Excuse me, are you suggesting that any amount of "nuance" could make these acceptable? Or that people "finding" out about it is a bad thing?

It's a matter of selection bias, presented as neutrality. Focusing most of the attention on one side of the matter lacks nuance.

Children are an asset for net tax-recipients, but a liability for net tax-payers. I grew up in a very poor area and heard firsthand teenage girls excited over how much welfare money they can receive for babies. It's an inversion of the natural order. It's state-manipulated breeding incentives between different classes of people. It's literally eugenics.

Children are a massive asset for tax-payers. Money is a claim on the production of a country. Without that production, money is just a useless piece of paper or useless entry in a bank database. And for a country to produce, it needs people of working age.

More concretely, let's suppose you're 92 and you need full time nursing care. You still have retirements savings so should be able to pay for it. Now let's say there are more people needing nursing than there are nurses. What happens to the cost of that nursing? It goes up until some cannot afford to pay and demand balances supply.

Without a working age population, your retirement assets will be inflated away into worthlessness.

Nobody thinks like this. Not a single intelligent, successful, prosperous woman is going to be even slightly motivated to have a baby over the long-term viability and credibility of fiat currency, whereas I personally know of two people who only exist because their welfare-dependent mother impulsively took advantage of a government cash bonus by getting knocked up by a man she barely knew, and then promptly did so again with a different one.

We're not asking mothers to think like this. We're asking legislators to think like this.

The time horizon is too long and the gains too far into the future for legislators to care. It’s short termism all the way down.

> Now let's say there are more people needing nursing than there are nurses. What happens to the cost of that nursing?

The cost does not change. This situation that you describe is already present a many countries who have an acute nurse shortage. The gap as always is filled by immigrants from the global south.

Yes at a society level, but individual parents bare the costs.

So far rich world governments and individuals haven't found an optimal incentive/cost share ...

I was sick of working with this guy halfway through his blog post. To me it was pretty clear what they wanted, it was a "show us what you can do" kind of assignment while he wanted handholding and constant validation, already making excuses for being late and avoiding IMAP/POP due to "complexity" when applying for a backend email engineer position.

Yes, they should've told you not to bother after you sent that proposal. But they were completely right to ultimately reject you. You're a lot of work.

Reading your comment felt more tedious than writing my blog post.

That's odd. I have a Watch 6 Classic (I think?), it's my first smart watch, I have just about everything enabled, and on the rare occasion that I forget to charge it overnight it still just about gets through the next day too. In that situation, if I know I'll be sitting for a little while I can always top it up using my phone too (which, admittedly, is extremely fussy with charging placement). Initially I had a lot of frustration getting it to wake up to show me the time (rather than that "dark mirror") but I suppose I must have learned how to twist my wrist more recognisably for it now because it's very rare that I have that issue any more. I really like it.

Same experience with the Watch 6 Classic. No issue of getting through the day with all features enabled. I stopped using it because I don't really like One UI (the Pixel Watch is so much cleaner).