Avoiding loss of knowledge is a motivation for the patent system, e.g., after the death in 1723 of the only person who knew how to make microscopes. Patents solve this: In exchange for writing down in detail the best way of doing something inventive, the inventor is given a 21 year monopoly on commercial exploitation of the invention. The description is published after 18 months. The invention becomes public domain after ~ 21 years. Everything patented in the 20th century or earlier is now in the public domain, and described in detail at https://t.co/P2kPZqvoor
They get little press because they don't threaten anyone because (1) they can't rape people and get them pregnant (2) they can't (in general) overpower men in men's change rooms so are not a physical threat (3) they can't start stealing medals by changing to the men's category in sports. They do however annoy gay men when they claim that gay men should accept them as sex partners, when gay men are same sex attracted, not same gender attracted.
Your position is completely bizarre. You seem to be suggesting that any man should be free to walk into a women's change room and watch women change and shower, because they are not more threatening than men (who as a population commit a lot of rape and other violence against women).
The TiM in the video lies by claiming that the EHRC guidance is changing the law. Adult human males have never had a legal right to enter women's single sex spaces in the UK. The Equality act was passed by Parliament in 2010 and it did not give adult human males a right to enter women's spaces. The Supreme Court confirmed that fact more than a year ago on 16 April 2025. The EHRC guidance does not change the law, it just explains long-standing law.
You haven't addressed the fundamental issue that I raised, which is why would anyone invest time and money to create something such as a movie if anyone can take a copy gratis, which would prevent the costs of making the movie to be recouped, let alone hope to make a profit from lots of work and risks taken.
The man in the video makes several false claims so blantantly that I won't bother giving a detailed response, other than to say that societies have mechanisms for creating laws, such as elected representative governments. Those governments have created intellectual property laws (IP laws), so they are valid laws, even if you don't like them. There is also a basis for them in the US Constitution, which was written after positive experience of IP laws in Europe.
Almost all countries have IP laws, and those with functioning patent systems are the most innovative e.g. the USA. Countries with functioning patent systems also led the industrial revolution, i.e. the UK and Germany, as inventors could raise investment to create products. IP laws motivate people to be at the leading edge of innovation, which avoids the problem of scroungers waiting for someone else to invest time or money in innovation or creativity, in the hope that the scrounder can gratis ride the coat tails of the peope who did the work.
I'm pretty sure that Meta employees are allowed to leave the Meta campus and go home any time they wish. Or resign. California is a work at-will state, where you can quit with zero notice period. This really is small violin stuff, just like multi-millionare Prince writing "Slave" on his face because he didn't like the record contract that he signed.
Given that the curve is just X=date and Y=population size
(a) they should really be labelling with things that allowed large population growth, like closed sewers, steam tractors, organic fertilizers, pesticides, GMO crops, etc.
(b) I can plot anything on that graph, like most popular piece of music, best selling book, most famous artist, fashion, art, music genres, etc., and the shape of the curve is the same.
(c) they left out radio, cinema, TV, social media (all used for propaganda) airplanes, etc.
(d) comedy version: label the graph with the most used hallucinagenic and recreational drugs. Lots of alcohol, mushrooms, and vines in the early part of the curve.
@KateBlackw56877@GoldTelegraph_ If you plan to live a long time, that should be move to Singapore and sell one gold coin per month for the rest of your life.
@SantiagoAuFund@TopAlliedAceWW1@The_Big_Nuts They might sell it in exchange for Russian oil or gas however. Or fertilizer. It all depends on how desperate they are, and what they desperately need to obtain to keep their people fed and watered (e.g. in places which depend on desalination).
@Psibirskiy@SantiagoAuFund Clearly that is part of the story, but gold also did very well during the stagflation of the 1970s when inflation was high, so what you are saying isn't the whole story.
Oil producing gulf nations had their normal source of income blocked by the war, so they sold a lot of gold to raise cash to continue running their economy (e.g. paying government employees) and paying for imports like food. So for them, gold did its job of being something that they could sell in a crisis. Lots of selling pushed down the price.
I think the opposite: It was a safe haven aka get-out-of-jail-card for those oil producing nations that suddenly had their normal source of income blocked, and selling gold allowed them to keep their economy running. It is something for a "rainy day" and those gulf nations experienced a rainy day and used their gold.
@kikiruncha@SantiagoAuFund My guess is that there will be a lot of money printing to keep the game of musical chairs going, which will drive the price of gold up in US Dollars (and the same story for every other fiat currency).
@TopAlliedAceWW1@The_Big_Nuts@SantiagoAuFund Do you really know for sure that they sold their gold for dollars, and not for Renminbi or some other currency? Lots of places around the world will buy gold. Switzerland is another good example.