, where the position of what you call Liberalism superficially most resembles a clear cut radical or normative individualism, the claims of one class of individual are treated as absolute whereas other individuals involved are either dismissed or not recognized as such. So much for radical or normative individualism. What you call Liberalism is a living moral community all right, however repugnant its morality may be to you, with customs, traditions and shared values, and a system of moral reasoning which appeals to all that. Pretending otherwise is counterproductive.
Aren't all of the big hacking problems much bigger than somebody obtained John Doe's passwords and was able to (yikes!) read the results of his blood test or even took money from his bank account?.
Phones are part of the problem, but there are many issues. The decline in teenage employment drastically reduces their independence. play dates reduce their independence. The list goes on and on.
When you get to 3+ it becomes unaffordable to engage in linear solutions (each kid costs more in daycare, etc) to parenting problems for all but the very well off. It's hard for me to see a solution to that which doesn't involve more SAHM, as once a woman is at home you've basically turned a lot of the linear solutions into zero marginal cost solutions.
Education is a big one two. Without vouchers the decision to go private becomes basically impossible at 3+. I heard this story yesterday from many people with big families at a kids birthday party who had done private throughout COVID but couldn't keep it up especially once they had an extra kid. So if that's important to you then you really see having another kid as cheating the other two out of a good upbringing. Note that the private school in question cost $10k/year, our district spends $17k/year.
There are also a lot of big cost jumps at three kids. Mainly real estate and cars all have to size up to the next level.
I feel that paying people to be SAHM and other child incentives would do a lot to solve this problem.
"Maybe the top 200 colleges and universities need to be fumigated and purged of Midwits among their students, faculty, and bureaucracies."
The remaining 4 or 5 people who show up to work the next day are going to be really confused. Finding parking will be a lot easier, though.
Besides intelligence not being the problem, there is a very low percentage of academics at top 200 schools
There have always been tons of opinionated, full-of-themselves academics who think they are more genius than they are. That's not the problem either.
There have always been academics with no common sense.
The problem is the vocal minority who have gained control and impose their opinions to limit others freedom of study.
Firstly: you are missing the joke.
Secondly: The rot is a lot deeper than you seem to think. 10-20 years ago, maybe it was a vocal minority. Now it is a vocal minority and a large majority that got hired because they are on board with the program, and a very tiny minority that are hanging on despite how bad it has gotten. You don't get universities directly stating in job postings that they will only consider women and minority applicants when it is a tiny minority pushing an otherwise disliked agenda, you get it when everyone is on board and there is no one left in the room to say "Uhm, this is a really bad idea, and probably illegal."
Academia has been an increasingly left wing echo chamber for a long, long time now, and the left has no limiting mechanisms on the ever more rapid descent into progressive woke madness. The academy has selected not for intelligence or truth seeking but for conscientious and creative rationalization of conformity to orthodox opinion, which is exactly where the midwits excel.
I got that It was a joke. I just didn't think it was clever or funny. And since you are still defending the position, I was correct to treat it as a serious statement.
I never said TINY minority. I said minority. I'd agree the problem group has grown in size too.
I agree many are keeping their heads down, hoping not to get caught up in the shitstorm, rather standing up for right and that emboldens the ones causing the problems but that does not make them midwits.
LOL!!
A refundable child tax credit (with a >4 taper) would certainly help both materially and as a signal that child raising was valued. It might be structured so that it was little more generous for two-parent families. Firms coud be given tax credits (above deductibility) for paternity leave, care-leave days. Land use and building code reforms would also help beyond their economic cost benefit value.
These things work as long as money is free and comes at no cost elsewhere. Enough countries have tried cash and encouragement with no discernible effect
Large families come from children being born to young parents, and parents don't have children unless at a young age they (specifically the woman) values having children ahead of working or going to college. If you are working to support your family life then you can have a large family, if you are having a family as part of your identity as a woman then you are going to have a degree, husband and house before you have kids, and when you do have kids you will aim for 1 or 2.
There is absolutely zero reason college grads CAN'T have 4 kids. I know such people. That is not the issue. Not at all.
I didn't say, or imply, that you had to skip college, what I said was about priorities. You can go to college and have multiple kids. You can go to college, have a career and have multiple kids, but having large families means you are prioritizing having a large family and those other aspects have to be reduced in value. You can go to college and get a degree and then have children but that means looking at your degree differently than if you use that degree to start an ambitious career.
“parents don't have children unless at a young age they (specifically the woman) values having children ahead of working or going to college."
I'm not sure how to read this other than meaning not going to college. Either way, most people don't have what I'd consider an "ambitious career," even if they sometimes work more than 40 hr/wk.
Because a value is what you use to decide on an action. A person who values their children can still work, but their motivation for working is primarily for their children/families benefit. A woman might go to college and study early childhood education and then teach for a few years before having children because she wants that experience for raising her own kids, or she might have that same early progression for different reasons entirely. The difference could be (just to invent an example) a person who waits to have children so they can afford a good number of creature comforts, and then has 1 or 2 and drives them around in a luxury SUV vs a person who has children earlier and has 4-6 and drives them around in a used Minivan.
For the most part I have no idea what you point is or what you are responding to but the decision to "waits to have children so they can afford a good number of creature comforts" is entirely independent of whether someone goes to college, ignoring secondary impacts of college debt and higher salary which make it harder and easier respectively.
It's a matter of how well the woman juggles her time commitments between age 18 and "hitting the wall" or infertility, both of which come early enough to surprise the majority of women.
Of course, those of us whose primary concern is preventing the Great Replacement should be looking at dismantling LBJ's welfare system, which heavily subsidizes single motherhood and thus discourages families from forming or staying together. Read Sowell about that.
I agree but I don't know what your point is
The point was simply that both being a mother and having a career outside the home is much harder than feminists would have us believe, and that feminist supported labor laws have made it even harder, not only by making it more expensive to hire women than men (paid family leave + the Equal Pay Act) but also by making it too dangerous to try to date a co-worker.
Don't get me wrong, I do not hate women. But however much fairer we are being by giving women more choices, the effort is self-defeating because it is causing both the unproductive poor (single mothers) and Muslims to outbreed us, and when they outnumber us enough they will enact sharia and women's choices will be entirely gone. I would like to put a stop to that path of change while it is still possible, if it is.
lol.
Not only do many people still meet spouses on the job, there is no dearth of infidelity, also often with coworkers.
I have no clue why paid family leave or equal pay makes women MORE expensive than men.
Giving women more choices does not CAUSE anyone to be unproductive, poor or a single mother.
“Getting back to having some people with large families would require some combination of raising the status of large families, encouraging people to marry younger, reducing the effort that parents must put into caring for children, and enhancing fertility of women in their late 30s and beyond.“
As noted below, financial incentives in many countries over the past decade or so don’t really appear to work. There’s a reason pretty much any family with more than three kids is probably much more religious than average.
Of the options Professor Kling listed, I’m most dubious about the last one. It’s not just fertility, it’s stamina and endurance.
In your mid to late thirties, what person has the energy to do all or most of what is needed for one newborn through four to five years old? There’s only so much child rearing you can outsource before you’ve effectively given up your kids for adoption.
Now extend that over 3 or more kids and you’re probably into your late forties or fifties, at the kind of child-spacing millennials engage in. Exhaustion wins over desire for most.
Until they come up with a pill for near perpetual youth, in which case you won’t need children anymore, allowing people to delay child birth into later years isn’t going to fix this problem.
I hate passkeys. They’re great for Google but terrible for people. Imagine you are traveling with your phone and laptop and someone robs you and steals them both. Guess what! They’ve stolen all the hardware credentials that prove you are who you are. So how do you get back into your gmail now with a different device? It will certainly be complicated and perhaps impossible since there’s no way to contact a human there.
This all seems predicated on having not one but two devices on your person at all times.
I guess it could be a boon for Apple watches.
Gmail and other accounts ask you to nominate mobile number or other email accounts for recovery purposes. In the event disaster strikes, you can request they send info to these to begin recovery procedures. In any case more websites have ‘I forgot my password’ procedures.
Something similar happened to me with a "smart key" phone app. An Airbnb host decided that having a smart key app to access an apartment is flexible, easy and reliable. What if I can't use my phone? I'm not only locked out of the apartment but also have no way to contact the host, in a foreign city where I don't know anyone.
I probably didn’t read the early descriptions of passkeys closely enough but ... You ca. lose your device. That’s Ok! To sign up, you have to designate someone to be your backup holder. Their device will allow you to authenticate a new device. Hmm. So the true friendless loners have a new problem. And everyone who has their spouse or significant other be their backup, only to enter into a nasty divorce gets to add more problems if they don’t promptly change their backup. And there are probably other scenarios that I can’t think of. Is this really the wave of the future?
I wonder if your perspective on passkeys isn't pretty widely shared. I've been hearing about how passwords are going away for about four years now, I think, and yet I have more of them than ever. At this point, it's beginning to seem like the IT version of a fusion reactor: perpetually just a few years away.
As someone with a close-up view of a large non-profit - I will say that there is a divide between those at the top (principally in D.C.) and those "in the field" across the nation. There's an almost total incongruity between what the former do and promulgate and celebrate and interest themselves in - and what the actual employees do (which is, time warp like, much, much closer to the organization's chartered mission - which incidentally the folks in D.C. haven't had the courage or felt the need to change despite having abandoned it as their priority).
There is a feeling of struggle, as against hostile forces. It would thus not be fair to say that the midwit contagion affects the whole organization - it really is those at the top who seem to have no common sense (as for instance, about consideration of donors and of potential political differences or even the simple, non-political fact that the nation is not homogeneous, the map is not the territory, etc.) and no genuine interest in the stated goals of the organization [which are important *and nowhere else replicated unlike leftist/woke ideology which has tens of thousands of its own dedicated non-profits doing whatever needs to be done on that front*] and no notion whatever of why people have traditionally liked and supported the group.
And do not effing tell me I should post under my own name. We are not all of us independently wealthy armchair pundits with academic sinecures and nothing to lose.
Except HR. HR is mostly a vector for the contagion, no matter where located.
My mom has a different string randomized password for every single thing in her life.
She also can’t remember any of them and thus can’t do anything at all online.
There are several solutions to this. Mine is to have a simple plaintext file, with a non-obvious name, that lists all my passwords, and keep it on my encrypted Linux machine. I still have to memorize the passwords needed to unlock that machine, but not any others, and they are all gobbledygook passwords that no dictionary attack will turn up. The encrypted machine ensures that if someone steals my PC he will not have my data -- he will have only a PC that needs to be formatted and a new operating system installed before he can use it.
For those not up to setting up an encrypted machine, next best would be to keep your PC locked in a cabinet or drawer when you're not using it.
Someone else mentioned password managers. That is what I have gone to, and seems like a good method.
Mother has a couple of ruled notebook pages in a drawer with lots of scratchouts and even an occasional referent to what the password goes to, but also some question marks. Nonetheless enough of them share a theme that has caused one grandchild to become tagged as "the favorite". The public library username and password are taped onto the ipad, however. They can do it if it really matters to them.
I recall the SNL "Back Home Ballers" skit skillfully wove in a joke about parental passwords.
There is an additional consideration about passkeys and biometrics vs passwords: by a quirk of the legal mind, a court can force you to surrender your passkeys and unlock devices with your biometrics, because those are considered merely a kind of physical evidence, but it cannot force you to surrender your passwords because that involves your mental faculties.
No, you aren't really correct on passkeys.
Yes, if someone knows your passkey and has device and can use it having stole your PIN, fingerprint (which is all over your device) or built a 3d model of your face, they can do whatever they want...until you tell Google (or other passkey provider) of the theft, after which they have no access. (How you get access back isn't quite so clear; you need the provider to know of another device.)
So no, it isn't good enough for CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, spies, etc..
You may have a workable alternative that is more secure for you. But you would be in a small minority in that case, and be aware of the problems. I would bet someone with access to John Doe's phone could already do anything they like by resetting passwords, starting with the email password.
"Or as Brian Chau says, Midwits."
Vox Day came up with that over a decade ago. He's kind of a nut, but he deserves credit when he produces the occasional gem.
Passkeys work pretty well in day to day use. Are they more secure? In theory yes. In reality maybe not so much. There are no current sites with Passkeys that don't also require passwords. I guess one possibility is that the Passkeys might give more users the confidence to use unique random long passwords.
“Instinctively, I would rather see a bunch of sub-optimal security systems in the ecosystem than for everyone to depend on one supposedly unbreakable security system. “
Very good example being the Enigma machine used by the Germans in WWII, its billions of random combinations supposedly unbreakable, which led to a false sense of security, yet code breakers led by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park did the ‘impossible’ and did break it. The British were reading communications almost as fast as they were transmitted, and sometimes before the intended recipient read them. It is said it reduced the length of the war by 4 years and saved millions of lives.
The problem isn’t the password system, it’s the Human element. People use weak passwords, and give them to scammers. I have a password manager which generates complex passwords and stores them encrypted, so I don’t have to remember or write them down. Biometric passwords, are convenient and secure to a point, but they still involve Humans - that’s the weakest link. I have iPhone (face recognition) and iPad (finger print) which if switched off require a PIN when switched on again, and periodically require the PIN when waking them from standby. So there is some protection if somebody chops your finger off or rips your face off. But of course, they can always torture you to give up your PIN.
Regarding the Warby comment, I am afraid the problem goes well beyond the "midwits." A key feature of modern Liberalism, i.e., the politics of the transformative future, is a radical or normative individualism. This is the idea that, to paraphrase British philosopher John Gray, there is nothing of ultimate value beyond individual states of mind or feeling, or aspects of individual life, and therefore the claims of individuals should prevail over those of collectivities, often embodied in custom and tradition. In such a situation, it is unlikely that a valued evolved way of life can be maintained across generations. The individual is conceived of as sovereign in his moral authority, but no one would have any reason to listen to him. Moral reasoning is always within some moral community and appeals to shared values. When there are none, or they are only very weakly shared, morality becomes quite crude - just a matter of visceral reactions; i.e., there is no moral reasoning.
The lack of epistemic humility — a deference to the reality of structure, to the wants, wishes and perspectives of others — is rooted in this normative individualism and gives rise to the toxic uselessness of moral narcissism to which Warby refers. It ensnares even quite intelligent people among the "anywheres," the professional and managerial classes. However, the non-virtuals, the "somewheres," those who live and work with physical reality, are less caught up in it.
> A key feature of modern Liberalism, i.e., the politics of the transformative future, is a radical or normative individualism.
This may have looked true from a certain point of view in the 50s or the 60s, when what you call Liberalism was engaged in breaking down its predecessor and raised the cry of radical or normative individualism against its stultifying social conventions etc. etc., but today it's just bullshit. Individual states of mind and feeling are obviously not valued equally (some are, in fact, valued most negatively). Claims of some classes of individuals (collectivities) are treated as much more legitimate than those of other classes of individuals. No amount of radical or normative individualism explains the preoccupation with global climate change or equality of outcomes, or the idolization of certain demographic groups. Even in an issue like abortion / female reproductive rights, where the position of what you call Liberalism superficially most resembles a clear cut radical or normative individualism, the claims of one class of individual are treated as absolute whereas other individuals involved are either dismissed or not recognized as such. So much for radical or normative individualism. What you call Liberalism is a living moral community all right, however repugnant its morality may be to you, with customs, traditions and shared values, and a system of moral reasoning which appeals to all that. Pretending otherwise is counterproductive.
Aren't all of the big hacking problems much bigger than somebody obtained John Doe's passwords and was able to (yikes!) read the results of his blood test or even took money from his bank account?.
Phones are part of the problem, but there are many issues. The decline in teenage employment drastically reduces their independence. play dates reduce their independence. The list goes on and on.
When you get to 3+ it becomes unaffordable to engage in linear solutions (each kid costs more in daycare, etc) to parenting problems for all but the very well off. It's hard for me to see a solution to that which doesn't involve more SAHM, as once a woman is at home you've basically turned a lot of the linear solutions into zero marginal cost solutions.
Education is a big one two. Without vouchers the decision to go private becomes basically impossible at 3+. I heard this story yesterday from many people with big families at a kids birthday party who had done private throughout COVID but couldn't keep it up especially once they had an extra kid. So if that's important to you then you really see having another kid as cheating the other two out of a good upbringing. Note that the private school in question cost $10k/year, our district spends $17k/year.
There are also a lot of big cost jumps at three kids. Mainly real estate and cars all have to size up to the next level.
I feel that paying people to be SAHM and other child incentives would do a lot to solve this problem.