Japan has such a different school system and culture that the comparison is irrelevant. For starters: do you think American schools would allow students to cook lunches? The unions, labor board and health inspector would all be racing to see who shut down the school first.
You'll find that very few Americans can even agree on what "balanced in nutrients" even means; that includes the supposed experts. But that doesn't stop you from using taxpayer funded healthcare as an excuse to dismantle some of the most basic natural rights: eat what you want and raise you kids as you see fit. That is exactly the talking point that Republicans use to oppose taxpayer funded healthcare in the first place.
If you doubled the school food budget and cut out all the factory farm subsidies and waste, and hired real cooks to make lunches, these kids would be eating real food. And the cost savings would be enormous.
[citation needed] If you suggest three policies that would all increase expenses, then you need to show some math on how that would supposedly result in enormous cost savings.
I used to do this type of research when I was in grad school a decade ago. The problem is that every simulation is really just an approximation. When you take the approximation errors and compound them over a million atoms, you end up with a result that is qualitative at best. OTOH, high throughput screening technologies have been improved to the point where you actually can do trial-and-error experiment on hundreds of thousands of compounds and often get faster than it takes to run the equivalent number of simulation. Methods like cellular thermal shift assays can measure thousands of combinations of drug/protein interactions in a experiment that takes about four hours.
Maybe next time you should pick a more substantial topic.
You started the thread, by claiming (without evidence) that Trump was unlikely to complete his first term or be re-elected. If you don't think the topic is substantial, then why did you bring it up? smh
What exactly can a human do that a rover can't? More importantly, what can a human do that a THOUSAND rovers, each with uniquely specialized instrument packages, can't do? Because for the cost of sending one human, we can send a thousand rovers each reconfigured based on the information gathered from the previous rover.
Actually, three presidents who lost reelection since WWII: Ford, Carter and Bush Sr.
If you're going to to insist on being a pedantic nerd, then you'll have to read more carefully. I wrote "only two Presidents ran for a second term and lost". I didn't count Ford, because Ford never lost re-election since he was never even elected for a first term. If he had been elected in 1976, he would have been eligible for a second term in 1980.
Didn't you get the memo? Hillary's not running in 2020.
No such memo was sent. If you're going to take a "We shall see" attitude towards Biden, then Hillary isn't out of the running either. Hillary might be even more likely to run than Biden strictly on the basis that she's already tried twice before and shown no signs of being deterred. Of course, whether Hillary runs or not isn't the point of those polls and you know it. You're just pretending to be stupid, so you don't have to face reality as it is. Which is a popular Democratic strategy these days.
1) Incumbents always have the advantage. Since WWII, only two Presidents ran for a second term and lost.
2) Trump's biggest liability was uncertainty of how he would actually respond in office. Just getting through a first term without any major disasters will remove that doubt.
3) Democrats still suffer from a shallow bench. Biden has repeatedly said he won't run. Warren has no popularity outside of far left circles; she'll probably struggle to be re-elected herself. Who else is there to run?
Finally, consider that a Washington Post/ABC News poll last week concluded that in a rematch right now against Hillary Clinton, Trump would win the popular vote 43 percent to 40 percent. I'm not happy with the situation, but reality based analysis concludes that Trump getting a second term is the most likely outcome.
You don't get to tell me what taxes my utopia is going to have. In my utopia, the only taxes are on naysayers and negative vibes. And we don't pay maintenance people because solar panels (like everything else) are so cheap that we just throw them in the recycling bin and gets new ones.
Then you haven't thought this all the way through. If you have a supply chain that can go all the way from raw silica to installed solar panels with no labor costs, then energy is free.
The availability of raw resources is only restricted by the cost of labor to extract them. If you have sufficient cheap labor, you can extract gold from seawater.
Of course that would be true regarding unskilled labor; that's why I picked $32K/year as a threshold. It is safe to assume that anyone currently making $32k or less would drop out of the workforce if you gave them a check that met their basic needs. And I agree that we're not losing much if those people just drop out of the labor force. But it's the people just above that threshold that will make or break UBI. How many people who make $32k-$64k would drop out? How many people making $64k-$128k would drop out?
How many people are working hard just so they can retire early and if offered the equivalent of an immediate pension, how many would quit work even though they're in a higher income bracket?
Jaczek said that people in the program will be randomly contacted from each region's low-income population and invited to apply.
It's not a test of UBI if the participants are all selected from low-income populations. The pilot program as described is just a streamlined welfare system. The challenge of UBI will be whether people in productive jobs will work less if they have a basic income to fall back on. Would someone with a $32k/year (or more) job give work up and play video games for $17k/year? That is question that will determine if UBI succeeds or fails.
Pain is relative to to what you are accustomed to. To those of us who are accustomed to a comfortable middle class life style, an AI driven economy could be very painful. To those that will be born and grow up in those circumstances, it will just be considered normal.
Let's suppose kill-bots were to kill off 99% of the global population right now. That still leaves 70 million people alive. That's more than population of the UK; more than sufficient to have a self-sufficient internal economy among the surviving capitalists.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevermind. Just say that you meant monthly income.
Norway is even better than I thought if people work less than 160 hours a year.
That's the most cutting insult I've received on /.
oh really? REALLY?
Japan has such a different school system and culture that the comparison is irrelevant. For starters: do you think American schools would allow students to cook lunches? The unions, labor board and health inspector would all be racing to see who shut down the school first.
[citation needed] If you suggest three policies that would all increase expenses, then you need to show some math on how that would supposedly result in enormous cost savings.
If that's what people want, who are you to tell them otherwise? Isn't the whole point of democracy to let people live their lives as they see fit?
I used to do this type of research when I was in grad school a decade ago. The problem is that every simulation is really just an approximation. When you take the approximation errors and compound them over a million atoms, you end up with a result that is qualitative at best. OTOH, high throughput screening technologies have been improved to the point where you actually can do trial-and-error experiment on hundreds of thousands of compounds and often get faster than it takes to run the equivalent number of simulation. Methods like cellular thermal shift assays can measure thousands of combinations of drug/protein interactions in a experiment that takes about four hours.
Again, that's a topic you keep bringing up. I don't care because its inconsequential to evaluating incumbent advantage.
You started the thread, by claiming (without evidence) that Trump was unlikely to complete his first term or be re-elected. If you don't think the topic is substantial, then why did you bring it up? smh
Again, you're just arguing minutia to avoid substance.
What exactly can a human do that a rover can't? More importantly, what can a human do that a THOUSAND rovers, each with uniquely specialized instrument packages, can't do? Because for the cost of sending one human, we can send a thousand rovers each reconfigured based on the information gathered from the previous rover.
Actually, three presidents who lost reelection since WWII: Ford, Carter and Bush Sr.
If you're going to to insist on being a pedantic nerd, then you'll have to read more carefully. I wrote "only two Presidents ran for a second term and lost". I didn't count Ford, because Ford never lost re-election since he was never even elected for a first term. If he had been elected in 1976, he would have been eligible for a second term in 1980.
No such memo was sent. If you're going to take a "We shall see" attitude towards Biden, then Hillary isn't out of the running either. Hillary might be even more likely to run than Biden strictly on the basis that she's already tried twice before and shown no signs of being deterred. Of course, whether Hillary runs or not isn't the point of those polls and you know it. You're just pretending to be stupid, so you don't have to face reality as it is. Which is a popular Democratic strategy these days.
1) Incumbents always have the advantage. Since WWII, only two Presidents ran for a second term and lost.
2) Trump's biggest liability was uncertainty of how he would actually respond in office. Just getting through a first term without any major disasters will remove that doubt.
3) Democrats still suffer from a shallow bench. Biden has repeatedly said he won't run. Warren has no popularity outside of far left circles; she'll probably struggle to be re-elected herself. Who else is there to run?
Finally, consider that a Washington Post/ABC News poll last week concluded that in a rematch right now against Hillary Clinton, Trump would win the popular vote 43 percent to 40 percent. I'm not happy with the situation, but reality based analysis concludes that Trump getting a second term is the most likely outcome.
Which is still a positive study, but not the near miracle that you describe.
You don't get to tell me what taxes my utopia is going to have. In my utopia, the only taxes are on naysayers and negative vibes. And we don't pay maintenance people because solar panels (like everything else) are so cheap that we just throw them in the recycling bin and gets new ones.
Then you haven't thought this all the way through. If you have a supply chain that can go all the way from raw silica to installed solar panels with no labor costs, then energy is free.
The availability of raw resources is only restricted by the cost of labor to extract them. If you have sufficient cheap labor, you can extract gold from seawater.
Of course that would be true regarding unskilled labor; that's why I picked $32K/year as a threshold. It is safe to assume that anyone currently making $32k or less would drop out of the workforce if you gave them a check that met their basic needs. And I agree that we're not losing much if those people just drop out of the labor force. But it's the people just above that threshold that will make or break UBI. How many people who make $32k-$64k would drop out? How many people making $64k-$128k would drop out? How many people are working hard just so they can retire early and if offered the equivalent of an immediate pension, how many would quit work even though they're in a higher income bracket?
It's not a test of UBI if the participants are all selected from low-income populations. The pilot program as described is just a streamlined welfare system. The challenge of UBI will be whether people in productive jobs will work less if they have a basic income to fall back on. Would someone with a $32k/year (or more) job give work up and play video games for $17k/year? That is question that will determine if UBI succeeds or fails.
The only realm where Hyperloop and flying cars compete is over which concept burns up the most VC money.
Some sort of air cannon would do the trick. Like the ones they use to shoot t-shirts at stadiums.
What is stopping someone from robbing a human driven UPS truck with the same tactic?
Pain is relative to to what you are accustomed to. To those of us who are accustomed to a comfortable middle class life style, an AI driven economy could be very painful. To those that will be born and grow up in those circumstances, it will just be considered normal.
Let's suppose kill-bots were to kill off 99% of the global population right now. That still leaves 70 million people alive. That's more than population of the UK; more than sufficient to have a self-sufficient internal economy among the surviving capitalists.