Nobody thought? Why was someone watching a bad movie on an outdated media while "driving" then ?
Those who are in charge of communication for safety, are considered to have failed, when someone misunderstands. Professionals in safety critical fields don't hide behind pages of boring text - a fireman rescuing you from a burning building won't spell out the limitations and capabilities of the wall that is about to fall on your head, he'll order to get out of it or pull you out.
And statistical case doesn't have to be made to say it is unsafe. Burden of proof is Musk's.
No, Google has done nothing of the sort. Any update to the software invalidates all testing done till then - period. If it depends on the server side, server side code/data change also invalidates the tests. Now count the valid tests from Google and it turns out to be insignificant at any given moment.
Also, any manufacturer's cars are not sufficient in numbers right now to present an enticing target to hackers. Google has proved nothing in this regard - the hackability of the cars or the lack thereof.
Taxes, most taxes, are not in exchange of anything in particular. Specifically property taxes - You owe the tax, whether you use the land/house or not, whether you are in the country at the time or not, whether the municipal area does any work or not.
Similarly income taxes are not in exchange of anything - not of letting you use your money, not of allowing you to work, they just are owed whether you like it or not. Because they have a bigger stick than you, because most people support it, because they can, I would even say because it is good for all people.
Justification of taxes is the development of the surrounding area, amenities the government provides etc. but that is not what a tax is in exchange of.
No, because it fails for man of the the _SAME_ reason's as Welfare yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing
The semi-coherent interpretation I could form is:
No, because it fails for many of the the _SAME_ reasons as welfare, yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing
But even in this semi-coherent interpretation, the "yet" is misplaced - all the same reasons actually argue for replaceability of welfare by UBI, not against.
Consider : Is one of the reasons UBI fails for is that under that scheme there is no assurance of beneficiaries using the UBI for basic needs? That is not a valid reason it cannot replace welfare, because a lot of welfare has the exact same problem - that there is no assurance the welfare is being used for one's basic needs.
How can the same lack of assurance in welfare as well as in UBI cause UBI to be unable to replace welfare?
Put in one more way : Since UBI and welfare are equivalent in the lack of assurance department, one cannot be said to be unable to replace the other for this factor at least.
That is a different argument. Do you take back the objection to UBI over other welfare based on the statement that there is no assurance that UBI will be used for basic necessities ?
Ok, I don't understand you. Do you know the people talking in the videos? Why do you think they are talking about things that no one is supposed to know? Stupidity? Or they are working for opposite purposes than they are claiming to work for?
In at least one place the video is dishonest - they introduced a person by prefacing it by his tax fraud conviction - I didn't see how it was relevant except to prejudice people. This part was in both the videos. But he doesn't introduce himself with his misdemeanor. Do you know why ?
This is what you think you will do, and it doesn't even matter what you do. What matters is what "most people" do, especially those born and raised in this UBI environment.
When I see the children of rich/successful people, I am not filled with hope for this UBI world. Though a very extreme environment is needed to really AB test what people growing up in UBI world would do. Do you have any evidence about what "most people" would do?
There is no assurances that they will use BI for food, utilities, housing, or any other purpose one claims BI is for
These welfare systems also don't assure anything. Food stamps give you food, but there is no assurances that you will eat the food. Shelter schemes give you home, but there is no assurances that you will live in the shelters thus obtained. Out-patient healthcare can give you diagnosis and medicine without assuring anyone that you will consume the medicine.
Asylums , in-patient healthcare and madhouses are the main welfare required after UBI.
Do you know these guys who are talking in the video ? Are they stupid enough to tell people about things that no one is supposed to know? Don't you suspect they are working for the opposite cause than they admit to - or just spewing FUD ?
Like, hey man - you cannot trust anyone, you just might as well trust me than actually smart people!
You misunderstand. The battle won't be fought in courts - it will be in legislative sessions, by first crossing preliminaries in public perception.
Public perception is won by emotion, not logic / numbers. The battlecry will be "No more dead kids" represented next to a car with devil horns. Your figures telling that human drivers kill more kids will need to harness stronger emotions than that, they don't have to tote better numbers.
habit-related education as they need it. But no direct payments or prizes.
A small part of habit formation is usually rewards. You now change the terms to direct payments or prizes, but originally you were arguing against rewards.
2. They were given a reward to develop a habit : there is not enough data to conclude whether it was to develop a habit or just to wear it.
3. They developed a habit : absolutely no evidence in favour of this, there is some evidence against it. Even an attempt at forming a habit was not likely made, let alone a habit.
4. 90% of them broke the habit : can one break something that doesn't exist?
Probably you don't know the meaning of the word "habit" in the context which I asked you to look up the research. If you are trolling, it's not the worst troll I have encountered for a while, but there are some excellent trolls around you can learn from.
Such questions arise from the misunderstanding of the word "why". "Why" is a question applicable to two kinds of events :
1. Actions : Where the "event" is clearly caused by an organism/thing with "agency", a "purpose". The answer to "why" in those cases refers to the "purpose" for which the thing with an agency caused the event.
E.g. a why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
2. Events : Pure events, not clearly caused by any organism/thing with "agency", or "purpose". The answer to "why" in those cases refers to the reason why YOU think it happened. Not the reason for the happening, but the reason for your thinking it happened.
E.g. Person A : It rained. Person B : Why? Person A : Because the road is wet.
Any answer that describes the mechanism by which it rained, is not really answering "why", but it is explaining "how".
But further, using rewards for motivation to exercise is terrible.
Not necessarily. We do things for 2 types of reasons : 1. Habit 2. Intellectually convincing ourselves that it is a good thing to do - this consumes willpower depending on how unpleasant the activity is.
One can't really do a lot of type 2 activities in a day. Willpower - somewhat like muscle, gets fatigued. There is interesting research on this topic, look it up. Somewhat like muscle, it builds up on using it too, but that is a long term plan.
So something as important as exercise is best done through habit. And rewards can help in forming a habit - so it is not a good idea to do the exercise for the reward e.g. the reward of a vacation to Tahiti is unlikely to be of much use. But reward to form a habit, and habit to cause exercise regularly is a great idea.
Reward itself isn't enough to form a habit - but it is a very important part.
Yahoo told the world about this breach about 2 years after it happened. If there were a company destroying fine, they might never have told anyone ? Such fines will also give rise to a kind of insurance against it. Since such fines are large, insurance companies might take over the disclosure of this breach - making it the business of even deeper pockets to hide this information.
If, on average, a data breach costs each breached customer like $5, then fine the company $10 per breached record
Do you see this average being computed across all service providers? Specific industry?
If the cost is per breached customer regardless of the impact of the breach to the customer, the less important data will get more security than the truly important data which costs thousands of dollars per customer when breached.
For customers who are not paying directly, the loss due to a breach might be argued to be zero, and might succeed in courts.
Slashdot Mirror
But I got paper cuts. Was I supposed to fuck the manual, or the manual was supposed to fuck me?
Printer was hard enough to setup so that I could print the manual for this activity.
Are you saying it doesn't work when done humorously ? My non-humerous attempt is below, working fine in preview at least.
Or does it not work when it is not someone else's thoughts?
...someone else's quoted thought
... Like this ?
Nobody thought? Why was someone watching a bad movie on an outdated media while "driving" then ?
Those who are in charge of communication for safety, are considered to have failed, when someone misunderstands. Professionals in safety critical fields don't hide behind pages of boring text - a fireman rescuing you from a burning building won't spell out the limitations and capabilities of the wall that is about to fall on your head, he'll order to get out of it or pull you out.
And statistical case doesn't have to be made to say it is unsafe. Burden of proof is Musk's.
No, Google has done nothing of the sort. Any update to the software invalidates all testing done till then - period. If it depends on the server side, server side code/data change also invalidates the tests. Now count the valid tests from Google and it turns out to be insignificant at any given moment.
Also, any manufacturer's cars are not sufficient in numbers right now to present an enticing target to hackers. Google has proved nothing in this regard - the hackability of the cars or the lack thereof.
Google definitely uses the phone number for learning connections between people.
Taxes, most taxes, are not in exchange of anything in particular. Specifically property taxes - You owe the tax, whether you use the land/house or not, whether you are in the country at the time or not, whether the municipal area does any work or not.
Similarly income taxes are not in exchange of anything - not of letting you use your money, not of allowing you to work, they just are owed whether you like it or not. Because they have a bigger stick than you, because most people support it, because they can, I would even say because it is good for all people.
Justification of taxes is the development of the surrounding area, amenities the government provides etc. but that is not what a tax is in exchange of.
First they came for the ethernet port, but I didn't speak up because I could live without one.
No, because it fails for man of the the _SAME_ reason's as Welfare yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing
The semi-coherent interpretation I could form is :
No, because it fails for many of the the _SAME_ reasons as welfare, yet is claimed to replace welfare to give all people a living wage for doing nothing
But even in this semi-coherent interpretation, the "yet" is misplaced - all the same reasons actually argue for replaceability of welfare by UBI, not against.
Consider : Is one of the reasons UBI fails for is that under that scheme there is no assurance of beneficiaries using the UBI for basic needs? That is not a valid reason it cannot replace welfare, because a lot of welfare has the exact same problem - that there is no assurance the welfare is being used for one's basic needs.
How can the same lack of assurance in welfare as well as in UBI cause UBI to be unable to replace welfare?
Put in one more way : Since UBI and welfare are equivalent in the lack of assurance department, one cannot be said to be unable to replace the other for this factor at least.
That is a different argument. Do you take back the objection to UBI over other welfare based on the statement that there is no assurance that UBI will be used for basic necessities ?
Are you sure the only difference between men and women is the genitals?
Ok, I don't understand you. Do you know the people talking in the videos? Why do you think they are talking about things that no one is supposed to know? Stupidity? Or they are working for opposite purposes than they are claiming to work for?
In at least one place the video is dishonest - they introduced a person by prefacing it by his tax fraud conviction - I didn't see how it was relevant except to prejudice people. This part was in both the videos. But he doesn't introduce himself with his misdemeanor. Do you know why ?
This is what you think you will do, and it doesn't even matter what you do. What matters is what "most people" do, especially those born and raised in this UBI environment.
When I see the children of rich/successful people, I am not filled with hope for this UBI world. Though a very extreme environment is needed to really AB test what people growing up in UBI world would do. Do you have any evidence about what "most people" would do?
There is no assurances that they will use BI for food, utilities, housing, or any other purpose one claims BI is for
These welfare systems also don't assure anything. Food stamps give you food, but there is no assurances that you will eat the food. Shelter schemes give you home, but there is no assurances that you will live in the shelters thus obtained. Out-patient healthcare can give you diagnosis and medicine without assuring anyone that you will consume the medicine.
Asylums , in-patient healthcare and madhouses are the main welfare required after UBI.
Do you know these guys who are talking in the video ? Are they stupid enough to tell people about things that no one is supposed to know? Don't you suspect they are working for the opposite cause than they admit to - or just spewing FUD ?
Like, hey man - you cannot trust anyone, you just might as well trust me than actually smart people!
You misunderstand. The battle won't be fought in courts - it will be in legislative sessions, by first crossing preliminaries in public perception.
Public perception is won by emotion, not logic / numbers. The battlecry will be "No more dead kids" represented next to a car with devil horns. Your figures telling that human drivers kill more kids will need to harness stronger emotions than that, they don't have to tote better numbers.
There is one big market for exploding stuff that just can't get enough of it.
habit-related education as they need it. But no direct payments or prizes.
A small part of habit formation is usually rewards. You now change the terms to direct payments or prizes, but originally you were arguing against rewards.
1. They were paid to use a tracker : yes
2. They were given a reward to develop a habit : there is not enough data to conclude whether it was to develop a habit or just to wear it.
3. They developed a habit : absolutely no evidence in favour of this, there is some evidence against it. Even an attempt at forming a habit was not likely made, let alone a habit.
4. 90% of them broke the habit : can one break something that doesn't exist?
Probably you don't know the meaning of the word "habit" in the context which I asked you to look up the research. If you are trolling, it's not the worst troll I have encountered for a while, but there are some excellent trolls around you can learn from.
No, why would it necessarily opposite of what it actually was?
But it is not the reason they exist in the first place.
What is the meaning of the word "reason" ? Define it, and you will get your answer.
Why the hell does this exist
Such questions arise from the misunderstanding of the word "why". "Why" is a question applicable to two kinds of events :
1. Actions : Where the "event" is clearly caused by an organism/thing with "agency", a "purpose". The answer to "why" in those cases refers to the "purpose" for which the thing with an agency caused the event.
E.g. a why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
2. Events : Pure events, not clearly caused by any organism/thing with "agency", or "purpose". The answer to "why" in those cases refers to the reason why YOU think it happened. Not the reason for the happening, but the reason for your thinking it happened.
E.g.
Person A : It rained.
Person B : Why?
Person A : Because the road is wet.
Any answer that describes the mechanism by which it rained, is not really answering "why", but it is explaining "how".
1. Once you have a habit, you don't need motivation.
2. For forming a habit, reward is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
3. Most people don't know the procedure to form habits.
But further, using rewards for motivation to exercise is terrible.
Not necessarily. We do things for 2 types of reasons :
1. Habit
2. Intellectually convincing ourselves that it is a good thing to do - this consumes willpower depending on how unpleasant the activity is.
One can't really do a lot of type 2 activities in a day. Willpower - somewhat like muscle, gets fatigued. There is interesting research on this topic, look it up. Somewhat like muscle, it builds up on using it too, but that is a long term plan.
So something as important as exercise is best done through habit. And rewards can help in forming a habit - so it is not a good idea to do the exercise for the reward e.g. the reward of a vacation to Tahiti is unlikely to be of much use. But reward to form a habit, and habit to cause exercise regularly is a great idea.
Reward itself isn't enough to form a habit - but it is a very important part.
Calling someone "Miss Piggy" is more a symptom of being a "speciesist" than a sexist.
Yahoo told the world about this breach about 2 years after it happened. If there were a company destroying fine, they might never have told anyone ? Such fines will also give rise to a kind of insurance against it. Since such fines are large, insurance companies might take over the disclosure of this breach - making it the business of even deeper pockets to hide this information.
If, on average, a data breach costs each breached customer like $5, then fine the company $10 per breached record
Do you see this average being computed across all service providers? Specific industry?
If the cost is per breached customer regardless of the impact of the breach to the customer, the less important data will get more security than the truly important data which costs thousands of dollars per customer when breached.
For customers who are not paying directly, the loss due to a breach might be argued to be zero, and might succeed in courts.