That's generally how they work, it's just that people with low or no incomes won't be paying much taxes and thus won't give back much or any of it. Note that this set of people also correlates with the set of people currently receiving welfare, which is replaced (not supplemented) by a UBI. The number of people who will actually have $x extra per month after the introduction of a $x/mo UBI is relatively small -- which is why it won't have the effect on prices that you initially thought it would.
There's an interesting point to note here: one of the big reasons that people want to live in cities is because that's where the work is. WIth a UBI, that's less important, so you might well see more people willing to live out in the countryside where housing is cheaper (which may also reduce pressure on city house pricing).
He isn't suggesting doubling taxes. Something like a third of the total US government spending is on welfare already, which would get replaced by UBI. Also, although taxes will go up, we'll also be giving people money to pay those taxes with, so the impact on taxpayers isn't anywhere close to what it would be if you ignored the "income" part of the UBI.
I'm not suggesting there'll be zero consequences, but it's nowhere near as simple as (amount of UBI)*(population of US) = big number that we couldn't afford.
Except it doesn't really matter *who* is earning the money. The money those people would've been earning will go to someone else instead, but taxes don't care who pays them.
In any case though... there's not much point worrying about people not having an incentive to work as hard in a future where we're not going to have enough work available for everybody anyway.
None of that addresses my question. If, in this analogy that uses used cars as an example of a universal basic need, you give people 5k and then take it back again from most of them, how is that going to raise the price the market can bear by 5k?
Yet those people largely are already paying road tax, meaning they also lose 5k from the road tax charge. If you give them 5k and then take it back again, how is that going to raise the price the market can bear by 5k?
The demand for universal basic needs is already at "universal". A UBI isn't going to change that.
Make sure the UBI is enough to cover universal basic needs, and not enough to cover a person's personal wants?
Although it's a bit odd to be talking about people "choosing" not to work, when the major problem we're going to have is that there won't be any work available. It's not like it's going to be a matter of choice.
Then it's a good thing that's not what a UBI does, isn't it? A UBI is somewhat closer to giving everyone 5k to buy a used car, but also charging everyone who pays road taxes 5k per person. People with cars will end up with net no difference in available money, but people without cars will end up with the money to get a car. Used cars won't suddenly jump by 5k, because the majority of people already can't afford that, and not changing the amount of money those people have available isn't going to change anything. (Remember those fundamental laws of economics? Those cars are already being sold for the maximum price the market will bear. If you could put the prices up a bunch and still get sales then you would've done that already.)
You don't need to blackmail them. Their entire business is verifying transactions. Just put the transaction on the network and they'll verify it automatically. Of course, in order to generate a valid transaction to move funds from one wallet to another you'll need the private key of the source wallet, which you aren't going to get by blackmailing the miners because they don't have it.
You could blackmail them to put an invalid transaction in, but what would the point be? Nobody would accept the block.
I haven't tried many distros, but this has basically been my experience too whenever I try to use Debian on a desktop. It's at the point where I expect something fundamental to be broken out of the box.
When I tried in 2011, that was volume control (I had to edit a config file to add the ability to change the output volume) plus my multi-GPU 3-head setup, which I could only get working by sacrificing either 2D acceleration or the ability to move windows between monitors.
When I tried last year, it was printing (my printer drivers segfault, I had to upgrade to drivers from backports), Bluetooth audio (gradually gets more and more delayed) and the mute button on my keyboard, which will happily mute but can't unmute afterwards. Per-application volume control was broken too, but that's by design so I'm not sure if it counts.
I mean, c'mon, how many years have we had to get printing to work? It's not exactly a new tech. Neither is audio, for that matter. Some of this is understandable, some of it has been fixed by now, and all of it is more tolerable than Windows 10, but it's still not a nice experience when fairly basic, non-cutting-edge stuff doesn't work.
The AI discovers a drug that leaves its users in crippling pain, but extends their lifespan by an average of 30 minutes. The AI forces everybody to take the drug because it's optimizing for lifespan.
Congratulations, you completely fucked up. This isn't an easy problem to solve.
I've done this, and I saw no difference. If you did then you fucked up the test. Specifically, you most likely changed the PC from a public v4 address to an RFC1918 one at the same time as introducing the NAT. Making two changes at once means you can't tell which change caused the different behavior.
Try comparing a traffic capture of a machine with an RFC1918 address with vs without NAT on the router, and then separately compare a capture of a machine with a public address with vs without NAT on the router. This will make it clear that it's not the NAT that makes any difference to inbound connections.
This is because 1:many NAT has no idea where to send incoming without an explicit rule.
A lot of people think this, but it's not true. Your router knows perfectly well where to send the packet, because the packet has a dest address field in the header that tells it where to send it.
Now, it is true that if your network is using RFC1918 addresses (which I note isn't actually a requirement for NAT) then it's quite hard to send your router a packet with one of those addresses in the dest field... but your ISP could do it easily, and of course so could anybody else in a position to twist your ISP's arm until they cooperate. If they do, your router will happily route those packets on to their destination, unless you also have a firewall in place that drops them.
In other words: if you want a firewall, you need a firewall. NAT is no substitute.
It's not money, no, but "made-up bullshit" is itself the made-up bullshit. Bitcoin is a payment network, designed for moving your existing money around -- something that it does actually work perfectly well for.
Fun fact: NAT doesn't naturally firewall anything.
Here's how you do NAT on Linux: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wan0 -j MASQUERADE. See that "-o wan0"? The rule, and thus the NAT, only applies to outbound connections. It does nothing whatsoever to inbound connections! You can test this yourself if you want; just take a subnet where inbound connections work, add that NAT rule to the subnet's router, and you'll see that inbound connections continue to work just fine.
In any case, the answer to your question is that people set up port forwards for their cameras because they want to view the camera when they're away from home. IPv6 would help a lot here because it makes it significantly more difficult to scan for these devices, unlike in v4 where it's pretty trivial to exhaustively scan the entire address space.
Of course exploits are going to be found in Rust code. It's not like it magically makes it impossible to write exploits. It's just that those exploits won't be memory safety bugs, buffer overruns or the like, because the Rust compiler rejects code with those. No point spending programmer time dealing with those when the compiler can handle it.
Even just 99.999999999999999% would cover every single person on the planet except for about 0.0045g of the last person. That's the weight of a few hundred hairs. (And if you actually meant 99.9 recurring then it'd be equal to 100%.)
You can't just hold the 9 key down without thinking. Numbers mean things.
But you do understand that the situation is fundamentally different this time, right? In the past, we've automated jobs and people have moved to alternative jobs. This time, we're automating jobs and we're automating the replacement jobs as well.
Given that difference, I'm not sure how you could argue that it's all going to be exactly the same this time.
You're talking about public addresses, but I think the GP was talking about attaching v6 addresses to machines as a unique, permanent identifier. That certainly won't be happening quickly, because it's not how IP works. IPs are assigned by the network and you get a different IP when you move to a different network.
If you want a unique identifier that's permanently assigned to each computer... then you have the MAC address. If you want it to be 128-bit, then use a UUID. Why would an IP address be relevant here?
The fact that human brains can do it strongly suggests that it's possible to make something artificial that can do the same thing. That doesn't necessarily mean we can do it with our current software approaches, or even in anything involving silicon, but it clearly is possible.
(With the pace of recent advances in AI I would argue that it seems likely to be doable in software, and probably very much sooner that you might expect.)
Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It's quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police.
Slashdot Mirror
That's generally how they work, it's just that people with low or no incomes won't be paying much taxes and thus won't give back much or any of it. Note that this set of people also correlates with the set of people currently receiving welfare, which is replaced (not supplemented) by a UBI. The number of people who will actually have $x extra per month after the introduction of a $x/mo UBI is relatively small -- which is why it won't have the effect on prices that you initially thought it would.
Would you want to live in a slum though?
There's an interesting point to note here: one of the big reasons that people want to live in cities is because that's where the work is. WIth a UBI, that's less important, so you might well see more people willing to live out in the countryside where housing is cheaper (which may also reduce pressure on city house pricing).
He isn't suggesting doubling taxes. Something like a third of the total US government spending is on welfare already, which would get replaced by UBI. Also, although taxes will go up, we'll also be giving people money to pay those taxes with, so the impact on taxpayers isn't anywhere close to what it would be if you ignored the "income" part of the UBI.
I'm not suggesting there'll be zero consequences, but it's nowhere near as simple as (amount of UBI)*(population of US) = big number that we couldn't afford.
And yet you dodged answering the question, even when I asked it twice. Your actions speak louder than your words.
Except it doesn't really matter *who* is earning the money. The money those people would've been earning will go to someone else instead, but taxes don't care who pays them.
In any case though... there's not much point worrying about people not having an incentive to work as hard in a future where we're not going to have enough work available for everybody anyway.
I take it from your refusal to answer that you now agree that the cost of living won't get bumped up to eat the entire value of the UBI. Good to hear.
None of that addresses my question. If, in this analogy that uses used cars as an example of a universal basic need, you give people 5k and then take it back again from most of them, how is that going to raise the price the market can bear by 5k?
Yet those people largely are already paying road tax, meaning they also lose 5k from the road tax charge. If you give them 5k and then take it back again, how is that going to raise the price the market can bear by 5k?
The demand for universal basic needs is already at "universal". A UBI isn't going to change that.
Make sure the UBI is enough to cover universal basic needs, and not enough to cover a person's personal wants?
Although it's a bit odd to be talking about people "choosing" not to work, when the major problem we're going to have is that there won't be any work available. It's not like it's going to be a matter of choice.
Then it's a good thing that's not what a UBI does, isn't it? A UBI is somewhat closer to giving everyone 5k to buy a used car, but also charging everyone who pays road taxes 5k per person. People with cars will end up with net no difference in available money, but people without cars will end up with the money to get a car. Used cars won't suddenly jump by 5k, because the majority of people already can't afford that, and not changing the amount of money those people have available isn't going to change anything. (Remember those fundamental laws of economics? Those cars are already being sold for the maximum price the market will bear. If you could put the prices up a bunch and still get sales then you would've done that already.)
You don't need to blackmail them. Their entire business is verifying transactions. Just put the transaction on the network and they'll verify it automatically. Of course, in order to generate a valid transaction to move funds from one wallet to another you'll need the private key of the source wallet, which you aren't going to get by blackmailing the miners because they don't have it.
You could blackmail them to put an invalid transaction in, but what would the point be? Nobody would accept the block.
You say that as if you think that actual intelligent thought isn't just a complex set of rules under the hood.
I haven't tried many distros, but this has basically been my experience too whenever I try to use Debian on a desktop. It's at the point where I expect something fundamental to be broken out of the box.
When I tried in 2011, that was volume control (I had to edit a config file to add the ability to change the output volume) plus my multi-GPU 3-head setup, which I could only get working by sacrificing either 2D acceleration or the ability to move windows between monitors.
When I tried last year, it was printing (my printer drivers segfault, I had to upgrade to drivers from backports), Bluetooth audio (gradually gets more and more delayed) and the mute button on my keyboard, which will happily mute but can't unmute afterwards. Per-application volume control was broken too, but that's by design so I'm not sure if it counts.
I mean, c'mon, how many years have we had to get printing to work? It's not exactly a new tech. Neither is audio, for that matter. Some of this is understandable, some of it has been fixed by now, and all of it is more tolerable than Windows 10, but it's still not a nice experience when fairly basic, non-cutting-edge stuff doesn't work.
The AI discovers a drug that leaves its users in crippling pain, but extends their lifespan by an average of 30 minutes. The AI forces everybody to take the drug because it's optimizing for lifespan.
Congratulations, you completely fucked up. This isn't an easy problem to solve.
I've done this, and I saw no difference. If you did then you fucked up the test. Specifically, you most likely changed the PC from a public v4 address to an RFC1918 one at the same time as introducing the NAT. Making two changes at once means you can't tell which change caused the different behavior.
Try comparing a traffic capture of a machine with an RFC1918 address with vs without NAT on the router, and then separately compare a capture of a machine with a public address with vs without NAT on the router. This will make it clear that it's not the NAT that makes any difference to inbound connections.
This is because 1:many NAT has no idea where to send incoming without an explicit rule.
A lot of people think this, but it's not true. Your router knows perfectly well where to send the packet, because the packet has a dest address field in the header that tells it where to send it.
Now, it is true that if your network is using RFC1918 addresses (which I note isn't actually a requirement for NAT) then it's quite hard to send your router a packet with one of those addresses in the dest field... but your ISP could do it easily, and of course so could anybody else in a position to twist your ISP's arm until they cooperate. If they do, your router will happily route those packets on to their destination, unless you also have a firewall in place that drops them.
In other words: if you want a firewall, you need a firewall. NAT is no substitute.
No.
It's not money, no, but "made-up bullshit" is itself the made-up bullshit. Bitcoin is a payment network, designed for moving your existing money around -- something that it does actually work perfectly well for.
Fun fact: NAT doesn't naturally firewall anything.
Here's how you do NAT on Linux: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o wan0 -j MASQUERADE. See that "-o wan0"? The rule, and thus the NAT, only applies to outbound connections. It does nothing whatsoever to inbound connections! You can test this yourself if you want; just take a subnet where inbound connections work, add that NAT rule to the subnet's router, and you'll see that inbound connections continue to work just fine.
In any case, the answer to your question is that people set up port forwards for their cameras because they want to view the camera when they're away from home. IPv6 would help a lot here because it makes it significantly more difficult to scan for these devices, unlike in v4 where it's pretty trivial to exhaustively scan the entire address space.
Of course exploits are going to be found in Rust code. It's not like it magically makes it impossible to write exploits. It's just that those exploits won't be memory safety bugs, buffer overruns or the like, because the Rust compiler rejects code with those. No point spending programmer time dealing with those when the compiler can handle it.
Even just 99.999999999999999% would cover every single person on the planet except for about 0.0045g of the last person. That's the weight of a few hundred hairs. (And if you actually meant 99.9 recurring then it'd be equal to 100%.)
You can't just hold the 9 key down without thinking. Numbers mean things.
But you do understand that the situation is fundamentally different this time, right? In the past, we've automated jobs and people have moved to alternative jobs. This time, we're automating jobs and we're automating the replacement jobs as well.
Given that difference, I'm not sure how you could argue that it's all going to be exactly the same this time.
You're talking about public addresses, but I think the GP was talking about attaching v6 addresses to machines as a unique, permanent identifier. That certainly won't be happening quickly, because it's not how IP works. IPs are assigned by the network and you get a different IP when you move to a different network.
If you want a unique identifier that's permanently assigned to each computer... then you have the MAC address. If you want it to be 128-bit, then use a UUID. Why would an IP address be relevant here?
The fact that human brains can do it strongly suggests that it's possible to make something artificial that can do the same thing. That doesn't necessarily mean we can do it with our current software approaches, or even in anything involving silicon, but it clearly is possible.
(With the pace of recent advances in AI I would argue that it seems likely to be doable in software, and probably very much sooner that you might expect.)
Literally quoting from the article:
Doing so would have set a dangerous precedent and would compromise the impartiality of myself and the other press photographers who work at the court. It's quite foreseeable that one photographer handing over photos would endanger all other photographers at the court as we may be perceived as informers or allies of the police.