What a weird notion. Printing with online services that use professional machines rather than cheapo home filament extruders? It's almost like you actually care about quality or something;)
As I'd expect. The difference between professional units and home units isn't just print quality.
Manufacturing requires controlled atmospheres. Heck, the thing that most people really want - 3d printed metal - simply can't be conducted in uncontrolled atmospheres at all. You at least have to use shielding gases, and it's very likely going to at least produce ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, etc - never mind any potential outgasing/particulate from the metal (depends on what you're sintering - for example, stainless steel = risk of hexavalent chromium particulate). Would they just vent all this into the room for hours on end? The other option is to have your printer be built into a vacuum chamber (which eliminates the need to have gas tanks and also provides other advantages, such as sound suppression and a degree of dust suppression, although also disadvantages like more difficult heat management). But you still should have some outgassing protection on the output port of the vacuum pump.
Caprolactam is probably not carcinogenic, but it is most definitely an irritant and somewhat toxic, neither of which are good qualities to have for a gas in your home. Styrene, in addition to being a possible carcinogen, is toxic and mutagenic. In particular, it's toxic to the central nervous system. According to the EPA:
Acute Effects:
Acute exposure to styrene in humans results in respiratory effects, such as mucous membrane irritation, eye irritation, and gastrointestinal effects. (1,2)
Tests involving acute exposure of rats and mice have shown styrene to have low to moderate toxicity by inhalation and oral exposure. (3)
Chronic Effects (Noncancer):
Chronic exposure to styrene in humans results in effects on the CNS, with symptoms such as headache, fatigue, weakness, depression, CNS dysfunction (reaction time, memory, visuomotor speed and accuracy, intellectual function), and hearing loss, peripheral neuropathy, minor effects on some kidney enzyme functions and on the blood. (1-3)
Animal studies have reported effects on the CNS, liver, kidney, and eye and nasal irritation from inhalation exposure to styrene. (1)
Liver, blood, kidney, and stomach effects have been observed in animals following chronic oral exposure. (5)
---
Reproductive/Developmental Effects:
Human studies have not reported an increase in developmental effects in women who worked in the plastics industry, while an increased frequency of spontaneous abortions and a decreased frequency of births were reported in a study on the reproductive effects of styrene in humans. However, these studies are not conclusive, due to the lack of exposure data and confounding factors. (1,2)
Animal studies have not reported developmental or reproductive effects from inhalation exposure to styrene. (1)
Lung tumors have been observed in the offspring of orally exposed mice. (12)
But hey, it's only probable that it'll also give you "leukemia, lymphoma, and other stem, blood, and bone marrow cancers", so let's totally play it down.
Really though how much of idiots do these system designers have to be to not have thought of this? For fun I've been working on a design for a material-flexible 3d printer (though I don't actually plan to put the money and time into building it any time soon) and it became clear very early on that atmospheric control would be critical if you want to have it in the house. There are only a very few raw materials that come to mind that I wouldn't have outgassing or dust concerns with.
I can't imagine why they didn't think to at least put an activated carbon pad and/or paper air filter in the airflow path through the housing. It'd have almost no effect on the final cost.
Cut it with the indignant act. You said " A typical person's faeces contains 30% microbes". No, it's not. It's 70% water. Just say "I made a mistake" or "I could have been clearer" and let it drop.
30% of dry weight, which is what I said.
No, it's not what you said. Perhaps it's what you were thinking of writing, but it's not what you wrote.
Irrelevant, highly variable, and less less if the recommended amount of fibre is ingested.
It's absolutely not irrelevant. If the human body would digest 99,9999% of a meal, leaving 0,0001% left over in the feces, then even if bacteria made up 100% of the mass of the remainder they'd still have only eaten the tiniest fraction of the meal.
Not a significant amount of which are chemically other than fats, carbohydrates, and proteins.
Really - you've never heard of, for example, cellulose? And the rest of the category "fiber" which, by definition, is indigestible to humans?
A description is in the article. The program uses a clickthrough overlay so that the user thinks that they're confirming something else when in reality they're confirming the permission escalation. They see the overlay, but it doesn't take clicks; they fall through to the hidden window underneath, the permissions dialog. After the user has unwittingly confirmed privilege escalation, then the encryption and locking begins.
Just as a random anecdote, a couple months ago I was shopping around for repositories for a project and went with Github as it's so commonly used now and Sourceforge had the whole bundleware issue. But honestly I'm not a big fan of git, and would rather have gone with something else. So hopefully you can restore Sourceforge's reputation and turn it into a real alternative.:)
Just one thing...and I think the Oatmeal put it well:
How I feel after reading 1000 insightful, positive comments about my work: "The whole internet loves me." How I feel after reading 1000 insightful, positive comments about my work and one negative one: "The whole internet hates me:("
If many users are saying the same complaint about the site, please listen to it. But if there's just one or a couple people... try not to take it personally. That's going to happen. Stay informed of what people want, but know that there will of course be the random angry mean person out there, and don't let it get you down.:)
Yes please! Check out my sig, this has been a really annoying issue for quite some time. Also, please encode in UTF-8 if you can. UTF-16 is dangerous - namely because the vast majority of characters are only two bytes, but in rare cases they're four, so these cases usually slip past testing; often even libraries are broken in UTF-16, let alone individual programs, when it comes to 4-byte characters.
Other things to keep in mind:
* This is a site of nerds, so if someone posts a small chunk of code, it should display properly. Don't go all crazy on trying to "parse" and "prettify" posted text.
* For your sake, don't make the site vulnerable to injection (aka, *never* just paste a string from a user into one used internally). This is, again, a site full of nerds; they'll notice. And the less scrupulous will take advantage of it. Don't write your own sanitization functions, use internal library functions - preferably parameter binding and the such. And don't forget that injection is not just about SQL, it can affect any user string inserted into another that subsequently goes through a parser - there's XML injection, HTML injection, BASH injection, and so forth.
* If there's some coding project that you think would help the site but you don't have the resources to do it, turn to your readers. For example, if the site was being hit by spam bots in the comments or whatnot, I'm sure you could get more than a few volunteers who would contribute code if it means not having to read the spam.
* People screw up, that's normal. If you accidentally post a duplicate, just take it off the front page. You don't have to delete the comments (you could even put it back on firehose), but just try to keep the front page duplicate free.
* I'm not a big "oh, this site is inherently bad!" person, but a lot of people are, and they get angry when they see links to articles on certain sites (such as, for example, Forbes, due to their adblocker policy and malware history). Be aware of what sites are unpopular and try to avoid linking them, if you can. Most news is available from multiple outlets.
If you do this sort of stuff, people here will be very happy:)
The permissions it needs are access to modify/erase files and the ability to lock the screen, both of which can be granted on non-root phones if the user confirms. This app uses a trick (that really shouldn't have been there in the first place... who thought that letting anything have higher window layering than the privilege window was a good idea?) to get users to agree to the privilege escalation without realizing it.
The main weakness of this app (apart from its ahem rather specific market) is that it requires side installation. That makes it only a minor threat. What I worry about is the day when someone finds a vulnerability that lets them install ransomware without user interaction via the ads that one finds in a large chunk of the free apps on the app store.
Feces are 70% water. Of the remaining solid matter, 30% is bacteria, or 9% of the total mass. Furthermore, the mass of feces is generally significantly less than the mass of food ingested. Lastly, fecal bacteria consume many chemicals which are indigestible to humans.
The article is a confused mishmash of different topics.
1. They present nothing wrong with the basic method used by Atwater, despite calling it "outdated". Discrepancies like the issue with nuts having 20-30% fewer calories than thought isn't due to a flaw in the Atwater method, it's due to them not actually being tested - they were simply grouped together with legumes and the calories just estimated based on fat, carbohydrate and protein present in them. The solution has nothing to do with there being "something wrong with the calorie" - the solution is that they need to test better and get better data.
2. Individual differences are generally small, and the only potential for significant deviation from the norm is towards those who get unusually few calories, not unusually many. I don't have time to dig up the numbers yet again right now, but they're in the ballpark of the average person's digestive system consuming ~94% of the protein that they eat, 97% of the fats that they eat and 99% of the carbohydrates that they eat. So a person's digestive system could potentially be much less efficient than average in some regard - although that's not normal - but it can't be much more efficient than average. You can have some more relevant variation on the breakdown of fiber to SCFAs but that's only a very small portion of daily calories. This excuse that the article is pushing people towards of "my body is just a much more efficient digester than the average person, that's why I'm fat" is simply not realistic.
3. Like in #1, there can be a difference between cooked and uncooked food in terms of availability of various nutrients - but again, this is not a problem with the concept of calories, it means that labels need to be accurate in regards to the preparation method. And it has very little impact on meat, contrary to the article's emphasis; it's mainly a plant thing (see the example of the nuts above). The human body is exceedingly good at breaking down cell membranes (animal cells), but not so great at getting through cell walls (plant cells), and it has more effect on non-caloric nutrients (many types of vitamins and minerals) than caloric ones. A lot of the energy loss in cooked meat is simply a fraction of the meat destroyed or otherwise lost (such as grease) in the cooking process. A steak shrinks dramatically when you cook it because it's losing ~45% of its water and a ~30% of its fat in the cooking process. The same steak has fewer total calories cooked, but more calories per gram.
4. Of course how you prepare food has an effect on what sort of nutrients it has, but since when is this news? Broiled, fried, steamed, etc - your mind is immediately jumping to pictures of how healthy that preparation method is when you see those words, isn't it? When you eat meat do you leave the skin on or take it off? Do you cut off gristle? Do you not expect these things to change the ratio of fats and proteins in the meat? We all know that how you fix a meal is going to influence the final picture. You don't calorie count a prepared meal by looking up the raw ingredients, you look up the prepared meal as a whole.
5. Their conflating the issue of cooked rice with the above about "cooking freeing up calories" is totally off mark, and actually backwards. Many types of starches (not just rice - potatoes, for example) partially convert from digestible starch to indigestible starch after cooling for several hours after cooking. There could be a general point to be made about how people should be better informed about the many ways in which preparation can alter the number of calories (though we already are generally rather aware of this), but it's not that the concept of the "calorie" is broken.
6. Metabolic consumption has nothing to do with the calories present in food. And yes, there are variations in basal metabolic rate. But the standard deviation is only 5-8%. Variations in metabolism from exercise betwe
So in the examples above, have, say, there been mass-scale inexplicable deaths among the vast numbers of NASA employees, drug manufacturers, climatologists and vaccine/autism researchers?
I think the renderer plays into it to some extent. I've noticed a lot more feeling of realism in Blender for example after switching to Cycles, even on the same scene with textures created to be effectively identical, and I think part of it stems from an inherent imperfection of Cycles: ISO noise. Most renderers are raytracers, while Cycles is a path tracer, so it has a sort of stochastic, physically-based approach to rendering, where each ray is allowed to scatter randomly as it would in the real world rather than trying to calculate the "perfect" value for each point (aka "light A is 5 meters from me and hitting at this angle so it contributes this much, light B is 10 meters away...", like everyone learns in a typical "Introduction to 3d Rendering" course). The net result is that - in addition to inherently at no extra cost providing things that have to be added in or faked in other raytracers like soft shadows, motion blur, depth of field, indirect lighting, internal scattering, etc - all images render quickly but with very high ISO, and each progressive pass reduces the ISO. It's as if the image was taken by a camera in a really dark room (with the resulting image brightened and contrast stretched), and each successive pass was taken in a slightly brighter room.
When it comes to most old-fashioned techniques, "perfection is realism". When it comes to raytracing, "imperfection is realism". ISO noise is a good thing.
I think that's an oversimplification. Yes, trends, and the audience getting used to and tired of them, are a quite real phenomenon. But let's not simultaneously pretend that the concept of "realism" in movies is a purely objective phenomenon. Sometimes an effect can be purely and objectively bad. Should we go back to, for example, the special effects of 1960s Star Trek, would that be an improvement?
Let's pick an example of bad use of CG. The scene of Anakin feeding Padme a slice of pear wasn't per se bad because it's CGI, it's bad because they did a lousy job with it. And it's bad of the CG director to think that it was sufficient. And it's bad of the film director for getting so obsessed with using a single technology for special effects that they'd rather put in a badly done CG effect than go buy a freaking pear.
The original trilogy had tons of lousy special effects that would have looked much better if done using modern techniques. Not all scenes, there were plenty of good special effects in the trilogy - but there were some that were patently just bad. Abjectly, transparently fake - all issues of trends aside. The fact that CGI is often misused today doesn't change this. Good special effects mean using the correct tool for the process and not getting obsessed with using only whatever happens to be the current trend. A good director is one who can tell that a miniature is going to look fake in scene X, a puppet is going to look fake in scene Y, and a CG pear is going to look fake in scene Z, and adjust appropriately.
In experiments, what actually happens is the only people who stop working are those with very good reasons not to - for example, mothers with new children, or people wanting to take care of a dying relative, or people who want to pursue higher degrees, and such; people willing to live a poorer life in order to do something that's very important to them. And probably very important to society as a whole. As a general rule, though, it does not affect the percentage of people who continue to work. Because the reality is that very few people actually want to live a bare subsistence living.
Companies indeed will have to pay a sufficient salary for workers to think the compensation justfies their time and effort. But that's a description of work in general - at all levels. This very second, somewhere in the world there's a middle aged ex-CEO receiving a job offer and thinking to himself, "Only 3 million dollars a year, to spend time away from my family - are they bloody kidding me?"
Slashdot Mirror
What a weird notion. Printing with online services that use professional machines rather than cheapo home filament extruders? It's almost like you actually care about quality or something ;)
As I'd expect. The difference between professional units and home units isn't just print quality.
Manufacturing requires controlled atmospheres. Heck, the thing that most people really want - 3d printed metal - simply can't be conducted in uncontrolled atmospheres at all. You at least have to use shielding gases, and it's very likely going to at least produce ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, etc - never mind any potential outgasing/particulate from the metal (depends on what you're sintering - for example, stainless steel = risk of hexavalent chromium particulate). Would they just vent all this into the room for hours on end? The other option is to have your printer be built into a vacuum chamber (which eliminates the need to have gas tanks and also provides other advantages, such as sound suppression and a degree of dust suppression, although also disadvantages like more difficult heat management). But you still should have some outgassing protection on the output port of the vacuum pump.
Caprolactam is probably not carcinogenic, but it is most definitely an irritant and somewhat toxic, neither of which are good qualities to have for a gas in your home. Styrene, in addition to being a possible carcinogen, is toxic and mutagenic. In particular, it's toxic to the central nervous system. According to the EPA:
But hey, it's only probable that it'll also give you "leukemia, lymphoma, and other stem, blood, and bone marrow cancers", so let's totally play it down.
Because Slashdot doesn't support unicode.
Really though how much of idiots do these system designers have to be to not have thought of this? For fun I've been working on a design for a material-flexible 3d printer (though I don't actually plan to put the money and time into building it any time soon) and it became clear very early on that atmospheric control would be critical if you want to have it in the house. There are only a very few raw materials that come to mind that I wouldn't have outgassing or dust concerns with.
I can't imagine why they didn't think to at least put an activated carbon pad and/or paper air filter in the airflow path through the housing. It'd have almost no effect on the final cost.
Cut it with the indignant act. You said " A typical person's faeces contains 30% microbes". No, it's not. It's 70% water. Just say "I made a mistake" or "I could have been clearer" and let it drop.
No, it's not what you said. Perhaps it's what you were thinking of writing, but it's not what you wrote.
It's absolutely not irrelevant. If the human body would digest 99,9999% of a meal, leaving 0,0001% left over in the feces, then even if bacteria made up 100% of the mass of the remainder they'd still have only eaten the tiniest fraction of the meal.
Really - you've never heard of, for example, cellulose? And the rest of the category "fiber" which, by definition, is indigestible to humans?
Except, of course, that it's not. Most intestinal flora can digest fiber, at least soluble fiber.
And why are we even arguing about this? I gave you a link backing up the claim.
A description is in the article. The program uses a clickthrough overlay so that the user thinks that they're confirming something else when in reality they're confirming the permission escalation. They see the overlay, but it doesn't take clicks; they fall through to the hidden window underneath, the permissions dialog. After the user has unwittingly confirmed privilege escalation, then the encryption and locking begins.
Just as a random anecdote, a couple months ago I was shopping around for repositories for a project and went with Github as it's so commonly used now and Sourceforge had the whole bundleware issue. But honestly I'm not a big fan of git, and would rather have gone with something else. So hopefully you can restore Sourceforge's reputation and turn it into a real alternative. :)
The ring came off my pudding can!
Just one thing...and I think the Oatmeal put it well:
If many users are saying the same complaint about the site, please listen to it. But if there's just one or a couple people... try not to take it personally. That's going to happen. Stay informed of what people want, but know that there will of course be the random angry mean person out there, and don't let it get you down. :)
Were you sent here by the devil?
Yes please! Check out my sig, this has been a really annoying issue for quite some time. Also, please encode in UTF-8 if you can. UTF-16 is dangerous - namely because the vast majority of characters are only two bytes, but in rare cases they're four, so these cases usually slip past testing; often even libraries are broken in UTF-16, let alone individual programs, when it comes to 4-byte characters.
Other things to keep in mind:
* This is a site of nerds, so if someone posts a small chunk of code, it should display properly. Don't go all crazy on trying to "parse" and "prettify" posted text.
* For your sake, don't make the site vulnerable to injection (aka, *never* just paste a string from a user into one used internally). This is, again, a site full of nerds; they'll notice. And the less scrupulous will take advantage of it. Don't write your own sanitization functions, use internal library functions - preferably parameter binding and the such. And don't forget that injection is not just about SQL, it can affect any user string inserted into another that subsequently goes through a parser - there's XML injection, HTML injection, BASH injection, and so forth.
* If there's some coding project that you think would help the site but you don't have the resources to do it, turn to your readers. For example, if the site was being hit by spam bots in the comments or whatnot, I'm sure you could get more than a few volunteers who would contribute code if it means not having to read the spam.
* People screw up, that's normal. If you accidentally post a duplicate, just take it off the front page. You don't have to delete the comments (you could even put it back on firehose), but just try to keep the front page duplicate free.
* I'm not a big "oh, this site is inherently bad!" person, but a lot of people are, and they get angry when they see links to articles on certain sites (such as, for example, Forbes, due to their adblocker policy and malware history). Be aware of what sites are unpopular and try to avoid linking them, if you can. Most news is available from multiple outlets.
If you do this sort of stuff, people here will be very happy :)
What other sort of company would we expect to run a site whose business model is based around advertising?
And the sun is high!
Seriously... it's so annoying I even set it to my sig. :P
The permissions it needs are access to modify/erase files and the ability to lock the screen, both of which can be granted on non-root phones if the user confirms. This app uses a trick (that really shouldn't have been there in the first place... who thought that letting anything have higher window layering than the privilege window was a good idea?) to get users to agree to the privilege escalation without realizing it.
The main weakness of this app (apart from its ahem rather specific market) is that it requires side installation. That makes it only a minor threat. What I worry about is the day when someone finds a vulnerability that lets them install ransomware without user interaction via the ads that one finds in a large chunk of the free apps on the app store.
Looks like I got the fat and protein numbers backwards - fat is 95%, protein 95-98%.
Feces are 70% water. Of the remaining solid matter, 30% is bacteria, or 9% of the total mass. Furthermore, the mass of feces is generally significantly less than the mass of food ingested. Lastly, fecal bacteria consume many chemicals which are indigestible to humans.
The article is a confused mishmash of different topics.
1. They present nothing wrong with the basic method used by Atwater, despite calling it "outdated". Discrepancies like the issue with nuts having 20-30% fewer calories than thought isn't due to a flaw in the Atwater method, it's due to them not actually being tested - they were simply grouped together with legumes and the calories just estimated based on fat, carbohydrate and protein present in them. The solution has nothing to do with there being "something wrong with the calorie" - the solution is that they need to test better and get better data.
2. Individual differences are generally small, and the only potential for significant deviation from the norm is towards those who get unusually few calories, not unusually many. I don't have time to dig up the numbers yet again right now, but they're in the ballpark of the average person's digestive system consuming ~94% of the protein that they eat, 97% of the fats that they eat and 99% of the carbohydrates that they eat. So a person's digestive system could potentially be much less efficient than average in some regard - although that's not normal - but it can't be much more efficient than average. You can have some more relevant variation on the breakdown of fiber to SCFAs but that's only a very small portion of daily calories. This excuse that the article is pushing people towards of "my body is just a much more efficient digester than the average person, that's why I'm fat" is simply not realistic.
3. Like in #1, there can be a difference between cooked and uncooked food in terms of availability of various nutrients - but again, this is not a problem with the concept of calories, it means that labels need to be accurate in regards to the preparation method. And it has very little impact on meat, contrary to the article's emphasis; it's mainly a plant thing (see the example of the nuts above). The human body is exceedingly good at breaking down cell membranes (animal cells), but not so great at getting through cell walls (plant cells), and it has more effect on non-caloric nutrients (many types of vitamins and minerals) than caloric ones. A lot of the energy loss in cooked meat is simply a fraction of the meat destroyed or otherwise lost (such as grease) in the cooking process. A steak shrinks dramatically when you cook it because it's losing ~45% of its water and a ~30% of its fat in the cooking process. The same steak has fewer total calories cooked, but more calories per gram.
4. Of course how you prepare food has an effect on what sort of nutrients it has, but since when is this news? Broiled, fried, steamed, etc - your mind is immediately jumping to pictures of how healthy that preparation method is when you see those words, isn't it? When you eat meat do you leave the skin on or take it off? Do you cut off gristle? Do you not expect these things to change the ratio of fats and proteins in the meat? We all know that how you fix a meal is going to influence the final picture. You don't calorie count a prepared meal by looking up the raw ingredients, you look up the prepared meal as a whole.
5. Their conflating the issue of cooked rice with the above about "cooking freeing up calories" is totally off mark, and actually backwards. Many types of starches (not just rice - potatoes, for example) partially convert from digestible starch to indigestible starch after cooling for several hours after cooking. There could be a general point to be made about how people should be better informed about the many ways in which preparation can alter the number of calories (though we already are generally rather aware of this), but it's not that the concept of the "calorie" is broken.
6. Metabolic consumption has nothing to do with the calories present in food. And yes, there are variations in basal metabolic rate. But the standard deviation is only 5-8%. Variations in metabolism from exercise betwe
Exactly what real-world conspiracies do you think he was studying where this threat didn't exist?
So in the examples above, have, say, there been mass-scale inexplicable deaths among the vast numbers of NASA employees, drug manufacturers, climatologists and vaccine/autism researchers?
Then they're not conspirators, they're unwitting dupes.
I think the renderer plays into it to some extent. I've noticed a lot more feeling of realism in Blender for example after switching to Cycles, even on the same scene with textures created to be effectively identical, and I think part of it stems from an inherent imperfection of Cycles: ISO noise. Most renderers are raytracers, while Cycles is a path tracer, so it has a sort of stochastic, physically-based approach to rendering, where each ray is allowed to scatter randomly as it would in the real world rather than trying to calculate the "perfect" value for each point (aka "light A is 5 meters from me and hitting at this angle so it contributes this much, light B is 10 meters away...", like everyone learns in a typical "Introduction to 3d Rendering" course). The net result is that - in addition to inherently at no extra cost providing things that have to be added in or faked in other raytracers like soft shadows, motion blur, depth of field, indirect lighting, internal scattering, etc - all images render quickly but with very high ISO, and each progressive pass reduces the ISO. It's as if the image was taken by a camera in a really dark room (with the resulting image brightened and contrast stretched), and each successive pass was taken in a slightly brighter room.
When it comes to most old-fashioned techniques, "perfection is realism". When it comes to raytracing, "imperfection is realism". ISO noise is a good thing.
I think that's an oversimplification. Yes, trends, and the audience getting used to and tired of them, are a quite real phenomenon. But let's not simultaneously pretend that the concept of "realism" in movies is a purely objective phenomenon. Sometimes an effect can be purely and objectively bad. Should we go back to, for example, the special effects of 1960s Star Trek, would that be an improvement?
Let's pick an example of bad use of CG. The scene of Anakin feeding Padme a slice of pear wasn't per se bad because it's CGI, it's bad because they did a lousy job with it. And it's bad of the CG director to think that it was sufficient. And it's bad of the film director for getting so obsessed with using a single technology for special effects that they'd rather put in a badly done CG effect than go buy a freaking pear.
The original trilogy had tons of lousy special effects that would have looked much better if done using modern techniques. Not all scenes, there were plenty of good special effects in the trilogy - but there were some that were patently just bad. Abjectly, transparently fake - all issues of trends aside. The fact that CGI is often misused today doesn't change this. Good special effects mean using the correct tool for the process and not getting obsessed with using only whatever happens to be the current trend. A good director is one who can tell that a miniature is going to look fake in scene X, a puppet is going to look fake in scene Y, and a CG pear is going to look fake in scene Z, and adjust appropriately.
You do realize that experiments on basic income involve... wait for it.... paying people basic income?
In experiments, what actually happens is the only people who stop working are those with very good reasons not to - for example, mothers with new children, or people wanting to take care of a dying relative, or people who want to pursue higher degrees, and such; people willing to live a poorer life in order to do something that's very important to them. And probably very important to society as a whole. As a general rule, though, it does not affect the percentage of people who continue to work. Because the reality is that very few people actually want to live a bare subsistence living.
Companies indeed will have to pay a sufficient salary for workers to think the compensation justfies their time and effort. But that's a description of work in general - at all levels. This very second, somewhere in the world there's a middle aged ex-CEO receiving a job offer and thinking to himself, "Only 3 million dollars a year, to spend time away from my family - are they bloody kidding me?"
Exactly, and universal income prevents benefits cliffs. They're such a perverse incentive to work.