It’s not that they believe AI tools are replacing workers, it’s using the new free cash flow allows them to invest in AI.

They are betting that their AI business will be profitable, and need to cut costs to invest in it.

Ah, sorry, I guess I'm not sure what it is you're actually debating needs to be fixed. Are children being born today with more birth defects and we (society) now want to concern ourselves with the issue that if parents want to have children, they need to plan for it and start earlier? Is that what a supposed objective policy would try to address?

Men also have a clock and birth defects are known to go up the older they are. So this can't be limited to women regardless of policy decisions.

I'm also not sure there could be any actual conversative government policy that could fix what is ultimately a financial incentives problem. Lots of parents would start earlier if they were able to have things like home ownership and space to raise kids in, and education systems that don't skew towards needing upper middle class levels of access to. Any potential new idea with any realistic long term fix would end up looking quite progressive and in our current hostile environment become a no-go for any conservative political appointee.

VR was never the endgame though. It was always AR, except, the "metaverse" bet assumed people were going to adopt AR in the same abundance that they adopted phones.

It was a cool concept, when you were dreaming it up while taking a shower in the morning getting ready for work thinking about the next big idea.

However, it's like those weird Uber/Lyft scooters that popped up in the 2010s. Those things were a cool concept too. However, we got to see right away that it was a terrible business idea for all kinds of reasons.

It took Meta several years (decade +) and 10s of billions of dollars and layoffs to realize, AR was a terrible business idea.

VR is a fun hobby though, and Oculus definitely owns that space.

This whole article is nonsense.

Yes, the Trump administration fucked over a decade of university research with his weird DEI campaign. That same fuckery also blew up all kinds of research grants not tied to universities. I'm sure some of us here know someone directly impacted by that decision. It was cruel and ruthless.

Otherwise, everything else that article talks about is a nothing-burger.

I can't tell you my professors' political beliefs, nor did I care. I went to school to learn about the world and topics that interested me. If there was a professor who tried to radicalize me or speak about things I didn't agree with, I would have dropped the class.

Some students are like me, and are there loving the process of learning. Other students couldn't care less, and are happy just to get the grade and get out of there. Either way, if a teacher is going to make a course an extension of their personal beliefs, I highly doubt any student will suddenly assimilate if they didn't already agree. They'll just bitch to their friends that the professor is some wacko, and roll their eyes.

No no, some conservatives are just trying to do what they love doing and that's get academics worked up and divided for empty rhetoric.

Who is "they" here?

Having a single-income parent in a two-parent home was the norm for most of US history. It's also still the norm outside of the US. Where is the evidence that children are worse off because both parents work? Kids (5+) barely spend any time at home during a typical work day, so I'm not sure what "they" are correct about.

How is it objectively correct that women should, on average, have children earlier? Sorry, but this is purely a subjective statement and women are free to agree or disagree with that statement.

Having been raised by my grandparents, I personally believe the only secret for success is to show up for children, and love them and provide them a stable environment to thrive in. Everything else is just window dressing.