I think it definitely needs to be start with a general plastic straw ban. Then you can have exceptions.
If you need a straw for accessible reasons, then you can request one. Heck, I know this is unpopular to say, but maybe if you really need a straw to drink for health reasons...maybe you carry a straw with you. That doesn't seem unreasonable in terms of personal responsibility. It's no different than any other health condition that requires you as a person to do something. Maybe you need to carry an Epi-Pen. Maybe you need a hearing aid. Maybe you need a wheel-chair.
If you plan to drink it slowly or on a very long road trip, then you can request one.
But for the 99.5% of people who use plastic straws over their 20 minute meal, a paper straw is fine.
I've lived in more problematic parts of the world and there is a big distinction between 'government/metered taxis' and unofficial 'taxis'.
Generally if you want to be 'safe' you take the government taxi. Otherwise you use the non-regulated ones.
Sure, it's not a problem in Canada or the US yet, but it's still good to keep 'official' taxis.
Also, part of the issue is that Uber had to operate in a questionable manner. Like many established entities, they're not going to allow you to try. So you can't prove if the amount of regulation is needed. You need a risk taker like Uber to skirt the law, show the society that some of the regulations are not actually needed/protecting the public. They're simply increasing costs and monopolizing the industry. Then things can adjust.
It's just a part of society I guess for risk takers to oeprate illegally to make change. Will legal pot destroy society? You can't know until enough people break the law to show society works okay with some weed. Will school choice destroy social harmony... you can't know until you try. Will selling beer at corner stores lead to mass alcohol social problems? Will selling unpasteurized milk cause mass disease...
1. Women want and have sex just as much as men. The issue is they only want to have sex upper men.
2. The issue of 'monogamy' allowing distribution of women which has the side impact of reducing crazy aggression is not much different than other arguments. Ever heard someone say... society has to handle economic inequality because if inequality gets too high, people riot, kidnap, steal... and society breaks down. It's pretty much the same argument except in one you're 'robbing someone of their labor' and in the other you're 'controlling someone of their sexuality'.
3. This is just more personal advice than anything. Don't bother with complaining about women. And if you're a women reading this... don't complain about men. Both sexes are who they are and there's enough difference in both genders that chances are, it's you that's the problem. So even if we take all of your observations are 'true'. You believe that women today go for how entertaining a guy is. Alright... that's the hand us guys are dealt according to you. So the advice should be for guys to work on being more entertaining. Even if you think it's shallow... do it to 'rope' her in then show her all the rest of your amazing self. Same with girls... if they think men only care about looks. If that's what they think... then put in the work to look good... then show the guy the real value of your character.... For such an important life choice and purpose to life, most of the people don't put in the kind of work. And it's not that hard work. Get a good haircut, take care of yourself... You don't need to be The Rock or Arnold or Tom Cruise here, but do the basics which take up almost no time, and you'll be able to attract someone. I'm almost 35, and I'm only now looking right. I got married before this, but I look at myself now, and think... shit... I coulda had so many girl all my life if I just put in an hour a week. I do what I do now mainly for work. Sharp haircut, decent clothes... little workout. I spent more time browsing online profiles and stuff before this.
Just do something anything... to make yourself happy. I suffered pretty severe depression or what you call it in my mid 20s, feeling like I was stuck and society was screwed up. I'd never take it out on society like these incels people, but I could have given up on life. I look at myself back then and realize... I could have done so much.
Heck, even if you have no skills with women and you want sex... take a trip overseas and go to thailand. I don't mean that jokingly... I seriously wish I had done that. I had a good job? Do something.
This is probably shitty advice at some level, but take it within the context of what I'm saying. Give up on politics. Give up on society. You're not that powerful or skilled to change it. Get out of your systems thinking head of what is wrong with society and how to arrange it properly. I spent way too much time in my head like that and still do. Just friggin live your life and do things.You'll actually become more capable of actually changing things if you do.
Isn't it amazing how CR idea of testing makes more sense to me than the government testing.
Even for all these emissions scandals that we've been hit with. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take a random car and drive it around the city with some stops and then on a clear highway.
You'd get a pretty good sampling of the needed data. It might not be exact enough to distinguish a car with 7.0 L/100 KM versus 7.2 L/100 KM. But who really cares about that 0.2 as a consumer.
The problem with a lot of this, the line about societies influencing each other taking the best of both and getting rid of the bad.
I ask as a simple question... where is the evidence for this? I get the theory, but here's another way to look at it.
Families are very big and important. You list that as something admirable about Saudi. Do you think the oppression of woman and other 'bad' aspects of saudi society play a big role in maintaining the 'family'? Even the idea of putting their citzenry first. Really.. it's not that's a novelty. It's called nationalism elsewhere and people hate tend to think it is 'bad'.
Aside from very superficial cultural integration... like food and clothes.. the values of cultures remains very tricky. Either everyone kind of becomes one culture. I point to most of the big cities for this. People of all diverse background live and work in places like Toronto. Varied skin color and places they're from. But they're basically westernized for lack of a better term.
Alternatively, to actually have the different 'culture', you end up with the silos you speak of. Either in ethnic cultural ghettos or what have you... in actual different countries.
I honestly just don't much evidence of this taking the best of cultures. I think it's mainly due to the way of life largely being a pro/con thing. You get something, you give something else.
To make a nice car analogy. One culture might be like a fuel efficient Honda Civic.
Another culture might be rugged and tough like a hummer.
It's not like you can put a Honda Civic engine in a Hummer and have something functional.
UBI for lack of putting a monetary value to it generally means enough for decent housing, food, a little more for extras (cell phone, internet... whatever)
Some portion of people might want to want that nice car, fancy vacations. A lot of people really don't. Even today, most people just do it because they have extra money. I'd say the vast majority of people I know don't really chase those great material markers. Heck, how many people do you know who really want that Lamborghini. I'm not talking about casually wanting it, but like are willing to work for it. Very few.
We all have wants. But are you willing to work harder than you currently are for those wants?
You also combine this with the decline in marriage of example.It's not like you're living in 1950s where men are trying to bring home of the bacon to prove what great providers they can be. You alsoi combine that with a societal attitude towards egalitarianism and it's why would you want to work to be better than someone else? The mindset is enjoy yourself and pursue what makes you happy.
Some people will be motivated to work to have a higher standard of living, but a lot of people won't. It really is an unanswered question on how society will function. I've lived in dirt poor societies. I have a lot of family in the UK, and in some parts, just living off the dole is a way of life. It's hard to get people to work, even when jobs are there.
Like I said, I'm not saying it's impossible to find enough people willing to work in the jobs needing to be done. I just say it's a pretty risky part of the UBI. And not just for the first generation to do it. Think about the second and third and forth generations in a society of UBI. Heck, we have trouble in the Western world getting people to work even when they're unemployed today and it's not like every Western person is living a rich life. There are poor people. Western people used to do these jobs in the past... something changed over the generations.
Heck, I'm in Ontario, Canada, and we always hear about labor shortages. Here's a quick google for one in the argicultural sector. https://www.country-guide.ca/2...
Yet, we can't get Canadians to fill those jobs today, even those who don't have jobs. Don't you think those poor canadians want to improve their life? Why aren't they taking the jobs right now?
All this talk about automation/robotics bringing about utopia, I think misses 2 very important points.
The main problem we face is not technological, but organizational. I would suggest we've had the technology to have a society of abundance ever since the industrial revolution. I don't think it's any coincidence communism arose when it did. It arose because smart people could see how technology could be used to provide for all, if only we could organize better.
But it misses the issue in my view. The problem is not one of technology, but of organization. Who gets to be professor in a communist university. Who gets to be one sent down to mine in Siberia? Who decides what the 'state' should work towards (war, exploration, material well being...). How do you motivate people to work responsibly?
It really is a hard questions. There is 0 technological reason for there to be poverty where in the world today. I don't say that as if it's an easy answer. It's that the technological problem is not the hard one to solve. It's the organizational one.
For the guaranteed income. I'm far less concerned about giving people without a job free money. Shit, if I could pay people and all they did was smoke weed and play video games all day... meh. As long as they didn't turn criminal.
I'm far more concerned with the question of whether the rest of society will keep 'working'. Will doctors keep being doctors and working the late night ER shift. Will engineers keep working and tackling difficult jobs.. keeping everything running.
who knows... that really is the hard question. I still work and earn a good living. But supposing my house is paid off, and i could collect a guaranteed income? I might just decide to not work and maybe just pursue hobbies.
And if I (the stereotyped) hardworking immigrant is questioning if I would keep working under a guaranteed income.... well I really do ask about the rest of society.
And if we're banking on technology to be so perfect that no human jobs at all need to be done... well then perhaps we make the organizational question easier. But I don't think it is solved. What will people? What meaning will they seek in their lives? Will they lead to cults and tribalism?
Who the hell knows. I certainly don't. The point of this long rant is just that. The technological solution is not the end of it. It's merely better than the technology we've had for the past 100 years. But the organization problem is the main problem.
Most of these anti-discrimination issues are very problematic from a policy level.
Even simple things. Remember a little while back people made a fuss about H&M using a black child for a tshirt that said 'monkey'.
Now think about it from a company perspective. It's possible, someone was cheeky racist. It's also possible, the kid just happens to be black.
Either-way, what do you think the corporate policy could be to avoid such issues? Possibly something along the lines of.
"If an item contains 'monkey' in the description, do not cast a black child'
That is what the policy needs to be. (assuming you still want t-shirts that say monkey). But if you write that out, guess what, you are discriminating against some black child. You are holding back the career of black models.
It's the same here. People can phrase it as we need to hire more Latinos, Blacks... but how does that come down to corporate policy... don't hire White or Asian men.That's what the policy has to be as written down.
Once you get past measures to ensure 'fair' assessment of ability, this is simply how it has to be done once you get into the nitty gritty. What irks people is when the policy is actually written down and implemented.
"Anyway, neurons are simply complex highly interlinked analogue logic gates - given enough time it would be possible to codify any neural network in boolean logic using thousands or millions of if-then statements and jumps."
While true, the accomplishment is in actually doing it. Saying such as such as theoretically possible is nice and all, but actually doing it is where it is at.
Now that they've done the worm and seen it is successful, hopefully the work continues to more and more complex organisms. They'll face bigger challenges of scale and complexity and work through those.
Theory is great. Working out all the details to a working product accomplishment.
I have no idea what a culture of 'free money' will do to society.
In a theoretical world where everyone basically keeps doing what they're doing, I have no problem with a guaranteed income to keep some people afloat even if they just sit home and play video games.
The bigger question is not what will unemployed people do, but what will working people do. How will this impact people's behavior this generation, and the next, and the one after that.
Sure, you can think maybe the world is better off without minimum wage fast food workers. Who cares if they choose not to work. But how about engineers, trade people, nurses, doctors, janitors, miners...
Think about this for a second, we're in a world where we need say Lithium for all the cool electric batteries we're going to have. Would you rather go work in the mines finding lithium, or be paid a good living salary to chill? I don't see too many people whose passions is working in the mines.
And what will be the value of money if you can't spend it on things because all the minimum wage workers don't do those jobs anymore.
I really don't know the answer to the question. But I definitely think the wrong question is being asked in many of the experiments. It's not about whether a currently unemployed person will be discouraged from looking for a job, but whether or not the rest of society keeps working... and thinking about the long term. Not just this generation where people already have an ingrained work ethic, but future generations as well.
Well that's really the crux of the question isn't it. Not all people are the same. People have different values and ways of being.
The rich person who worked hard all his life is going to find it hard to sit home doing nothing. They're going to keep working to be great like Jeff Bezos. Or they're going to charity like Bill Gates. Or they're pursuing their passions like Elon Musk.
Heck, I have part of that personality as well. I can't sit home and do nothing. I have to do something; be it write or workout or program or whatever...
Yet, I know plenty of people who sit home and do nothing. I know even more who would do nothing if they didn't have to drag their ass to the job they hate. Heck, growing up in the developing world in a country with like a 40% unemployment rate, many (maybe most) people did spend most of their time doing nothing. They weren't off trying to do great things to making the most of what they have. They weren't perfecting music or trying to improve their communities.
Of course, if you think the only difference between an unemployed person and Jeff Bezos is that Jeff Bezos is privileged enough to have been given the job of CEO to make his billions... well that's where we differ.
Different people do have different values and different ways of being.
After much time in R&D, I now work at a Bank. When I joined, it was a slow 'legacy' environment... and not in a way that ensured amazing quality:P We tried changing things, but we could never get approvals.
Then the 'fads' came out. Agile, DevOps, MicroServices, The Cloud...
Sure laugh at the consultants all you like and call them fads.
What I'll say is that we've gotten the benefits. Git = check Jira/Confluence = check Some Agile = check Cloudify = check
What works to get big corporations to move are the management consultancy firms. It works. Sure, it's wasteful and if they would take 2 minutes to listen to an engineer, they could save a whole bunch...but as you say... do what works.
If i was understood. I meant white people can attack their right wing. We cannot attack our right wing because people jump to defend cultural practices.
Hey. I dont know if a sure fire way. But i leave the door open for good government policy to provide social support.
I could see things like social workers working closely with families. Not to take kids away from parents, but to help people parent. Maybe schools can provide services for things like kids threatened with being disowned or beat...
Also i think the general social environment should allow for discussion. Probably the one that annoys me most is that white people actively attack their right wing. Its not socially acceptable today to attack islams right wing. And i dont mean terrorism here. Just social things. I dont care about the hijab but i mean is it a thing to be celebrated? No where else do western people support slut shaming and female modesty dreas codes. Just treat immigrants with the same standards u expect of anyone else.
If you're actually serious about that question... I'll bite.
I'm a Muslim immigrant to Canada. I'm pretty secular now, but the idea that somehow you immigrate and then in the next generation, you're magically Canadian with Western values is just ignorant.
The culture matters. The numbers matter. The government policies matter.
Get enough people of a certain culture in an area and that culture and way of life becomes dominant. I guess if you thin being British/Canadian is just a piece of paper, then maybe this doesn't matter to you.
I have a lot of family in the UK. It really is a different world. Heck, I don't even go. I have family there 2nd/3rd generation where there is total gender segregation, always talk of Sharia...When new immigrants come, they settle around there to keep the community Islamic.This part is key... as you keep bringing in more people who settle there, it really keep the community a certain way. Once you hit a certain threshold, you're basically created a community that stands on its own with its own ideology.
This is not unique to Islam, by any stretch of the imagination.
You can talk to many Muslim immigrant families. Most will tell you the same thing. Well at least in my life, they have. When the community is small, integration is easy. My in-laws for example, came to Canada in the 70s. Hardly modern by any respect. My father-in-law thought nothing of buy someone a bottle of wine as a gift. He wouldn't drink himself. They're not that secular. My wife often complains that her family completely changed as more and more family was brought in. Few used to wear the hijab. Then everyone started and the social moral police started. Dating started to become more of a scandal if people found out a daughter was dating. Aunts who used to date and got married suddenly turned all religious and forbade their daughters from dating. Islamic school suddenly became a thing... People started wearing the niqab and marrying religious people from Asia. Yeah... now I have 2 silly segregated weddings this summer. lol.
This is the cultural problem. It is then layered with political issues. I don't really hang in dangerous circles, but I've seen what it can do. I know a few girls in the extended family who have actually talked positively of going to the Islamic State as that is real Islam. Yeah... girls born in Canada, but such are their values.
I don't blame this all on immigration. You can have high rates of immigration with the necessary social support. I can say that even in Canada, this social support is just not there. My high school was heavily Indian immigrants. There was virtually no social support. Parents beating kids. Girls disowned for dating. Forced marriages... all happened.
It's just ridiculously ignorant to think none of this matter and because someone is born in Canada/Britain, nothing else matters.
Anyways, enough of a rant. You get the point. Immigration matters, community matters, culture matters, government policies matters...
I don't think you could have enough tax money and political/social will to implement a UBI. Rather it will take some change in the monetary system.
I don't say this is wise to do, but if the central banks can print money / purchase government debt fast enough, it could let them continue functioning. It would require global coordination of course.
But I guess that is the battle between globalists and nationalists.
I honestly don't know if it will succeed, but from where I sit, that is the path progressives and globalists and marching. More power to them if they can make it work. Of course, the dangers of globalists have been well written about it.
Far too much emphasis is put on residential choices and not enough on business choices / city planning.
I used to live in the city (Toronto), but have recently moved out to the Burbs. Here's the thing, I chose to live near a regional rail line. I work downtown. It takes me less time to get to work (30 min) then when I used to live in the city taking the subway...
It got me thinking that all this moralizing over transit is pretty silly. You can have a high intensity downtown living. You can have your suburban living. Assuming things are planned reasonably.
If anything, I'd say, all this crazy drive to get people living close to work and in shoe box condos is all a bit silly. Put the businesses in the central locations.
Then get regional rail to get people from the burbs there.
Regional rail is pretty cheap in comparison to subways. Sure, it runs less often, but it does the job.
I've come to see that the biggest problem we've faced in the suburban office park.
Another Canadian example is the city of Calgary, which kept its downtown business core better than Toronto. It has huge burbs, but also a good LRT system that functions as regional rail.
This doesn't mean it should never be used. But a lot of the time, it doesn't NEED to be recursive and making it recursive complicates thing.
I'll give a practical example. I worked on router firmware when I first graduated and got assigned this bug where a router in South Korea kept crashing. Really hard to debug it. After a lot of debugging, I found out it was related to the number of ACLs applied to a policy. Went through the code and the section that applies those ACLs was recursive. So when the number of ACLs got too high, this function was recursively called and it ended up blowing the stack on the firmware and crashing.
Was there any reason for this to be recursive? Nope. A simply refactoring and I made it into a for loop. Problem solved.
Recursion just introduces more ways things can screw up. I generally like the idea of it being cautioned against. If you really can't write it resonably in a loop, then go ahead.
Well I'll bite. I think David Frum said it most accurately. "When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals wonâ(TM)t do"
It applies to most of Trump's 'core issues'. In and of themselves, they're not extreme issues.
Controlling the border Keeping good jobs in America... These used to be normal bread and butter conversations. It wasn't that long ago, tariffs were just regular policy. So to was controlling immigration numbers. There's nothing crazy or racist or xenophobic about any of it in and of itself.
The problem is that people have been screaming about their issues for decades now and the 'mainstream' political parties have basically ignored it at best. At worst, they've made it horrible to even bring it up (calling someone racist...)
For people on slashdot, it might be the H1B issue. For others, its the border. For others, it's their factory job.
Barring further context, grabbing them by the pussy wasn't exactly non-consensual. It's a complex term these days between explicit consent and implicit or not saying no.
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]â"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
They let him do it because he is a star.
If you've ever kissed a girl without asking her explicitly 'can I kiss you now?' you've pretty much done what Trump has done.
I completely understand the struggles people who are impacted by a disease and there's a cure out of there, but just costs so much.
At the same time, for all it's flaws in the patent system, in the grand scheme of things... the patent lasts like 5 or 10 or 20 years (I don't know). My point is it's not that long.
Let's remember that the drug wasn't there before. That's the price the society pays for a dynamic drug market.
You invent something; it's prohibitively expensive for a bit, then the price drops.
The alternative is... maybe it's not invented.
The former sadly is easy to rail against. The later is a bit more complex.
Part of the fault can go to the Go programming language for their API design.
But most of the blame goes to the developers. I haven't coded in Go, but I googled this quickly. https://golang.org/pkg/math/ra... The Go documentation clearly says it panics if n = 0.
They could have 1. validated their inputs. 2. Handle the panic and assign a default value (I am assuming this is possible in Go. I have never used it)
In the end, it seems like this is just used to distribute requests. Worst case, it should log the error and then assign say the 1st upstream (default value).
But I guess then you're in the exception handling debate on whether you swallow the error and keep going or have your application crash so that you detect the weird condition.
I'm a defensive; keep the system going developer. But others prefer to be more exact.
I've always had an issue with the idea that software patents are magically different.
In theory, a patent doesn't block an idea, but an implementation. In practice, patents are written as broad as possible to cover as much implementations as possible. In all fields, you are trying to patent an idea that you think is novel.
I like to point to actual 'physical' patents because people tend to idealize them as opposed to software patents. Let's take something simple, yet very innovative. The coffee cup sleeve... meant to make hot cups easier to hold. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
It's best to look at the claims section. Give it a read. It's written very generally and for good reason. If you could bypass the patent by adding a groove to the cardboard or something like that or just using a different material, the patent would be useless. And the coffee cup sleeve is simple, yet definitely novel because we've had cups for a very long time and yet this device did solve a real world problem.
Again read the claims sections. Written just as generally to encompass as much as possible. If you want to talk about it within a specific implementation. It talks about buttons and shopping cart model... in a similar way that the coffee cup sleeve talks about cups and bands...
I think it's legit to have an issue with our patent system in general. What I don't understand is the idea that software patents are somehow special. If people think software patents protect ideas instead of implementations, then I think hardware patents do the same in practice.
I've filed a few software patents before and what do you think a person would file a patent for in the case of detecting someone is driving. You probably listed the main ways in a comment on slashdot. You don't think a patent lawyer is going to list all those way in the claims of a patent they're filing? They're going to list all those way in the claims as broadly as possible, so any 'practical' implementation will be patented. No different from a hardware patent.
Just for fun, I found the Apple patent and look at the claims. https://www.google.com/patents... Yeop, they patent the major practical motion detection (GPS, celluar, accelorometer...)
Slashdot Mirror
I think it definitely needs to be start with a general plastic straw ban. Then you can have exceptions.
If you need a straw for accessible reasons, then you can request one. Heck, I know this is unpopular to say, but maybe if you really need a straw to drink for health reasons...maybe you carry a straw with you. That doesn't seem unreasonable in terms of personal responsibility. It's no different than any other health condition that requires you as a person to do something. Maybe you need to carry an Epi-Pen. Maybe you need a hearing aid. Maybe you need a wheel-chair.
If you plan to drink it slowly or on a very long road trip, then you can request one.
But for the 99.5% of people who use plastic straws over their 20 minute meal, a paper straw is fine.
I wouldn't go that far.
I've lived in more problematic parts of the world and there is a big distinction between 'government/metered taxis' and unofficial 'taxis'.
Generally if you want to be 'safe' you take the government taxi. Otherwise you use the non-regulated ones.
Sure, it's not a problem in Canada or the US yet, but it's still good to keep 'official' taxis.
Also, part of the issue is that Uber had to operate in a questionable manner. Like many established entities, they're not going to allow you to try. So you can't prove if the amount of regulation is needed. You need a risk taker like Uber to skirt the law, show the society that some of the regulations are not actually needed/protecting the public. They're simply increasing costs and monopolizing the industry. Then things can adjust.
It's just a part of society I guess for risk takers to oeprate illegally to make change. ...
Will legal pot destroy society? You can't know until enough people break the law to show society works okay with some weed.
Will school choice destroy social harmony... you can't know until you try.
Will selling beer at corner stores lead to mass alcohol social problems?
Will selling unpasteurized milk cause mass disease
I'll bite for the sake of it.
1. Women want and have sex just as much as men. The issue is they only want to have sex upper men.
2. The issue of 'monogamy' allowing distribution of women which has the side impact of reducing crazy aggression is not much different than other arguments. Ever heard someone say... society has to handle economic inequality because if inequality gets too high, people riot, kidnap, steal... and society breaks down. It's pretty much the same argument except in one you're 'robbing someone of their labor' and in the other you're 'controlling someone of their sexuality'.
3. This is just more personal advice than anything. Don't bother with complaining about women. And if you're a women reading this... don't complain about men. Both sexes are who they are and there's enough difference in both genders that chances are, it's you that's the problem. So even if we take all of your observations are 'true'. You believe that women today go for how entertaining a guy is. Alright... that's the hand us guys are dealt according to you. So the advice should be for guys to work on being more entertaining. Even if you think it's shallow... do it to 'rope' her in then show her all the rest of your amazing self. Same with girls... if they think men only care about looks. If that's what they think... then put in the work to look good... then show the guy the real value of your character.... For such an important life choice and purpose to life, most of the people don't put in the kind of work. And it's not that hard work. Get a good haircut, take care of yourself... You don't need to be The Rock or Arnold or Tom Cruise here, but do the basics which take up almost no time, and you'll be able to attract someone. I'm almost 35, and I'm only now looking right. I got married before this, but I look at myself now, and think... shit... I coulda had so many girl all my life if I just put in an hour a week. I do what I do now mainly for work. Sharp haircut, decent clothes... little workout. I spent more time browsing online profiles and stuff before this.
Just do something anything... to make yourself happy. I suffered pretty severe depression or what you call it in my mid 20s, feeling like I was stuck and society was screwed up. I'd never take it out on society like these incels people, but I could have given up on life. I look at myself back then and realize... I could have done so much.
Heck, even if you have no skills with women and you want sex... take a trip overseas and go to thailand. I don't mean that jokingly... I seriously wish I had done that. I had a good job? Do something.
This is probably shitty advice at some level, but take it within the context of what I'm saying. Give up on politics. Give up on society. You're not that powerful or skilled to change it. Get out of your systems thinking head of what is wrong with society and how to arrange it properly. I spent way too much time in my head like that and still do. Just friggin live your life and do things.You'll actually become more capable of actually changing things if you do.
Isn't it amazing how CR idea of testing makes more sense to me than the government testing.
Even for all these emissions scandals that we've been hit with. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take a random car and drive it around the city with some stops and then on a clear highway.
You'd get a pretty good sampling of the needed data. It might not be exact enough to distinguish a car with 7.0 L/100 KM versus 7.2 L/100 KM. But who really cares about that 0.2 as a consumer.
The problem with a lot of this, the line about societies influencing each other taking the best of both and getting rid of the bad.
I ask as a simple question... where is the evidence for this? I get the theory, but here's another way to look at it.
Families are very big and important. You list that as something admirable about Saudi. Do you think the oppression of woman and other 'bad' aspects of saudi society play a big role in maintaining the 'family'? Even the idea of putting their citzenry first. Really.. it's not that's a novelty. It's called nationalism elsewhere and people hate tend to think it is 'bad'.
Aside from very superficial cultural integration... like food and clothes.. the values of cultures remains very tricky. Either everyone kind of becomes one culture. I point to most of the big cities for this. People of all diverse background live and work in places like Toronto. Varied skin color and places they're from. But they're basically westernized for lack of a better term.
Alternatively, to actually have the different 'culture', you end up with the silos you speak of. Either in ethnic cultural ghettos or what have you... in actual different countries.
I honestly just don't much evidence of this taking the best of cultures. I think it's mainly due to the way of life largely being a pro/con thing. You get something, you give something else.
To make a nice car analogy.
One culture might be like a fuel efficient Honda Civic.
Another culture might be rugged and tough like a hummer.
It's not like you can put a Honda Civic engine in a Hummer and have something functional.
UBI for lack of putting a monetary value to it generally means enough for decent housing, food, a little more for extras (cell phone, internet... whatever)
Some portion of people might want to want that nice car, fancy vacations. A lot of people really don't. Even today, most people just do it because they have extra money. I'd say the vast majority of people I know don't really chase those great material markers. Heck, how many people do you know who really want that Lamborghini. I'm not talking about casually wanting it, but like are willing to work for it. Very few.
We all have wants. But are you willing to work harder than you currently are for those wants?
You also combine this with the decline in marriage of example.It's not like you're living in 1950s where men are trying to bring home of the bacon to prove what great providers they can be. You alsoi combine that with a societal attitude towards egalitarianism and it's why would you want to work to be better than someone else? The mindset is enjoy yourself and pursue what makes you happy.
Some people will be motivated to work to have a higher standard of living, but a lot of people won't. It really is an unanswered question on how society will function. I've lived in dirt poor societies. I have a lot of family in the UK, and in some parts, just living off the dole is a way of life. It's hard to get people to work, even when jobs are there.
Like I said, I'm not saying it's impossible to find enough people willing to work in the jobs needing to be done. I just say it's a pretty risky part of the UBI. And not just for the first generation to do it. Think about the second and third and forth generations in a society of UBI. Heck, we have trouble in the Western world getting people to work even when they're unemployed today and it's not like every Western person is living a rich life. There are poor people. Western people used to do these jobs in the past... something changed over the generations.
Heck, I'm in Ontario, Canada, and we always hear about labor shortages. Here's a quick google for one in the argicultural sector.
https://www.country-guide.ca/2...
Yet, we can't get Canadians to fill those jobs today, even those who don't have jobs. Don't you think those poor canadians want to improve their life? Why aren't they taking the jobs right now?
Something to ponder.
This really is an important point.
All this talk about automation/robotics bringing about utopia, I think misses 2 very important points.
The main problem we face is not technological, but organizational. I would suggest we've had the technology to have a society of abundance ever since the industrial revolution. I don't think it's any coincidence communism arose when it did. It arose because smart people could see how technology could be used to provide for all, if only we could organize better.
But it misses the issue in my view. The problem is not one of technology, but of organization. Who gets to be professor in a communist university. Who gets to be one sent down to mine in Siberia? Who decides what the 'state' should work towards (war, exploration, material well being...). How do you motivate people to work responsibly?
It really is a hard questions. There is 0 technological reason for there to be poverty where in the world today. I don't say that as if it's an easy answer. It's that the technological problem is not the hard one to solve. It's the organizational one.
For the guaranteed income. I'm far less concerned about giving people without a job free money. Shit, if I could pay people and all they did was smoke weed and play video games all day... meh. As long as they didn't turn criminal.
I'm far more concerned with the question of whether the rest of society will keep 'working'. Will doctors keep being doctors and working the late night ER shift. Will engineers keep working and tackling difficult jobs.. keeping everything running.
who knows... that really is the hard question. I still work and earn a good living. But supposing my house is paid off, and i could collect a guaranteed income? I might just decide to not work and maybe just pursue hobbies.
And if I (the stereotyped) hardworking immigrant is questioning if I would keep working under a guaranteed income.... well I really do ask about the rest of society.
And if we're banking on technology to be so perfect that no human jobs at all need to be done... well then perhaps we make the organizational question easier. But I don't think it is solved. What will people? What meaning will they seek in their lives? Will they lead to cults and tribalism?
Who the hell knows. I certainly don't. The point of this long rant is just that. The technological solution is not the end of it. It's merely better than the technology we've had for the past 100 years. But the organization problem is the main problem.
No, what's madness is you taking such offense to being called selfish.
Most people, me included, mainly use Waze/Google Maps in a selfish manner to get to your destination quicker.
We're not thinking about overall traffic flow....
LifeProTip... the most effective way to deal with someone who says you're selfish... is to say... I am... now what.
We're all selfish. Selfishness taken too far can be a problem. I wouldn't consider this a case of being selfish taken too far though.
Most of these anti-discrimination issues are very problematic from a policy level.
Even simple things. Remember a little while back people made a fuss about H&M using a black child for a tshirt that said 'monkey'.
Now think about it from a company perspective.
It's possible, someone was cheeky racist. It's also possible, the kid just happens to be black.
Either-way, what do you think the corporate policy could be to avoid such issues? Possibly something along the lines of.
"If an item contains 'monkey' in the description, do not cast a black child'
That is what the policy needs to be. (assuming you still want t-shirts that say monkey). But if you write that out, guess what, you are discriminating against some black child. You are holding back the career of black models.
It's the same here. People can phrase it as we need to hire more Latinos, Blacks... but how does that come down to corporate policy... don't hire White or Asian men.That's what the policy has to be as written down.
Once you get past measures to ensure 'fair' assessment of ability, this is simply how it has to be done once you get into the nitty gritty. What irks people is when the policy is actually written down and implemented.
"Anyway, neurons are simply complex highly interlinked analogue logic gates - given enough time it would be possible to codify any neural network in boolean logic using thousands or millions of if-then statements and jumps."
While true, the accomplishment is in actually doing it. Saying such as such as theoretically possible is nice and all, but actually doing it is where it is at.
Now that they've done the worm and seen it is successful, hopefully the work continues to more and more complex organisms. They'll face bigger challenges of scale and complexity and work through those.
Theory is great. Working out all the details to a working product accomplishment.
Yeah, I really don't know the answer to that.
I have no idea what a culture of 'free money' will do to society.
In a theoretical world where everyone basically keeps doing what they're doing, I have no problem with a guaranteed income to keep some people afloat even if they just sit home and play video games.
The bigger question is not what will unemployed people do, but what will working people do. How will this impact people's behavior this generation, and the next, and the one after that.
Sure, you can think maybe the world is better off without minimum wage fast food workers. Who cares if they choose not to work. But how about engineers, trade people, nurses, doctors, janitors, miners...
Think about this for a second, we're in a world where we need say Lithium for all the cool electric batteries we're going to have. Would you rather go work in the mines finding lithium, or be paid a good living salary to chill? I don't see too many people whose passions is working in the mines.
And what will be the value of money if you can't spend it on things because all the minimum wage workers don't do those jobs anymore.
I really don't know the answer to the question.
But I definitely think the wrong question is being asked in many of the experiments. It's not about whether a currently unemployed person will be discouraged from looking for a job, but whether or not the rest of society keeps working... and thinking about the long term. Not just this generation where people already have an ingrained work ethic, but future generations as well.
Well that's really the crux of the question isn't it.
Not all people are the same. People have different values and ways of being.
The rich person who worked hard all his life is going to find it hard to sit home doing nothing. They're going to keep working to be great like Jeff Bezos. Or they're going to charity like Bill Gates. Or they're pursuing their passions like Elon Musk.
Heck, I have part of that personality as well. I can't sit home and do nothing. I have to do something; be it write or workout or program or whatever...
Yet, I know plenty of people who sit home and do nothing. I know even more who would do nothing if they didn't have to drag their ass to the job they hate. Heck, growing up in the developing world in a country with like a 40% unemployment rate, many (maybe most) people did spend most of their time doing nothing. They weren't off trying to do great things to making the most of what they have. They weren't perfecting music or trying to improve their communities.
Of course, if you think the only difference between an unemployed person and Jeff Bezos is that Jeff Bezos is privileged enough to have been given the job of CEO to make his billions... well that's where we differ.
Different people do have different values and different ways of being.
Well, fads are what make the corporations go.
After much time in R&D, I now work at a Bank. When I joined, it was a slow 'legacy' environment... and not in a way that ensured amazing quality :P We tried changing things, but we could never get approvals.
Then the 'fads' came out. Agile, DevOps, MicroServices, The Cloud...
Sure laugh at the consultants all you like and call them fads.
What I'll say is that we've gotten the benefits.
Git = check
Jira/Confluence = check
Some Agile = check
Cloudify = check
What works to get big corporations to move are the management consultancy firms. It works. Sure, it's wasteful and if they would take 2 minutes to listen to an engineer, they could save a whole bunch...but as you say... do what works.
And fads work.
If i was understood.
I meant white people can attack their right wing.
We cannot attack our right wing because people jump to defend cultural practices.
Hey. I dont know if a sure fire way. But i leave the door open for good government policy to provide social support.
I could see things like social workers working closely with families. Not to take kids away from parents, but to help people parent. Maybe schools can provide services for things like kids threatened with being disowned or beat...
Also i think the general social environment should allow for discussion. Probably the one that annoys me most is that white people actively attack their right wing. Its not socially acceptable today to attack islams right wing. And i dont mean terrorism here. Just social things. I dont care about the hijab but i mean is it a thing to be celebrated? No where else do western people support slut shaming and female modesty dreas codes. Just treat immigrants with the same standards u expect of anyone else.
If you're actually serious about that question... I'll bite.
I'm a Muslim immigrant to Canada. I'm pretty secular now, but the idea that somehow you immigrate and then in the next generation, you're magically Canadian with Western values is just ignorant.
The culture matters. The numbers matter. The government policies matter.
Get enough people of a certain culture in an area and that culture and way of life becomes dominant. I guess if you thin being British/Canadian is just a piece of paper, then maybe this doesn't matter to you.
I have a lot of family in the UK. It really is a different world. Heck, I don't even go. I have family there 2nd/3rd generation where there is total gender segregation, always talk of Sharia...When new immigrants come, they settle around there to keep the community Islamic.This part is key... as you keep bringing in more people who settle there, it really keep the community a certain way. Once you hit a certain threshold, you're basically created a community that stands on its own with its own ideology.
This is not unique to Islam, by any stretch of the imagination.
You can talk to many Muslim immigrant families. Most will tell you the same thing. Well at least in my life, they have. When the community is small, integration is easy. My in-laws for example, came to Canada in the 70s. Hardly modern by any respect. My father-in-law thought nothing of buy someone a bottle of wine as a gift. He wouldn't drink himself. They're not that secular. My wife often complains that her family completely changed as more and more family was brought in. Few used to wear the hijab. Then everyone started and the social moral police started. Dating started to become more of a scandal if people found out a daughter was dating. Aunts who used to date and got married suddenly turned all religious and forbade their daughters from dating. Islamic school suddenly became a thing... People started wearing the niqab and marrying religious people from Asia. Yeah... now I have 2 silly segregated weddings this summer. lol.
This is the cultural problem. It is then layered with political issues. I don't really hang in dangerous circles, but I've seen what it can do. I know a few girls in the extended family who have actually talked positively of going to the Islamic State as that is real Islam. Yeah... girls born in Canada, but such are their values.
I don't blame this all on immigration. You can have high rates of immigration with the necessary social support. I can say that even in Canada, this social support is just not there. My high school was heavily
Indian immigrants. There was virtually no social support. Parents beating kids. Girls disowned for dating. Forced marriages... all happened.
It's just ridiculously ignorant to think none of this matter and because someone is born in Canada/Britain, nothing else matters.
Anyways, enough of a rant. You get the point. Immigration matters, community matters, culture matters, government policies matters...
I don't think UBI will rely on general taxation.
I don't think you could have enough tax money and political/social will to implement a UBI. Rather it will take some change in the monetary system.
I don't say this is wise to do, but if the central banks can print money / purchase government debt fast enough, it could let them continue functioning. It would require global coordination of course.
But I guess that is the battle between globalists and nationalists.
I honestly don't know if it will succeed, but from where I sit, that is the path progressives and globalists and marching. More power to them if they can make it work. Of course, the dangers of globalists have been well written about it.
There's another solution that I'll add.
Far too much emphasis is put on residential choices and not enough on business choices / city planning.
I used to live in the city (Toronto), but have recently moved out to the Burbs. Here's the thing, I chose to live near a regional rail line. I work downtown. It takes me less time to get to work (30 min) then when I used to live in the city taking the subway...
It got me thinking that all this moralizing over transit is pretty silly. You can have a high intensity downtown living. You can have your suburban living. Assuming things are planned reasonably.
If anything, I'd say, all this crazy drive to get people living close to work and in shoe box condos is all a bit silly. Put the businesses in the central locations.
Then get regional rail to get people from the burbs there.
Regional rail is pretty cheap in comparison to subways. Sure, it runs less often, but it does the job.
I've come to see that the biggest problem we've faced in the suburban office park.
Another Canadian example is the city of Calgary, which kept its downtown business core better than Toronto. It has huge burbs, but also a good LRT system that functions as regional rail.
I generally advise against it.
This doesn't mean it should never be used.
But a lot of the time, it doesn't NEED to be recursive and making it recursive complicates thing.
I'll give a practical example. I worked on router firmware when I first graduated and got assigned this bug where a router in South Korea kept crashing. Really hard to debug it. After a lot of debugging, I found out it was related to the number of ACLs applied to a policy. Went through the code and the section that applies those ACLs was recursive.
So when the number of ACLs got too high, this function was recursively called and it ended up blowing the stack on the firmware and crashing.
Was there any reason for this to be recursive? Nope.
A simply refactoring and I made it into a for loop. Problem solved.
Recursion just introduces more ways things can screw up. I generally like the idea of it being cautioned against. If you really can't write it resonably in a loop, then go ahead.
Well I'll bite. I think David Frum said it most accurately.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals wonâ(TM)t do"
It applies to most of Trump's 'core issues'. In and of themselves, they're not extreme issues.
Controlling the border ...
Keeping good jobs in America
These used to be normal bread and butter conversations. It wasn't that long ago, tariffs were just regular policy. So to was controlling immigration numbers. There's nothing crazy or racist or xenophobic about any of it in and of itself.
The problem is that people have been screaming about their issues for decades now and the 'mainstream' political parties have basically ignored it at best. At worst, they've made it horrible to even bring it up (calling someone racist...)
For people on slashdot, it might be the H1B issue. For others, its the border. For others, it's their factory job.
Barring further context, grabbing them by the pussy wasn't exactly non-consensual. It's a complex term these days between explicit consent and implicit or not saying no.
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]â"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
They let him do it because he is a star.
If you've ever kissed a girl without asking her explicitly 'can I kiss you now?' you've pretty much done what Trump has done.
I completely understand the struggles people who are impacted by a disease and there's a cure out of there, but just costs so much.
At the same time, for all it's flaws in the patent system, in the grand scheme of things... the patent lasts like 5 or 10 or 20 years (I don't know). My point is it's not that long.
Let's remember that the drug wasn't there before. That's the price the society pays for a dynamic drug market.
You invent something; it's prohibitively expensive for a bit, then the price drops.
The alternative is... maybe it's not invented.
The former sadly is easy to rail against. The later is a bit more complex.
Yep.
I meant to type n (less than or equal to) 0.
Not sure if slashdot escaped it or something.
In any case, yes, the Go API was not the best taking in a signed int when negatives are invalid.
Part of the fault can go to the Go programming language for their API design.
But most of the blame goes to the developers.
I haven't coded in Go, but I googled this quickly.
https://golang.org/pkg/math/ra...
The Go documentation clearly says it panics if n = 0.
They could have
1. validated their inputs.
2. Handle the panic and assign a default value (I am assuming this is possible in Go. I have never used it)
In the end, it seems like this is just used to distribute requests. Worst case, it should log the error and then assign say the 1st upstream (default value).
But I guess then you're in the exception handling debate on whether you swallow the error and keep going or have your application crash so that you detect the weird condition.
I'm a defensive; keep the system going developer.
But others prefer to be more exact.
I've always had an issue with the idea that software patents are magically different.
In theory, a patent doesn't block an idea, but an implementation. In practice, patents are written as broad as possible to cover as much implementations as possible. In all fields, you are trying to patent an idea that you think is novel.
I like to point to actual 'physical' patents because people tend to idealize them as opposed to software patents.
Let's take something simple, yet very innovative. The coffee cup sleeve... meant to make hot cups easier to hold.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
It's best to look at the claims section. Give it a read. It's written very generally and for good reason. If you could bypass the patent by adding a groove to the cardboard or something like that or just using a different material, the patent would be useless. And the coffee cup sleeve is simple, yet definitely novel because we've had cups for a very long time and yet this device did solve a real world problem.
Software patents aren't any different.
Have a look at a 'software' patent. Amazon's one-click patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
Again read the claims sections. Written just as generally to encompass as much as possible.
If you want to talk about it within a specific implementation. It talks about buttons and shopping cart model... in a similar way that the coffee cup sleeve talks about cups and bands...
I think it's legit to have an issue with our patent system in general.
What I don't understand is the idea that software patents are somehow special. If people think software patents protect ideas instead of implementations, then I think hardware patents do the same in practice.
I've filed a few software patents before and what do you think a person would file a patent for in the case of detecting someone is driving. You probably listed the main ways in a comment on slashdot. You don't think a patent lawyer is going to list all those way in the claims of a patent they're filing? They're going to list all those way in the claims as broadly as possible, so any 'practical' implementation will be patented. No different from a hardware patent.
Just for fun, I found the Apple patent and look at the claims.
https://www.google.com/patents...
Yeop, they patent the major practical motion detection (GPS, celluar, accelorometer...)