You think that (1) or (2) is unlikely? Both seem highly plausible. I mean, Putin kills people in Britain and elsewhere. I think he can make a Russian programmer one building over disappear. And Russia has a fuckton of money. More than enough to have a programmer or two retire early and it to be a rounding error's rounding error.
I'm actually not sure how PoS works. Happy to learn if you care to explain or point me to some documentation, but nothing I've read about it makes sense.
And yes, by comparison normal dollars, etc, use no currency. Because all the examples of things that need electricity exist in both cases. The only difference is the work of mining itself.
I'm so confused why people are concerned about government censorship if it's nationalized. Comcast, AT&T, etc are legally required to censor if it's in the shareholder's benefit. The government is legally prohibited from censoring.
I mean, we could just regulate net neutrality, but that seems like a stopgap that's better handled by nationalizing wires. There's a place for competition, but it doesn't seem like stringing wires is where we want to rely on the free market.
Or you can write a large application in whatever language you want. If you need it to be in the browser, compile down to some horrendous, unreadable, JS mess.
In some cases (which I cannot divulge), your partners allow any backend solution you want. But all their SDKs are written in JS, and you'd have to start from zero to rewrite it in a real language (and do the SDK updates yourself). It's far easier to allow them to dictate the backend language (if you are a small shop. A large shop can afford to re-write the SDKs.)
ay. You no longer have to worry about whether the end user has the latest update of your app, and which OS or version they are running, your app will just work!
Being able to run an application when I want, and the version I want, is one of the main reasons I have a computer. I don't want to be forced to update to the latest version that moves buttons around. And I certainly don't want the lock-in and monthly charges (or constant ads) that come with a cloud hosted application. It incurs more charges for the publisher and the only reason they do that is if it's more profitable for them to do so.
Perhaps most important, I frequently use applications when offline. I'm not sure why people think I always need or want to be connected to the internet. And I certainly don't understand why you think I'd want to be unable to use your app once you pull the switch on the server because of the monthly upkeep costs.
Even if JS only was used for malicious super-browsers and browser fingerprinting, it'd be pretty bad. But the whole Spectre/Meltdown should demonstrate the flaws in relying on Sandboxing (remember, that was IE6's security model for ActiveX!!). And new bugs found in VMWare this week should demonstrate how stupid "run random code on my computer" is as a default setting.
Go to one meetup and you'll see its actually a good movement with a lot of good people in it with good intentions
I don't doubt that a lot of early adopters are libertarians who whole-hardheartedly believe in bitcoin. But from the outside, it looks a lot like, well, a snake-handling cult. People who are in either community can be good people, but I just don't grok the reasons you say or do things.
And your defense actually reads like how I would expect a (techno-)cult's salespitch to read. One part subtle insult to those who don't get it, one part pitching the positive non-monetary reasons to join, and a defense of the communities values themselves.
It seems like you're trying to shore up issues I don't have with other currencies, or trying to attack the existing fintech transaction system (which I am sympathetic to, but seems to have failed with Bitcoin), or trying to demonstrate that government is stupid and bad.
Meanwhile, like 0.5% - 1% of the world's power is going to powering bitcoin mining, and that's likely to increase.
Good lord, you've made the best case for robots I've ever heard. A human being having to make a tough choice that can easily result in an innocent woman's death or his platoons, and said choice scaring him for life? Even if he makes it correctly? Holy hell man, protecting people from danger like that is why we build robots. Just offloading the decision to someone else can help prevent PTSD for the soldier on the ground. Robots can make of sensors at a range to get a better probability assessment it's a suicide bomber. Couple that with a robot that can approach the woman and get blown up and not mind (unlike a human soldier), therefore tweaking the cost of a false negative, and you have a far superior system.
I'd imagine this kind of joke would be fairly easy to detect in an AI system. I'd imagine far harder jokes would be of the type "An X, a Y, and a Z walk into a bar..."
If California and New York (which is 50th out of 50) in your linked article are the worst in terms of economic freedom, and the states with the highest economic freedom also rely the most of federal aid, doesn't that imply that your "economic freedom (as measured by conservative group X) leads to prosperity" claim is bullshit?
In other words, you're making a circular argument, but in such a bad way as to actually demonstrate the opposite.
I think I read a different paper than you did. Link to the one you are referring to?
Replacing ballots is, when observed, easily a crime. Memorizing/spotchecking the results as you read them is not. Note that pictures of ballots commonly appear in newspapers (during recounts) so there is no current rule against memorializing them. Also, unless you printed the ballots after knowing what codes were supposed to be filled out for the serial number, either the check on the serial, or the rechecking of ballots to issued codes, would fail.
While your idea of only sometimes issuing serial numbers works, but is vulnerable to no ballots being printed with serials. Or distributing those to precincts that almost always vote the right way. Or, heck, even just only honestly counting those ballots.
My point is that the income tax on people making more than X can just be increased by the UBI amount. And then it's the same as not paying them UBI, but it saves a lot of paperwork.
Why bother with means testing? You can tweak the income tax so that it works mathematically the same, but you save any overhead from determining if someone qualifies.
They ask for your serial and sequence of letters. You supply it (administer pipewrench until you do). Odds of being able to supply a fake serial/sequence are vanishly small. They know what sequence correspond to a vote, because they can just find the matching ballot and observe the bubbled circles.
Some people are really offended by other people doing nothing. They think there is a pride to work (there's reasonable room to debate), and that pride can be earned by the threat of starving to death.
Slashdot Mirror
It's knowing that that is the only reason I'm not beyond depressed about not buying in.
You think that (1) or (2) is unlikely? Both seem highly plausible. I mean, Putin kills people in Britain and elsewhere. I think he can make a Russian programmer one building over disappear. And Russia has a fuckton of money. More than enough to have a programmer or two retire early and it to be a rounding error's rounding error.
I'm actually not sure how PoS works. Happy to learn if you care to explain or point me to some documentation, but nothing I've read about it makes sense.
And yes, by comparison normal dollars, etc, use no currency. Because all the examples of things that need electricity exist in both cases. The only difference is the work of mining itself.
I'm so confused why people are concerned about government censorship if it's nationalized. Comcast, AT&T, etc are legally required to censor if it's in the shareholder's benefit. The government is legally prohibited from censoring.
I mean, we could just regulate net neutrality, but that seems like a stopgap that's better handled by nationalizing wires. There's a place for competition, but it doesn't seem like stringing wires is where we want to rely on the free market.
Did they replace the batteries for you when you bought used, or is it just something you'll have to suck up earlier?
Makes sense that he would be on the cutting edge, technically. He did promise to boldly go where no man had gone before.
I wonder if future generations won't get the joke, due to there being beachfront property in Arizona.
Or you can write a large application in whatever language you want. If you need it to be in the browser, compile down to some horrendous, unreadable, JS mess.
In some cases (which I cannot divulge), your partners allow any backend solution you want. But all their SDKs are written in JS, and you'd have to start from zero to rewrite it in a real language (and do the SDK updates yourself). It's far easier to allow them to dictate the backend language (if you are a small shop. A large shop can afford to re-write the SDKs.)
Being able to run an application when I want, and the version I want, is one of the main reasons I have a computer. I don't want to be forced to update to the latest version that moves buttons around. And I certainly don't want the lock-in and monthly charges (or constant ads) that come with a cloud hosted application. It incurs more charges for the publisher and the only reason they do that is if it's more profitable for them to do so.
Perhaps most important, I frequently use applications when offline. I'm not sure why people think I always need or want to be connected to the internet. And I certainly don't understand why you think I'd want to be unable to use your app once you pull the switch on the server because of the monthly upkeep costs.
Even if JS only was used for malicious super-browsers and browser fingerprinting, it'd be pretty bad. But the whole Spectre/Meltdown should demonstrate the flaws in relying on Sandboxing (remember, that was IE6's security model for ActiveX!!). And new bugs found in VMWare this week should demonstrate how stupid "run random code on my computer" is as a default setting.
Your contention is that surviorship bias is somehow unrelated to whether people have to earn their income or get it from daddy?
I don't doubt that a lot of early adopters are libertarians who whole-hardheartedly believe in bitcoin. But from the outside, it looks a lot like, well, a snake-handling cult. People who are in either community can be good people, but I just don't grok the reasons you say or do things.
And your defense actually reads like how I would expect a (techno-)cult's salespitch to read. One part subtle insult to those who don't get it, one part pitching the positive non-monetary reasons to join, and a defense of the communities values themselves.
It seems like you're trying to shore up issues I don't have with other currencies, or trying to attack the existing fintech transaction system (which I am sympathetic to, but seems to have failed with Bitcoin), or trying to demonstrate that government is stupid and bad.
Meanwhile, like 0.5% - 1% of the world's power is going to powering bitcoin mining, and that's likely to increase.
Good lord, you've made the best case for robots I've ever heard. A human being having to make a tough choice that can easily result in an innocent woman's death or his platoons, and said choice scaring him for life? Even if he makes it correctly? Holy hell man, protecting people from danger like that is why we build robots. Just offloading the decision to someone else can help prevent PTSD for the soldier on the ground. Robots can make of sensors at a range to get a better probability assessment it's a suicide bomber. Couple that with a robot that can approach the woman and get blown up and not mind (unlike a human soldier), therefore tweaking the cost of a false negative, and you have a far superior system.
I'd imagine this kind of joke would be fairly easy to detect in an AI system. I'd imagine far harder jokes would be of the type "An X, a Y, and a Z walk into a bar..."
I don't see any reason Alexa and Siri couldn't be client side and open source.
If California and New York (which is 50th out of 50) in your linked article are the worst in terms of economic freedom, and the states with the highest economic freedom also rely the most of federal aid, doesn't that imply that your "economic freedom (as measured by conservative group X) leads to prosperity" claim is bullshit?
In other words, you're making a circular argument, but in such a bad way as to actually demonstrate the opposite.
Why is a PIN better protection than the ability to chargeback?
I think I read a different paper than you did. Link to the one you are referring to?
Replacing ballots is, when observed, easily a crime. Memorizing/spotchecking the results as you read them is not. Note that pictures of ballots commonly appear in newspapers (during recounts) so there is no current rule against memorializing them. Also, unless you printed the ballots after knowing what codes were supposed to be filled out for the serial number, either the check on the serial, or the rechecking of ballots to issued codes, would fail.
While your idea of only sometimes issuing serial numbers works, but is vulnerable to no ballots being printed with serials. Or distributing those to precincts that almost always vote the right way. Or, heck, even just only honestly counting those ballots.
A fiat currency with only 21 million units issued is still a fucking fiat currency. There's no inherit value to bitcoin. That's a fiat currency.
My point is that the income tax on people making more than X can just be increased by the UBI amount. And then it's the same as not paying them UBI, but it saves a lot of paperwork.
Why bother with means testing? You can tweak the income tax so that it works mathematically the same, but you save any overhead from determining if someone qualifies.
They ask for your serial and sequence of letters. You supply it (administer pipewrench until you do). Odds of being able to supply a fake serial/sequence are vanishly small. They know what sequence correspond to a vote, because they can just find the matching ballot and observe the bubbled circles.
What am I missing?
Good news, no one is asking you to pay a dime. The government's paying for it.
Also, it's probably cheaper than putting down an insurrection, or dealing with the crime that people turn to to feed themselves
$24 Million for a government to spend on an experiment that may reorder all of society seems downright cheap - possibly irresponsibly low.
Some people are really offended by other people doing nothing. They think there is a pride to work (there's reasonable room to debate), and that pride can be earned by the threat of starving to death.