>By your logic if we didn't introduce kids to things like nuclear technology in high school, no one would go into that field in college.
No. By his logic- if you don't teach them basic physics, hardly any of them would (or could) go into nuclear technology. Evolution is to modern biology exactly as basic Newtonian physics is to Nuclear Technology - the gateway you need to learn in school the very bottom-layer fundamental pieces of knowledge without which you'll never be able to understand or learn the rest.
Not to mention - that - by YOUR logic, we may as well scrap art, literature and music programs entirely - after all, very few students will approach them as a career. Yet we keep them - because the one student in the entire history of the school who falls in love with stories and grows up to be a Tolkien or an Asimov or a Vonnegut is worth about a billion times more to society than the cost of having a literature teacher in every school. The one who grows up to be a Picasso or a Dali changes how people see the world for ever. The one in the lifetime of a school who may become a Ronnie James Dio or an Otep Shamaya are worth it all by themselves.
And the argument for evolution is much, much stronger than that: evolution the ground-work class that starts of nearly the entire supply of medical researchers, zoologists, doctors - hell damn near everybody who in anyway works with biology. Scrap it and you will limit your supply of students in these fields almost entirely to private school kids who had the class - and the one or two outliers who read books about it on their own time because of personal interest.
I know - I live in a country where until almost the end of my high-school career there was no separation of church and state, I went through a school system where evolution was little more than a swear word - and I saw the country that did the world's first heart transplant turn into one that had to import doctors from Cuba just to raise it's healthcare system to the level of "terrible".
You are assuming: 1) A bug free CPU - those don't exist. 2) A bug free compiler/assembler/interpreter - those don't exist 3) A bug free operating system (all programs make system calls) - those don't exist 4) Perfect and undamaged hardware - something you have zero control over and which rarely exists for very long (especially in the consumer space - many, many crashes are caused by damaged memory chips). 5) A perfect execution and runtime physical environment completely devoid of external forces (like R.F. interference or solar flares) which can alter the way the system operates - even temporarily.
All of those will affect the running of your program and caused unexpected and unpredictable results - manifesting as bugs. Even if you could somehow right truly bug-free code, you still could never produce a bug-free program. Even if you try to make your code so redundant that no underlying bugs can affect the outcome - underlying bugs can affect the redundant code as well.
True bug free programs have been proven to be mathematically impossible - it's an NP-complete program. Greatly simplified - the logic goes something like this: every potential bug found increases the time required to find the next potential bug exponentially (as you always find the easiest ones first and the remaining ones are ever harder). To get to zero bugs, is effectively a divide-by-zero time, that is - it would take an infinite amount of time.
These days - they sit down with the intention of completing three tasks, the same three tasks, in order, every time. *Check mail. *Update facebook *Look at porn.
Not to mention that in the Gospel of Mathew Jesus specifically advises people to try and settle court cases rather than pursue litigation whenever possible !
Aren't virtually ALL of those other denomination-schools private schools however ? There is no law against teaching creationism in a private school (stupidity is still legal) - it's only illegal in schools that accept tax-funding (i.e. public schools and charter schools).
The Responsive Ed charter schools are semi-private institutions and have used this to teach creationism - while nevertheless receiving state funding (which is outright illegal) and there is several hundred of them in the state. More-over their CEO is a former VP of one of the leading creationist homeschooling-textbook companies and most of their textbooks are identical to the ones published by his former company barring the changing of a few keywords.
There was a slashdot article about them a few weeks ago - and the attached article was... shocking to say the least. Suffice to say that the Responsive Ed thing ought to be a national-news level scandal.
>a number of people who apparently can't read or otherwise lack basic comprehension skills. In the interest of brevity, you should be informed that I am petitioning the Oxford English Dictionary to have the above added as a definition for "conservatives".
It was a remarkable success - but it was a trial program. The results, in fact, was so good that Nixon wanted to make UBI a national law, he lost his senatorial support at the last minute over an increase in divorce rates during the trial - which the senators feared was indicative of "too much female emancipation".
That turned out to be a mistake - it was later confirmed that divorce rates did not, in fact, go up in Detroit (and even if they had - today, we wouldn't consider that such a bad thing if the reason was emancipation).
Unfortunately - that mistake stopped the law from being signed, UBI was ended in Detroit and gradually the poverty it had begun to end returned - ultimately it pretty much destroyed the city.
Yep, nobody has ever discussed science at the Manhatten Project, or at NASA, or at DARPA or the NIH or the CDC or any of those government funded radio telescopes or the astronomers who work on them, or at any of the millions of government funded universities and laboratories around the world.
No, my friend, I think you will find that almost ALL scientific discussion happens where government funding is involved... it's the corporate-funded ones you should distrust, they are the ones who get paid to hide annoyingly inconvenient or unprofitable results.
It has been tested in court, three times already since the manufacture of climategate - and on each occasion Mister Mann was found not-guilty of any wrong-doing.
The judge already threw out the child molester claim as simple journalistic hyperbole (which is protected speech) so who cares ? The only issue now is the accusations of fraud - which is not.
There is a fourth - the work must be presented in such a way that a reasonable reader is likely to BELIEVE the claims , this can both raise and lower the likelihood of guilt depending on circumstances. The clause exists to predict obvious satire and humor from being targeted, and it was based on this clause that Jerry Fallwell lost his libel case against Hustler Magazine (he made the mistake of testifying in court that no reasonable person who knew anything about him was likely to believe what they wrote in their satirical article).
On the other hand - it also increases the likelihood of guilt for a professional journalist in an opinion piece over what it would be for say, a lay blogger, as reasonable people are far more likely to believe that the journalist would have researched his facts and acted professionally.
This actually means it's doubly important for journalists to stating "facts" (even in an opinion piece) to make sure those facts are provable because a reasonable member of the public will assume they did and the claims are true which removes this "no one would take it seriously" defense from the table.
>the way that the AGW people have done everything they possibly could to deny that the Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age happened or that they were anything except "local phenomena."
And there you went and proved your opponents point about observation bias. In fact, the medieval warming period is well known in climate science circles - and was discovered BY them. I was once in a debate about climate change where a denier tried to use the medieval period to prove that climate science is a fake and Michael Mann is a fraud - to prove his point he linked me to a scientific paper about the medieval warming period... and proved he hadn't actually READ the paper because if he had opened it he would have seen, right on the front page, that the lead author was Michael Mann - the very scientist he was trying to discredit by bringing it up wrote most of the research we have on it ! The medieval warming period doesn't discredit modern climate science - that we know about it at all is a PRODUCT of modern climate science !
>I dunno..I don't think that is the case in the US. One of the case studies was done in the US - there was a 10 year UBI program ran in Detroit to test the idea in the late 1960's and early 1970s. Just like everywhere else: *Average total working hours in the community went down only 9% - 7% of that accounted for by young adults who couldn't previously afford it who stopped working in order to pursue college educations. The other 2% by new mothers taking longer maternity breaks (not a bad thing).
*Employment numbers went up - faster than the national average (much faster actually) because in the absence of minimum wage businesses were more eager to hire starters and many of them used the UBI to start new businesses.
*Marriage age went up, especially among the very poor
*Number of children went slightly down (again - a good thing).
People say the same thing (about entitlement culture) everywhere, including here in my home country of South Africa - yet case studies here also showed the same results. The thing is - even though UBI is usually higher than what the lowest jobs pay it is standard to set it just above the poverty-rate (so nobody has to be poor with UBI) - but it will always be lower than UBI + low job. Unemployment welfare can create a disincentive to work because when you do start working you lose it, so nobody will work for less than what unemployment pays (anymore than people will leave their job for one that pays less unless there's an extreme circumstance forcing them to) but because UBI goes to everybody, working or not no such disincentive is created - even a bad job with UBI is better than just UBI, and suddenly it can actually be a stepping stone since you're no longer having to spend absolutely everything you earn just to survive today - it's actually POSSIBLE to save and invest in your future.
To answer your practical questions: 1) Never 2) Yes, everyone - now if you're rich you're paying in way more than the UBI you get back, but because nobody doesn't get it - you don't have to spend any money trying to verify who should or prevent fraud - which saves you far more than what you spend on having more recipients (you're getting rid of a gigantic beaurocracy for something that can be run by a couple of banking clerks). Ironically the fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would also get their UBI checks may just make it easier to sell to the rightwingers (especially as it was originally their idea - it was the one GOOD idea libertarians had - like I said F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman came up with. Hayek went so far as to say that without it the labour market can never BE competitive - it can ONLY produce a race-to-the-bottom). Of course if you're Warren Buffet your UBI check is small change, but there are a lot more poor kids in the hood who have given up on life due to a lack of prospects than there are Buffets, and it gives them back their future.
3) That's an ideological prediction - I am not aware of anybody having done a UBI trial with a cut-off so it's unproven. However I wouldn't suggest it having a cut-off, it makes most sense if it's truly universal, then the exact same plan replaces your ENTIRE welfare system - from childcare grants all the way to government pension plans.
See, you need to ask that because you are thinking ideologically - I don't need to answer it because I can cite literally thousands of case studies around the world proving that you don't NEED that incentive - that the institution of UBI's did not reduce people working and in fact led to INCREASED employment.
The thing about science is, it remains true whether or not it makes sense to you - and it turns out the vast, vast majority of people really, really HATE not working.
You didn't bother to find out what a UBI plan is, did you ?
Universal Basic Income - it means everybody, rich and poor alike, get a certain amount from the government (set at just above the current poverty rate) every month (and yes, it means the rich are subsidizing because it comes from taxes) - but everybody gets it, to spend as you wish - no questions asked. That's UBI. So Even if your job earns you less than minimum wage you've still GOT way MORE than minimum wage was, that's why suddenly poor but smart kids start going to college, and unemployed people start businesses.
Take it from me - living in a country where the taxi system pretty much originated that way - you don't want that. The results: An ultracompetitive market where taxi drivers drive like absolute maniacs just to earn enough to survive becoming the number one accident risk on our roads, and still being broke at the end. Everybody lost (and for a great many people what they lost was their lives).
You're forgetting one crucial factor - I won't say I know the total impact of this but it's big - namely if ALL the vehicles are self-driving then the self-driving taxi will get to you in a quarter of the time it does now (assuming all other factors remain the same - such as number of taxis per company) because self driving cars can move at maximum efficiency, there need never be a traffic jam again (research has pretty much proven that traffic jams are caused by human error NOT the amount of cars, having more cars just means more humans meaning more errors).
The rightwingers think they are. They also think "married" means "man and woman" and they probably think "polyamory" is something you veneer kitchen cupboards with.
I love what you wrote - and for the most part I agree. I would say - read up a bit about UBI case studies - a solution that has been tested in proper trials around the world from the richest to the poorest countries, and actually works. Welfare WITHOUT a disincentive to work, without any need for a big, expensive bureaucracy or interference in personal decisions and which has shown massive positive benefits where-ever it was applied. Promoted by such economists as Hayek and Friedman (and then forgotten by their supposed ideological children on the right), and also by leftists from across the spectrum.
Recently adopted by the Swis government to replace their previous systems due to it's amazing track record, much lower cost and proven success.
Was very nearly signed into law in the USA by the Nixon government and the reason they ultimately didn't go through with it was since proven to have been a mistake (in fact the single data-point which they thought were a negative was a calculation error and it never even existed).
Sometimes, the best sollution really is the simplest one - and it turns out the best way to cure poverty is the most obvious one: give the poor money, no strings attached, no rules about what they can buy or not. Results: addicts rarely spend it on drugs - but they do seek treatment. Work hours in the community barely affected, the slight decline entirely attributable to young adults who previously could not afford to do so dropping out of work to become students and then returning to the job market with better qualifications You can do away with minimum wage entirely which increases hiring at the bottom end and reduces unemployment A lot of people will use the money to start businesses and now the unemployed become employers.
Simply put: if you want people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - give them boots.
I spent over a decade arguing to preserve welfare on the basis that "despite the flaws it's an over-all positive" - after the Swis decision I started looking into the scientific literature on UBI programs... and I'm sold, it's the one economic upliftment idea that has, actually, been scientifically proven.
Let's use your example. Now imagine that the first thing that person says in the interview is this: "You can see on my body, the history of my life. I was raised in a neo-Nazi culture, surrounded by it my whole life and embraced it as all I knew, the very basis of all my pride and knowledge - but adulthood brought experiences that shook the foundations of that belief system - gradually it was torn down and I came to recognize the horror and injustice it truly represents. I am here, because I wish to atone for what I did in the time before I made that realization, to fight for the very rights I helped undermine".
Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?
Slashdot Mirror
LOL - South Africa.
>By your logic if we didn't introduce kids to things like nuclear technology in high school, no one would go into that field in college.
No. By his logic- if you don't teach them basic physics, hardly any of them would (or could) go into nuclear technology. Evolution is to modern biology exactly as basic Newtonian physics is to Nuclear Technology - the gateway you need to learn in school the very bottom-layer fundamental pieces of knowledge without which you'll never be able to understand or learn the rest.
Not to mention - that - by YOUR logic, we may as well scrap art, literature and music programs entirely - after all, very few students will approach them as a career. Yet we keep them - because the one student in the entire history of the school who falls in love with stories and grows up to be a Tolkien or an Asimov or a Vonnegut is worth about a billion times more to society than the cost of having a literature teacher in every school. The one who grows up to be a Picasso or a Dali changes how people see the world for ever. The one in the lifetime of a school who may become a Ronnie James Dio or an Otep Shamaya are worth it all by themselves.
And the argument for evolution is much, much stronger than that: evolution the ground-work class that starts of nearly the entire supply of medical researchers, zoologists, doctors - hell damn near everybody who in anyway works with biology.
Scrap it and you will limit your supply of students in these fields almost entirely to private school kids who had the class - and the one or two outliers who read books about it on their own time because of personal interest.
I know - I live in a country where until almost the end of my high-school career there was no separation of church and state, I went through a school system where evolution was little more than a swear word - and I saw the country that did the world's first heart transplant turn into one that had to import doctors from Cuba just to raise it's healthcare system to the level of "terrible".
You are assuming:
1) A bug free CPU - those don't exist.
2) A bug free compiler/assembler/interpreter - those don't exist
3) A bug free operating system (all programs make system calls) - those don't exist
4) Perfect and undamaged hardware - something you have zero control over and which rarely exists for very long (especially in the consumer space - many, many crashes are caused by damaged memory chips).
5) A perfect execution and runtime physical environment completely devoid of external forces (like R.F. interference or solar flares) which can alter the way the system operates - even temporarily.
All of those will affect the running of your program and caused unexpected and unpredictable results - manifesting as bugs.
Even if you could somehow right truly bug-free code, you still could never produce a bug-free program.
Even if you try to make your code so redundant that no underlying bugs can affect the outcome - underlying bugs can affect the redundant code as well.
True bug free programs have been proven to be mathematically impossible - it's an NP-complete program.
Greatly simplified - the logic goes something like this: every potential bug found increases the time required to find the next potential bug exponentially (as you always find the easiest ones first and the remaining ones are ever harder).
To get to zero bugs, is effectively a divide-by-zero time, that is - it would take an infinite amount of time.
These days - they sit down with the intention of completing three tasks, the same three tasks, in order, every time.
*Check mail.
*Update facebook
*Look at porn.
And they do all three with the same application.
Not to mention that in the Gospel of Mathew Jesus specifically advises people to try and settle court cases rather than pursue litigation whenever possible !
Said mechanical brain would have far more claim to those rights than the corporations we already gave them too does.
Not all of us... as far as I'm concerned if Calvin Klein wants to advertise on my ass - he needs to pay ME for the privilege.
Aren't virtually ALL of those other denomination-schools private schools however ?
There is no law against teaching creationism in a private school (stupidity is still legal) - it's only illegal in schools that accept tax-funding (i.e. public schools and charter schools).
You're from Austin, right ?
The Responsive Ed charter schools are semi-private institutions and have used this to teach creationism - while nevertheless receiving state funding (which is outright illegal) and there is several hundred of them in the state.
More-over their CEO is a former VP of one of the leading creationist homeschooling-textbook companies and most of their textbooks are identical to the ones published by his former company barring the changing of a few keywords.
There was a slashdot article about them a few weeks ago - and the attached article was ... shocking to say the least.
Suffice to say that the Responsive Ed thing ought to be a national-news level scandal.
>a number of people who apparently can't read or otherwise lack basic comprehension skills.
In the interest of brevity, you should be informed that I am petitioning the Oxford English Dictionary to have the above added as a definition for "conservatives".
It was a remarkable success - but it was a trial program. The results, in fact, was so good that Nixon wanted to make UBI a national law, he lost his senatorial support at the last minute over an increase in divorce rates during the trial - which the senators feared was indicative of "too much female emancipation".
That turned out to be a mistake - it was later confirmed that divorce rates did not, in fact, go up in Detroit (and even if they had - today, we wouldn't consider that such a bad thing if the reason was emancipation).
Unfortunately - that mistake stopped the law from being signed, UBI was ended in Detroit and gradually the poverty it had begun to end returned - ultimately it pretty much destroyed the city.
Yep, nobody has ever discussed science at the Manhatten Project, or at NASA, or at DARPA or the NIH or the CDC or any of those government funded radio telescopes or the astronomers who work on them, or at any of the millions of government funded universities and laboratories around the world.
No, my friend, I think you will find that almost ALL scientific discussion happens where government funding is involved... it's the corporate-funded ones you should distrust, they are the ones who get paid to hide annoyingly inconvenient or unprofitable results.
It has been tested in court, three times already since the manufacture of climategate - and on each occasion Mister Mann was found not-guilty of any wrong-doing.
The judge already threw out the child molester claim as simple journalistic hyperbole (which is protected speech) so who cares ?
The only issue now is the accusations of fraud - which is not.
There is a fourth - the work must be presented in such a way that a reasonable reader is likely to BELIEVE the claims , this can both raise and lower the likelihood of guilt depending on circumstances.
The clause exists to predict obvious satire and humor from being targeted, and it was based on this clause that Jerry Fallwell lost his libel case against Hustler Magazine (he made the mistake of testifying in court that no reasonable person who knew anything about him was likely to believe what they wrote in their satirical article).
On the other hand - it also increases the likelihood of guilt for a professional journalist in an opinion piece over what it would be for say, a lay blogger, as reasonable people are far more likely to believe that the journalist would have researched his facts and acted professionally.
This actually means it's doubly important for journalists to stating "facts" (even in an opinion piece) to make sure those facts are provable because a reasonable member of the public will assume they did and the claims are true which removes this "no one would take it seriously" defense from the table.
>the way that the AGW people have done everything they possibly could to deny that the Medieval Warm or the Little Ice Age happened or that they were anything except "local phenomena."
And there you went and proved your opponents point about observation bias. In fact, the medieval warming period is well known in climate science circles - and was discovered BY them.
I was once in a debate about climate change where a denier tried to use the medieval period to prove that climate science is a fake and Michael Mann is a fraud - to prove his point he linked me to a scientific paper about the medieval warming period... and proved he hadn't actually READ the paper because if he had opened it he would have seen, right on the front page, that the lead author was Michael Mann - the very scientist he was trying to discredit by bringing it up wrote most of the research we have on it !
The medieval warming period doesn't discredit modern climate science - that we know about it at all is a PRODUCT of modern climate science !
>I dunno..I don't think that is the case in the US.
One of the case studies was done in the US - there was a 10 year UBI program ran in Detroit to test the idea in the late 1960's and early 1970s. Just like everywhere else:
*Average total working hours in the community went down only 9% - 7% of that accounted for by young adults who couldn't previously afford it who stopped working in order to pursue college educations. The other 2% by new mothers taking longer maternity breaks (not a bad thing).
*Employment numbers went up - faster than the national average (much faster actually) because in the absence of minimum wage businesses were more eager to hire starters and many of them used the UBI to start new businesses.
*Marriage age went up, especially among the very poor
*Number of children went slightly down (again - a good thing).
People say the same thing (about entitlement culture) everywhere, including here in my home country of South Africa - yet case studies here also showed the same results.
The thing is - even though UBI is usually higher than what the lowest jobs pay it is standard to set it just above the poverty-rate (so nobody has to be poor with UBI) - but it will always be lower than UBI + low job.
Unemployment welfare can create a disincentive to work because when you do start working you lose it, so nobody will work for less than what unemployment pays (anymore than people will leave their job for one that pays less unless there's an extreme circumstance forcing them to) but because UBI goes to everybody, working or not no such disincentive is created - even a bad job with UBI is better than just UBI, and suddenly it can actually be a stepping stone since you're no longer having to spend absolutely everything you earn just to survive today - it's actually POSSIBLE to save and invest in your future.
To answer your practical questions:
1) Never
2) Yes, everyone - now if you're rich you're paying in way more than the UBI you get back, but because nobody doesn't get it - you don't have to spend any money trying to verify who should or prevent fraud - which saves you far more than what you spend on having more recipients (you're getting rid of a gigantic beaurocracy for something that can be run by a couple of banking clerks). Ironically the fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would also get their UBI checks may just make it easier to sell to the rightwingers (especially as it was originally their idea - it was the one GOOD idea libertarians had - like I said F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman came up with. Hayek went so far as to say that without it the labour market can never BE competitive - it can ONLY produce a race-to-the-bottom). Of course if you're Warren Buffet your UBI check is small change, but there are a lot more poor kids in the hood who have given up on life due to a lack of prospects than there are Buffets, and it gives them back their future.
3) That's an ideological prediction - I am not aware of anybody having done a UBI trial with a cut-off so it's unproven. However I wouldn't suggest it having a cut-off, it makes most sense if it's truly universal, then the exact same plan replaces your ENTIRE welfare system - from childcare grants all the way to government pension plans.
See, you need to ask that because you are thinking ideologically - I don't need to answer it because I can cite literally thousands of case studies around the world proving that you don't NEED that incentive - that the institution of UBI's did not reduce people working and in fact led to INCREASED employment.
The thing about science is, it remains true whether or not it makes sense to you - and it turns out the vast, vast majority of people really, really HATE not working.
You didn't bother to find out what a UBI plan is, did you ?
Universal Basic Income - it means everybody, rich and poor alike, get a certain amount from the government (set at just above the current poverty rate) every month (and yes, it means the rich are subsidizing because it comes from taxes) - but everybody gets it, to spend as you wish - no questions asked.
That's UBI. So Even if your job earns you less than minimum wage you've still GOT way MORE than minimum wage was, that's why suddenly poor but smart kids start going to college, and unemployed people start businesses.
Take it from me - living in a country where the taxi system pretty much originated that way - you don't want that. The results:
An ultracompetitive market where taxi drivers drive like absolute maniacs just to earn enough to survive becoming the number one accident risk on our roads, and still being broke at the end.
Everybody lost (and for a great many people what they lost was their lives).
You're forgetting one crucial factor - I won't say I know the total impact of this but it's big - namely if ALL the vehicles are self-driving then the self-driving taxi will get to you in a quarter of the time it does now (assuming all other factors remain the same - such as number of taxis per company) because self driving cars can move at maximum efficiency, there need never be a traffic jam again (research has pretty much proven that traffic jams are caused by human error NOT the amount of cars, having more cars just means more humans meaning more errors).
The rightwingers think they are. They also think "married" means "man and woman" and they probably think "polyamory" is something you veneer kitchen cupboards with.
I love what you wrote - and for the most part I agree. I would say - read up a bit about UBI case studies - a solution that has been tested in proper trials around the world from the richest to the poorest countries, and actually works.
Welfare WITHOUT a disincentive to work, without any need for a big, expensive bureaucracy or interference in personal decisions and which has shown massive positive benefits where-ever it was applied. Promoted by such economists as Hayek and Friedman (and then forgotten by their supposed ideological children on the right), and also by leftists from across the spectrum.
Recently adopted by the Swis government to replace their previous systems due to it's amazing track record, much lower cost and proven success.
Was very nearly signed into law in the USA by the Nixon government and the reason they ultimately didn't go through with it was since proven to have been a mistake (in fact the single data-point which they thought were a negative was a calculation error and it never even existed).
Sometimes, the best sollution really is the simplest one - and it turns out the best way to cure poverty is the most obvious one: give the poor money, no strings attached, no rules about what they can buy or not.
Results: addicts rarely spend it on drugs - but they do seek treatment.
Work hours in the community barely affected, the slight decline entirely attributable to young adults who previously could not afford to do so dropping out of work to become students and then returning to the job market with better qualifications
You can do away with minimum wage entirely which increases hiring at the bottom end and reduces unemployment
A lot of people will use the money to start businesses and now the unemployed become employers.
Simply put: if you want people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - give them boots.
I spent over a decade arguing to preserve welfare on the basis that "despite the flaws it's an over-all positive" - after the Swis decision I started looking into the scientific literature on UBI programs... and I'm sold, it's the one economic upliftment idea that has, actually, been scientifically proven.
Let's use your example. Now imagine that the first thing that person says in the interview is this:
"You can see on my body, the history of my life. I was raised in a neo-Nazi culture, surrounded by it my whole life and embraced it as all I knew, the very basis of all my pride and knowledge - but adulthood brought experiences that shook the foundations of that belief system - gradually it was torn down and I came to recognize the horror and injustice it truly represents. I am here, because I wish to atone for what I did in the time before I made that realization, to fight for the very rights I helped undermine".
Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?