The 10-year Treasury rate has more than doubled since 2001. I skipped Econ 101 - If you have to pay people twice as much to take your debt, is there more or less demand for it?
Extend range to "Max". Yields in 2001 -- looks like the peaked at about 5.4%. Yields today are about 4.13%.
What am I missing?
Also, this phrase... is a strange one.
> If you have to pay people twice as much to take your debt, is there more or less demand for it?
If your economy is running red hot (with relatively low inflation rate), then the central bank normally raises interest rates. Yields on central gov't debt will closely follow these rises. Controversially, I will say within a "reasonable" yield range (maybe 1% to 8%), the yield itself says very little about demand for it. Before COVID-19, Germany's 10 year gov't debt yield was frequently zero or slightly negative. Again: What does this say about demand for it? Not much.
>In a few years they will have realigned the whole power dynamic in the country
I disagree. It felt that way for the first few months, but the wheels are coming off. Trump is too old and unpopular to steal a 3rd term. Therefore everyone around him has to worry about what will happen in 3 years, and plan for post-Trump rather than forever-Trump.
China had an emissions decline in 2025 that is substantially attributable to a decline in industry, per their first source. The decline in industry is plausible so long as GDP growth in 2025 is lower than GDP growth in 2024, and is additionally supported by the newly introduced source that the commentor did not read. Yes, it is possible to have an economic slowdown and a positive GDP print.
In general it's weird to say '"economic slowdown" is an exaggeration' and then link to something that talks about the economic slowdown.
I don't know what "decline in industry" means here tbh. Emissions from industry went down, but GDP still went up. Does that mean there's "less industry" or "more industry"? How do you measure "industry"? Maybe their industry just became more efficient.
Total emissions also went down. Yeah GDP went up less than last year but that hardly matters when we're talking about an emissions reduction. Not "less emissions growth than last year", an absolute decrease.
I think the idea is that the manufacturers are culpable for making a parental restriction mode that's set-and-forget and not easily thwarted from inside the mode and parents are culpable for declining to set it.
Which I still don't love, but is at least more fair.
It could be added at the router? The child's computer could be identified and this header added, in a MITM situation... but, maybe that would be easy to defeat, by replacing the cert on the client? Not my area of expertise... really just asking...
There's no reason to hold the parents culpable. It would be up to the device manufacturer to ensure that this isn't possible on a system that has parental controls enabled. This is already a solved problem - see how MDM solutions do it, and see Apple's ban on alternative browsers.
It's not even necessary to block parents from giving their children Linux desktops or whatever. It'll largely solve the problem if parents are merely expected to enable parental controls on devices that have the capability.
An EM fields theory of consciousness seems obviously wrong? We do not have subjective experiences in response to external magnetic fields. Not even to very strong, quickly changing fields as in an fMRI scan.
