The UK birth rate is currently just 1.56. For the first time ever, over 50% of women aged 30 do not have kids. We're having fewer children, and they're going to have even fewer children.

Gen Z/Zoomers - those aged 6-24 - is our smallest generation ever. Depending on which reports you read, we have about 20-30% fewer Zoomers than we had Millennials at the same age. This is partly because their parents, Gen X, were also a small generation.

Zoomers are the first generation to be raised in the era of digitization. In other words, they grew up with an iPad. In the past decade, kids have spent increasingly more time online, and less time socialising.

A more socially awkward generation will presumably go on fewer dates, have fewer partners and therefore fewer children. The data suggests that this is what is happening.    

These days, most relationships are formed via dating apps, which have a lower success rate than alternative methods like being introduced by a mutual friend.

High rates of social media usage are correlated with increased feelings of loneliness. Most kids keep up with their friends over Snapchat; spending more time with their phones than their peers. It's no surprise then that loneliness scores are at an all-time high. 

Constant checking of feeds, being unable to disconnect from work, and notifications about all the terrible things going on in the world might be why Gen Z is labelled the most anxious and stressed generation ever.

Gen Z spends an average of 9 - 11 hours consuming online content every day. The online world seemingly meets our every need, albeit on a shallow level. When boredom is no longer an option, going outside can feel like a waste of time, and forming in-person social connections can feel like an unnecessary stress.

One UK report revealed that 46% of Gen Z do not plan on having kids. Add to that all the people that do plan on having kids but won't (80% of women who didn't have kids, didn't intend to not have kids); fertility rates are dropping; more women are pursuing careers over motherhood; the fact that these stats are trending up, and we could have a real problem.

Population decline is a significant and looming prospect, with potentially severe social and economic consequences. Who will work, pay taxes, and look after this generation when they're old?

Technology is just one of many contributing factors. It's too complex of an issue to determine exactly to what extent technology is/will be to blame, but it's incredibly interesting to think about. How big a factor do you think it is?

This generation will ultimately determine how we integrate all our current and new technologies into our culture. Hopefully, they can do this whilst raising families.

Many websites are poorly designed. Government websites for example, always make it hard to find the information you're looking for. This is because there is no incentive to create a better design. You're going to pay your car tax, regardless of how frustrating and time-consuming it is.

Scam websites are often on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've seen plenty of web pages which have been perfectly designed to trick very young, very elderly, tech-illiterate and gullible people into handing over money or personal details.

Their victims cannot navigate complex sites, so scammers are incentivised to create clear and concise websites.

They create a sense of urgency to trick users into sending money so that they can fix their security problems, redeem a special offer, or claim their prize. An "urgent" problem gives people less time to think and act rationally. And if it only takes a few swipes and taps, they'll do it instinctively, just as they'd Pull a door with a handle, even though a sign tells them to "Push"

Over £1.2 Billion was stolen by fraud in the UK last year, and 98% of this was online, by phone or email. 

Surveys suggest that 84% of people targeted by a fake shopping website engaged with it, and 47% of all targets lost money. Over 50% of total losses are accrued by over 80's.

Using proper password management along with two-factor authentication, whilst being extremely vigilant and cautious with your data online is perhaps more important than locking your car, bike or front door, or keeping your wallet in a zipped front pocket. These are non-negotiable behaviours and habits for the times we live in. 

Don't fall for scams because the website is well-designed. Don't assume that your parents know the difference. Don't push the door with a handle.

Ready to waste your Tuesday morning? Check out these neat little observations on how designs - from advertising to fashion to signage - could be improved: https://jamesrobertwatson.com/ - part inspiration for this post.

Does that shock you?

In George Orwell's infamous dystopian novel, 1984, citizens are placed under constant surveillance, enabling the government to monitor people at all times, even in their homes. The story offers an extreme example of what can happen when a government gains too much power, and we would assume that most people would be strongly opposed to such surveillance in the real world.

But that assumption is unravelling.

In a new study, 2000 Americans were asked whether they “favour or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”

It wasn't too surprising to see that most participants (75%) opposed the intervention.

However, 3 in 10 of 18-29 year-olds were in favour!

The authors suggest that young people today are less exposed to examples of expansive government power, and are therefore less aware of its dangers. Those over 45 are significantly less open to the idea of in-home surveillance. These Americans would have been old enough to remember the Cold War, during which they would have seen many news reports on the Soviet Union surveilling their own people and the dire consequences that ensued.

They tie this into Jonathan Haidt's theory that the younger generation generally prioritises safety (from possible violence or hurtful words) over ensuring robust freedom (from government surveillance or to speak freely).

I suspect that this difference is largely due to the fact that the younger generations have grown up with the internet and social media. Early exposure to these platforms has made it normal (required) to forego privacy in exchange for access to digital services. A significant chunk of our social lives is drip-fed to us by online platforms, and we accept that they will track our behaviours, habits and preferences as a result.

Perhaps also the pandemic expedited this process, with people becoming more accustomed to government, employers, and tech companies exercising authoritarian control over their personal lives.

On the other hand, I have, in recent years, observed an increase in the use of privacy tools such as VPNs, and an overall growing distrust in big tech and governments alike. It's difficult to integrate this observation into these findings.

I found the other demographic factors quite interesting also. African Americans and Hispanic Americans were more likely to support in‐home government surveillance; Democrats and liberals were more likely than Republicans and conservatives. Men and women were roughly equal.

Here's the study report.

I'd be very interested to see this study replicated in the UK. Do you think the results would be different?

Whilst the rather creepy scenario in the study was hypothetical, it does give pause for thought. Why are people becoming more open to the idea of government surveillance - and is it a bad thing?

It's near-impossible to live a "normal" life in a country like the UK or the US without a degree of compliance; and without surrendering a degree of privacy. To an extent and applied appropriately, this probably does make our lives better and safer. But where should we draw the line; pinpoint the equilibrium between sovereignty and autonomy in such a way that maximises our collective welfare? It's a long, convoluted social experiment. We are all participants, whether we like it or not, and the consequences are real.

Data recovery specialists attempt to retrieve data from damaged hard drives.

They do this in a "Clean Room" - a dedicated space designed to give them the best possible chance of recovering data.

The air inside the room is filtered constantly to ensure it contains between 20 and 100 dust particles per cubic metre. A normal room has an average of 35 million dust particles. You know when a beam of light shines through your curtains and you can see a million dust particles dancing around? They're everywhere, all the time.

A fully equipped clean room can cost as much as £1 million to build!

Technicians also wear hazmat suits and walk on sticky mats which collect dust from their shoes.

Having a dust-free environment is crucial to maximising the chances of successful data recovery.  On a hard disk drive, the head - which reads and writes data in the form of 1's and 0's - hovers just a few nanometres above the platter. A single spec of dust in this gap can spell game over.

Could do with one of these just for fitting screen protectors tbh.

Post inspired by this video from Linus Tech Tips where he takes us on a tour of DriveSavers - a data recovery company in California.

Their museum exhibits some of their greatest success stories - everything from phones and laptops to photocopy machines and video recorders.

They've recovered data from devices damaged in house fires, mudslides, nuclear disasters and sunken cruise ships! They've rescued data for thousands of people, including Adam Sandler, Harrison Ford, and Khloe Kardashian.

It's important work: DriveSavers have recovered photographic evidence for murder cases, and even 12 episodes of The Simpsons that had been deleted by mistake!🙌

Remarkable work 👏

If, like me, you're a headphone addict, you spend most of your time passively listening to podcasts, audiobooks, music, radio and phone calls - your hands free to take care of business.

Whilst you'd probably rather shut the world out completely, you're often obligated to leave 50% of your hearing apparatus unoccupied because it's more courteous or safe.

So which ear do you plug?

I've long suspected that there's something to plugging the left ear. Spoken content seems to stick better, and music feels more stimulating. New research supports my hypothesis.

Neuroscience researchers in Switzerland used fMRI to investigate the impact of various categories of sounds (vocal; non-vocal), emotional valence (positive, neutral, negative) and spacial origin (left, centre, right) on the auditory cortex - the part of the brain that interprets sounds.

They found that participants responded more strongly to positive human sounds like laughter or pleasant vocalisations when it was played through the left ear. 

The left ear is controlled by the brain's right hemisphere, which is typically regarded as the creative and emotional side, as opposed to the left hemisphere, which is more logical and calculating.

I recall reading many years ago that humans can recall around 70% of emotional words whispered into the left ear, compared to 58% in the right. We can also recall melodies more accurately when played through the left ear. I've even heard that mothers instinctively cradle their babies in such a way that they can whisper into their left ear, though I don't know if this is true.

One factor that determines how we perceive sounds is where they come from. People rate looming sounds as more unpleasant, potent, arousing, and intense than receding sounds, especially if they come from behind rather than from in front. This phenomenon has a reasonable evolutionary explanation: A sound approaching from behind could signal a stalking predator. 

Researchers do not yet have a clear understanding as to why our brains favour positive vocalisations coming from the left. Prof Stephanie Clarke thinks that with more research, a better understanding of the mechanisms at play will be formed, from which "we may speculate whether it is linked to hand preference or the asymmetric arrangements of the internal organs."

For now, I'll carry on punishing one eardrum.