rainyday comments

No, it is not "fine" for this political cangaroo court to issue arrest warrants for leaders of other nations. This is a ridiculous travesty of justice. The ICC is a political charade.

(In hysterical shrieking voice) "Won't someone think of the dictators???"

A proscribed terror group attacked an Israeli concert, and there's an arrest warrant out for the Israeli PM? Tomoko, you're a joke!

A) the Court has also issued a warrant for Hamas leadership in relation to that attack.

B) Netanyahu has killed 10s of thousands of civilians and waged a near genocidal campaign against the Palestinians that has been way more devastating than October 7. If he's broken the law he should face the consequences just like Hamas should.

isn’t Russia “broke”?

Not broke, just poor.

Frankly, speaking whoever’s running the city planning in this town is an idiot. A simple crosswalk solves the problem. Why did Japanese always have to make things so complicated?

This is the perfect example of the condescending foreigner whose complaints about how “idiotic” the Japanese are, in contrast to his own wisdom, only serves to prove the opposite. This is by far my favorite foreign stereotype.

From the article:

the two fences are intended to encourage pedestrians to cross the road via a designated crosswalk. The town office is considering painting the crosswalk green and white to make it more noticeable.

Kikuchi is 41-47 with a 4.57 ERA in six major league seasons 

Man, 21$ million a year doesn't buy much these days, does it?

Kind of cool. It looks like it was originally wedged between two old apartment buildings while it was being constructed, but they seem to have been torn down and it is now surrounded by a larger construction site. I'll be curious to see how it fits into its surroundings after they've built whatever they are going to build next to it.

NO, I think not, not going to happen.

Your problem, you solve it. You can expel people who illegally entered the US from Canada back to Canada, which are a pretty tiny fraction of the total, but don't expect us to deal with the rest of your problem.

Canada is not extending the immigrant visas of 4.5 million people and is cracking down on legal and illegal immigration.

where do you think Justin thinks and plans those people will go when they leave/get kicked out?

good ole open borders USA.

um, nope. They are yours, keep them.

Uh yeah, same to Trump with his plans to deport 20 million people or whatever the number is. They are yours, keep them.

The fentanyl being pumped into the United Sates from China enters through two main conduits; Mexico and Canada.

Yeah, take a look at the data on that link you provided.

Amount of fentanyl seized so far this year by US authorities (through September):

21,200 pounds along the Southern border

43 pounds along the Northern border

Canada is clearly NOT the main conduit for fentanyl smuggling into the US. Mexico is.

They should go for it. I beg them to, Mexico thinks it can sustain a long term tariff war? I’ll bet with 2 months they’ll be negotiating with Trump.

That would make sense if Trump were just declaring a trade war against Mexico. But he is promising to basically declare a trade war against the entire world, which is an entirely different ballgame.

In a one-on-one matchup between the US and Mexico its obvious Mexico would be crushed. But in a matchup in which Mexico can freely trade with the rest of the world while just waging a trade war against the US on the one hand, while the US is engaged in a trade war with the entire world simultaneously and Mexico is just a small part of that, the American advantage over Mexico is going to be way weaker.

I get why he is targeting Mexico and China, but Canada?

In terms of trade, the biggest Canadian export to the US is oil and gas, so its just going to increase prices at the pump for Americans. Plus its just going to disproportionately screw over Alberta, the only part of Canada where people actually like Trump. The second biggest is the auto sector, which is pretty integrated across the border and unlike Mexico Canadian workers don't earn less than American ones so they aren't taking jobs away from American workers so its not going to have any beneficial effect in that regard.

In terms of illegal immigration there has been a rise in crossings from Canada to the US, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the Mexico-US border. Plus the inflow goes both ways on the US-Canada border: Canada has a big problem with illegal immigration from the US so if "illegal immigration" is the problem then Canada has just as much to complain about as the US does.

In terms of drugs the problem is the opposite - way more illegal drugs enter Canada from the US than enter the US from Canada.

Musk got screwed by Dorsey,by not getting a no compete clause and walk away with billions from Musk

Dorsey had already resigned and been replaced as CEO of Twitter more than a year before Musk took it over.

This:

 it's the only option powering affordable transportation, heating homes.....

But also this:

And while the average person struggles with skyrocketing energy costs 

So its cheap but its also expensive?

To be fair, he did not claim they were fluent, but in majority of cases you don't need that to communicate efficiently... or at all.

Actually the source he quoted in his post does explicitly state that:

Estimates vary, but most surveys show that less than 20-30% of the Japanese population speaks English fluently.



Compared with around 20-30% of Japanese who can speak English.

How to say "I don't know anything about Japan" without saying "I don't know anything about Japan."

Just scrolling a bit further down your own source it says:

Less than 2% of English speakers in Japan are thought to speak English with a high degree of fluency

This is way closer to the truth than that ridiculous "20-30% of the Japanese population speaks English fluently" nonsense.

Yeah. Certain quarters are very selective and inconsistent when it comes to the right to self defense for countries, even UN recognized and non-UN recognized.

Yes, this is particularly notable among those who cheerlead the Russian invasion of a UN member state and denounces the free world for simply helping that country to exercise its right to self defense on the one hand, while on the other exalting the North Korean dictator's threats to drop nukes on South Korea, Japan and anyone else it wants in the name of self defense even though none of those countries are attacking or even threatening to attack it.

What is really interesting is that I think if Ohtani were to retire tomorrow he'd probably still make the Hall of Fame despite just having had a 7 year career and not having amassed any significant career counting stats (he still hasn't reached 1,000 hits as a batter of 40 wins as a pitcher for example).

3 unanimous MVP awards in the span of 4 seasons (and a second place finish the other year) and all the impressive stuff he has crammed into that tiny space of time has probably earned a spot. There is some precedent for it with guys like Sandy Koufax and Hack Wilson who were inducted based on short career spans in which they were insanely dominant.

Of course Ohtani is likely to play for many more years and accumulate those career stats, but still its pretty cool what he has under his belt already.

Our dystopian future has arrived early….

This is just stupid. A couple years ago when he was a minister I recall it being made into a scandal when he put his hands in his pockets during a press conference. Now its the double whammy of him shaking hands while seated and standing with his arms crossed.

The horror /s

Not sure why, but I wish it would stop (not just in Japan but everywhere it is happening).

I get mad because I really love Christmas and there is a mood/emotional feel that goes along with it which is partly dependent on it being something that only happens at a certain time of the year and for a limited period.

When I was in a kid Christmas decorations and Christmas songs were things that only went up in December and the holiday season, including new year, maybe lasted about 3-4 weeks max. That was perfect. When you saw the first decorations and heard the songs for the first time you knew the big day was just around the corner and you could get excited about it. It was also long enough that you could enjoy it without it being something that came and went too quickly.

But these days.....when you start seeing that same stuff as early as late October it just kind of loses all meaning. The emotional impact of hearing that first Christmas song is just lost completely. When I walk into a mall or something and hear Christmas songs in October or November I just want to block my ears and yell "TOO EARLY, STOP RUINING IT"!

If they start running trains 24 hours a day it'll mean a significant rise in operating costs. Running trains isn't like running a convenience store where all you have to do is keep the lights on and some guy behind the counter - there is a massive amount of work and resources that go into keeping every train on the track running.

Given that ridership during those hours is likely to be far less than it is during the daytime, to recoup the additional costs they'd have to raise fares for everyone, which would suck.

Probably 95% of the people riding the train after midnight are folks coming home from a night out drinking. I don't see the need for everyone else to in effect subisdize that, let them walk or pay for a taxi.

when china, N Korea, Afghanistan, are banning the social media, people are crying, such a communist, such autocratic, where is human's right to know? to explore? to protest? to whatever... when Aussie people are doing it, suddenly it becomes such a great move with wisdom, it is exactly the right thing to do to save our kids, parents have absolute right to control their kids' social activities...yes, to be honest, i see a word blinking right above your head, it reads "hypocrite"

Australia isn't banning social media anymore than it bans alcohol, tobacco or gambling. Putting sensible age restrictions on something that is harmful to children is something democratic governments absolutely should be doing. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

And thus you assumed the source had to support exactly the claim instead of being simply an example between many, something that anyone informed (and aware of the many sources available) would have avoided.

And anyone familiar with the many sources available would know that your original statement is still incorrect - none of the sources you subsequently provided are based on surveys of the "general population" either. They are all also based on targeted surveys of specific groups.

I get that this point seems to be lost on you, but for those of us who do research in the social sciences this isn't just nitpicking I'm engaging in. Your statement was incorrect and a misrepresentation of the state of research on this question. If anything by framing it as the opinion of the "general population" you are undermining the value of the sources you were citing to answering the question at hand. A survey of the "general population" (which would include for example many old men whose views would be largely irrelevant) is actually less useful than a survey of specific populations (such as the National Fertility Survey that was mentioned in the Mainichi source) which focus on target populations whose views are much more relevant.

>

Most social media really does belong in the same category as tobacco, gambling and alcohol in terms of how it should be regulated. Like those it is particularly harmful to children, is deliberately designed to be addictive and doesn't offer any countervailing benefits that would outweigh the risks and harms associated with it.

Definetely it does, you assumed the claim is based on the example as the sole source

I did not. I challenged you for using a source that did not align with what you said it stated. This is a normal thing to be called out for as anyone with an academic background should know.

All your arguments are based on that assumption since none hold by adding "here is one example of people giving this reason"

No my argument (singular, I am only making one) is not based on that assumption, your defense of your mistake is based on an assumption that contradicts what you actually wrote.

To be fair this is a perfectly logical assumption, people that come to the topic usually have this background knowledge present, again is like talking about Mt Fuji without having to clarify it is about the mountain in Japan.

This is simply false, for reasons I outlined in my previous post. If you submitted an academic paper to peer review stating that surveys of the general population cited cost as the number one factor driving Japan's low birthrate then you would absolutely be asked to provide a citation to that fact. It is not obvious (ie there are numerous possible factors that could be cited the most often, cost is merely one), it is not constant (ie views of the public on that issue could change over time, something that doesn't happen with Mt. Fuji's location), and it is likely subject to variation (ie depending on who is being asked the results of such a survey could differ).

Which still is irrelevant the moment it is quite obvious this is not the basis for the generalization but simply one example between many that mentions this reason. You are still not making any point against the justified assumption that is made that people will know there is more than one source, that unfortunately was wrong on your case.

Yes indeed, you are the one making assumptions, not me. This was your mistake, I corrected you on it, and hopefully you have learned from the experience.

No, you assumed a mistake when giving an example was for you giving the one and only available source indicating this.

No, my correction of your mistake required no assumptions on my part. You made a mistake, I pointed it out. Nothing you have written refutes that.

if anything my mistake was to assume this very elementary previous knowledge, for me it was like talking about Mt Fuji assuming people knew where it is.

Yes, you were mistaken in that. What a given population cites as the main cause (among many potential factors) for Japan's low birth rate is not a piece of very elementary previous knowledge like where Mt. Fuji is. "Mt. Fuji is in Japan" is not a statement I would expect to see a citation in support of in an academic paper. "The factor most cited by respondents to a survey in determining Japan's low birth rate is the high cost of child rearing and education" in contrast is very much something one would expect a citation to.

The example did prove the point on the scope of the study done

And my point was that the scope of the study done was different from the point you were trying to prove. This is simply a factually correct observation.

My point was never that this source was unique in some unexplored field of study, the source is (as demonstrated) one of many that indicates this reason as being the most common for families in Japan. You made no correction just assumed the situation reported there was not reflected in other populations, which was very easily corrected with other sources.

All I have to go on is what you write. I made absolutely no assumptions whatsoever in my response, I merely pointed out that there was a gap between what you said the source you relied on proved on the one hand and what evidence that source actually provided on the other. This is factually accurate. If there are better sources to prove a point then you should rely on them rather than on one that fails to do so. This should not be a controversial observation.

Fair enough I used the wrong word, you still give no argument that would prove the source is not in congruence with other sources from different populations in Japan, which is understandable since it is perfectly congruent as proved.

My point isn't that the fundamental argument is wrong (I agree, based on the sources you provide in your subsequent post, that cost is clearly a major factor). I pointed out your mistake, you then provided further evidence to better establish the point, and now your point is better made.

No misrepresentation was made, I offered one example of many avaliable that proved the point, assuming this was the only example was a mistake you made and that could have been prevented easily and seeing how in general studies done in different demographics still sustain the claim without problem.

No, you offered an example that didn't prove the point you were making, which was my point. I made no mistake in assuming anything about the existence of other sources, I explicitly and specifically stated that the source you were relying on didn't say what you said it did. The fact that other sources which you didn't cite provide better proof of the point you were trying to make only shows that you were mistaken in not relying on them rather than the one you did, not that my correcting you was mistaken.

It is not like the source is some kind of outlier and other sources give completely different reasons. That completely debunk the point you tried to make.

The point I made was that you misrepresented what your source said. You were wrong, I corrected you and none of what you have written has debunked anything I said, all of which stands.

What epidemiological argument can you give that would indicate the survey as not representative of a wider population demographic?

The survey was exploring a question of social science, not medicine. There are no epidemiological arguments to be made.

From the view of a social scientists there are lots of problems with passing off a survey of a specific population as that of the general population. I can recommend some introductory textbooks on research methodology if you are unaware of this basic fact.

80% of families that refrain from having another child because of the cost is a very congruent result with the previous source, specially when more than 50% of those families with more than 8 million yen of annual income give the same reason.

Yes, so why misrepresent what your original source said instead of accurately conveying what this second source said to make your point?

For the general population the cost is a very important factor not to have children

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230525/p2a/00m/0na/010000c

The survey cited in the article isn't a survey of the general population, it was a survey of females who were registered users of a temporary staffing website, and most of the respondents were in their 40s and 50s.

So the population of middle age women actively seeking employment view cost as an important factor (among many, the survey allowed multiple responses and the burden of child rearing falling mainly on women, and the lack of jobs that are compatible with child rearing also received significant support). But whether their views are representative of younger women - who are the main cohort making the decision to have or not have children today - or of men, is not clear from the survey.

2022- 124,997,5781.26

2020- 126,304,5431.30

2015- 127,275,8721.42

2010-128,185,2751.36

The trend looks pretty "gradual" to me.

That isn't a response to my point. We are talking about the birth rate, not total population (which will only be directly affected by the former many years from now). The birth rate has fallen by more than 30% in just the past 9 years, and is on track to continue falling in the years to come. That is not gradual, that is catastrophic.

If you start with a population of 1000 and there is a 30% reduction in the next generation that next generation will have a population of just 700. But in Japan the 30% reduction isn't over the course of a generation, its over the course of 9 years. Given that the average age for having a first child in Japan is 31, that 9 years represents less than 1/3 of a generation.

So if the birth rate continues to fall at the same rate it has for the past 9 years, within a single generation the population cohort will go from 1,000 in generation 1 to just 343 in generation 2. That is almost a 70% drop in population from generation to generation, its absolutely catastrophic.

The decline in total population you cite is the delayed effect of what were, compared to what is happening now, extremely minor birth rate declines that happened about 30-40 years earlier. This is not a linear thing, when the actual effects of today's collapsing birth rate actually hit the effect on total population will not be the "gradual" decrease we see today, it will be massive.

Also even looking at the data on total population today the trend is hardly "gradual" - the population decline is increasing at an exponential rate. The natural decline in population is, using the years you cite:

2010 -125,000

2015 -284,000

2020 -531,000

2022 - 798,000

In other words the size of the decline has been doubling roughly every five years, rather than just increasing at a linear rate. Its likely to surpass the million mark this year.

Yes, yes, we know. Certain politicians and social scientists have been warning repeatedly about this for a couple of decades now.

Yes, and they are right to be raising such concerns. Just because the Titanic is still above water doesn't mean that the people pointing at the giant hole in its side are being irrational fearmongers.

In the meantime, Japan's infrastructure, housing, healthcare, environment, etc. have improved marketly,

How exactly have any of those things improved in Japan over the last 20-30 years? Most of those things are more or less fine, but they have been more or less fine for decades, and there is zero evidence that Japan's declining birth rates have had any positive effect on them.

to a greater extent than in many of the population-pumping neo-liberal paradises like Canada, where a recent poll finds that that 70% of the population believe the country is "broken," due to such issues as, well, infrastrucuture, housing, healthcare, etc.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. Canada's problems are irrelevant to Japan's. Just because Canadian infrastructure, housing, healthcare (etc) are all facing crises of their own doesn't mean that Japan's collapsing birthrate isn't a problem to Japan.