Yeah. But people won’t change willingly. A lot of the suburbs around my city are pretty rich areas. I don’t expect those people to willingly move to the denser inner city anytime soon. More likely they’ll petition city hall to keep their subdivisions running until the city goes bankrupt from the financial burden of supporting a subdivision that does not bring in enough property taxes to support itself

Population decline is a global phenomenon. You can’t offset this loss with immigration when the countries people are coming from are also experiencing a population decline. We (in the West) are currently using immigration to offset this loss now, but when the population decline really starts hitting other parts of the globe (as it is projected to do within the next few decades) then that will no longer be a solution.

The rotting infrastructure problem is made a lot worse by urban sprawl

This is not about communism vs capitalism, its about the ratios. If there are 5 old people for every young person then how are we supposed to take care of all the old people? There’s just not enough manpower.

Theres a current boycott? What’s going on there?

No where in this link does it say that French is an official language of Manitoba. It’s not. Manitoba often allows francophones to access government services in French but that is not the same as it being an official language

You weren’t wrong. The link provided does not say that French is an official language of Manitoba, just that it can be accessed for government services etc. The other commentator appears to be confused

Even burger king is hard to get a job at these days.

I’m not the guy you’re arguing with, but it will be interesting to see if/how LLMs deal with novel Gödel sentences in a way that is more than just mimicry. I’m sure there is a way to set this up that is mathematically rigourous.

The idea is that there are some statements which are true but unprovable in a formal system. Since LLMs run on a computer they are technically a formal system of sorts. So it will be interesting to see if they can pinpoint the true yet unprovable sentences. If they can it will lead to a lot of interesting questions about how exactly they know it’s true without “proving” it in some roundabout way.

I’m not doing this issue justice. A lot has been written on this by Roger Penrose (you don’t have to agree with his stance to appreciate that he’s touching on an interesting problem, here).