You can download the files that compose the individual iterations from the Github site you linked:
Webfonts are available in fonts/webfonts Opentype fonts for installing locally and for print applications are available in fonts/otf Variable fonts should be considered experimental, but can be found in fonts/variable Source files are available in source as Glyphs files.
E.g. traversing to fonts/otf/PublicSans-Regular.otf will bring you to the page where you can download the OTF file to install the Public Sans Regular font.
I've used Windows for a long time, as an end-user, as an IT technician and occasionally as a network administrator. Recently I've been experimenting with Linux.
I quickly came to a realization: Windows was developed _with the expectation that the user has no idea what they're doing_. It's not as prevalent these days, especially since Windows Vista, 8 and 10, not to mention the horrific idiocy that is dimensionless design, but back in the good old days? The GUI was designed to hold your hand and I could usually hit F1 and expect to get a contextualized help window that presumed I had no idea what I was doing and needed my hand held. Even the help for the OS's CLI utilities tended to be written in a plain and simpler style.
Linux, however, _expects the user to already know what they're doing_. Which makes complete sense given its origins, but doesn't help it penetrate Windows' primary demographic: everyone else.
Given how one of the benefits of a properly implemented UBI is supposed to be much less overhead than the current crapshow, is your issue truly with UBI itself or are you just expecting the government to make a half-assed mess of it too?
People are already dependent on their government for a living; the government already decides how much tax each person pays and what (who) that tax is spent on.
The (theoretical) difference with UBI is that everyone gets to know exactly how much everyone else is getting out of the deal, instead of the current setup where conveniently complex rules let the unscrupulous exploit the system.
"That is, the government can force Apple or Google to create a backdoor for the government to decrypt your messages."
What happens if Apple and Google's response is to take all their balls and go home, and 25 million Australians wake up to the following message on their iPhones, iPads, iMacs, Chromebooks, Android devices, etc:
"Error 451. The requested resource is not available due to an attempt by the Australian government to enable the installation of secret surveillance on our customers. We have withdrawn all services from Australia until this issue is resolved."
No apple/google maps, no apple/google email, no apple/google search, no apple/google app stores, no youtube, nada. Nothing that needs to talk to an Apple or Google server works anymore. What a wonderful Christmas present for Aussie voters...
Now, some of the abusive apps are able to be abusive only because of badly-designed Android APIs. For example, I don't think there's any reason even to have an API that allows apps to retrieve a user's whole contacts database. If an app legitimately needs contact information (say, to make a phone call), they should request a contact from a system API which presents the user with a picker to select the contact whose phone number they wish to provide, and only that number should be provided to the requesting app.
What if you want to use an app that lets you display/manipulate your contacts database in ways that aren't already supported by the default app included with the OS?
Tangentially, I'm disappointed that the Google Play Store doesn't let us filter our app searches by their permissions, e.g. "apps that don't demand access to our contacts" and/or "apps that don't demand access to our call history".
If I was a statistician, presumably the same way I'd do it for any other study examining how a state's policies affected its economy versus that of other states that didn't enact those policies? Since I'm not, I guess (if I cared enough) I'd ask a bunch of other universities to peer review it and/or do their own studies and see what they found (whether "yeah the work looks sound" or "they can't even carry a two").
Besides, actually reading the study itself, this is the conclusion's TLDR: "The employment to population ratio in Alaska after the introduction of the dividend is similar to that of synthetic control states. On the other hand, the share of people employed part-time in the overall population increases by 1.8 percentage points after the introduction of the dividend and relative to the synthetic controls. The unconditional cash transfer thus has no significant effect on employment, yet increases part-time work."
That's it. But somehow the phrase "Universal Basic Income" seems to have become a sorcerous incantation with which to conjure a multitude of armchair economists.
"They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans."
The study isn't saying that the ocean is able to absorb more heat, it's that more of the heat is going into the oceans _instead of into space_.
Think of it like fueling a car: it turns out we're pumping gasoline into the tank at a faster rate than we thought, but that doesn't make the tank any bigger.
The scientists are worried because when the tank (oceans) is full, the gasoline (heat) is going to start spilling out onto the road (atmosphere) instead. At that point our only choices will be to stand in a rapidly growing pool of gasoline or hit the Emergency Stop on civilization.
Has LO yet fixed the PDF export bug that occasionally and secretly* mangles your text just because you used a different font? I went back to OO because of this.
* In LO, at least the 5.x and 6.x versions I've used, the text in the exported PDF _looks_ fine but if you actually highlight and copy-paste it, the results are occasionally not what you'd expect.
So if you are ever falsely convicted of a crime due to your elected government creating an environment that encourages the police and prosecutors to be more interested in looking good than in being good, you're fine with having your ultimate First Amendment right - to change that government - muzzled?
Innocent people haven't magically stopped going to prison. Responsible government depends on checks and balances, while prisons are increasingly being operated as commercial, for-profit companies, complete with lobbyists and political financing. I hope you can do the math.
Thankyou. I can see where I've been messing up now. I regret I can't edit my original reply to go "strike that, I totally dun goofed, mod parent up (more)."
Sorry, my bad. Per my reply to your other post, I'd still like to see your step-through of the car-car scenario from the reference frame of one of the cars (pre-collision, since as you point out it's an inertial frame) so that I can understand the process.
Could you please now show me through the same steps but with the car-car scenario, with the frame of reference of one of the cars prior to the collision?
I am not mixing up energy with impulse, nor did I "fail to add 50 plus 50 to 100". GP's error was that they compared the two situations using different reference frames, when the kinetic energy formula returns different values depending on the reference frame used.
The catch is that kinetic energy (I'll use the term Ek) is a relative quantity, which means that the Ek of any given object will be different in reference frames in which its velocity is different, and you changed between such frames in the scenarios.
* In the "car vs wall" scenario you used frame B: the wall, to which only one of the objects is in relative motion (car A at 100 MPH, wall B at 0 MPH). * In the "car vs car" scenario you used frame C: the Earth, to which both of the objects are in relative motion (car A at 50 MPH, car B at -50 MPH, earth C at 0 MPH).
For both scenarios to be compared in terms of Ek, you either have to stay with the same frame (e.g. "car A" at 0 MPH relative to itself in both scenarios) or apply an appropriate frame-conversion transformation.
Now someone might say, "but what if we calculated the Ek using the Earth as our reference frame in both scenarios?"
Sure, we can do that. However, remember, Ek is a _relative quantity_. Choosing "car A" as our frame is arguably more useful as it gives us the Ek relative to that car (and any hypothetical occupant); after all, it's not the Earth that's going to be at risk if the car collides with something. For example: relative to the centre of the Sun, the 1kg keyboard on my desk can be said to have an Ek of roughly 450 megajoules - about a third of the energy in a typical lightning bolt - yet my fingers still manage to safely type on ("collide" with) that keyboard every day.
"You can instead use another frame of reference (for example, of the car), but keep in mind that in any other frame the speed of the car post-collision won't be zero"
If we choose the car as the reference frame then its velocity relative to itself (and thus also its kinetic energy relative to itself) will be zero - before, during and after the collision. If it changes from zero, you've changed reference frames.
The only realistic answers you can get is "maybe" to your first and third questions and "no" to your second. A well-designed AI-driven car can react faster than any human (and never get bored or sleepy or distracted either) but whether "faster" equals "fast enough" still depends on a lot of factors.
Your conclusion is correct but you're off with the kinetic energy formula. The formula presumes an inertial frame of reference; simply put, the "oncoming" object - whether a car or a wall - will have the same relative speed so the KE transfer will be the same (mass differences and inelasticity aside) in both scenarios.
However, as you point out, the "car vs car" scenario involves twice as much crumple zone - which means for any given relative speed, twice as much energy can be absorbed rather than going into the occupants.
Your "best reason" is wrong. Paper voting in Australia does not have that problem; the system is quick, efficient and designed specifically to prevent parties - political or criminal - from being able to change or know who you vote for.
Re "The UBI given to all wealthy citizens who are working full time would be a free flow of tax payers money to them."
No, because if the government has implemented a UBI properly, the extra income will be offset by the extra tax. Whether that leaves wealthy citizens "better" or "worse" off from an immediate (net annual income before qualitative adjustments) perspective will depend on various factors; however, the goal of a UBI is to result in a net growth in a post-qualitative assessment (or in simple terms, it doesn't matter if the wealthy are a little bit less wealthy in the short term, because the goal is to reduce the poverty traps, economic failures, civil unrest and revolutions that make everyone a lot less wealthy in the long term).
Re "The UBI given to citizens who need a basic income would be what a UBI should be for."
Exactly! The UBI is for the people in need.
Re "Why given a nations most wealthy citizens a UBI? They are working full time and have to pay tax. The UBI would just put more of a tax rate on them."
Here's the thing. Part of the appeal of UBI is that it reduces the cost overheads of social welfare. Think about it. You have a taxation system. Money goes into the treasury. You have a welfare system. Money goes out again to those in need. These two linked systems each require the citizens involved to expend resources on determining how much has to go where, and each requires the government to expend further resources to process those determinations. By implementing a UBI and having the excess recouped via back-end algorithms in the taxation system, it's possible to vastly reduce the resources expended by the citizens and the government on the welfare system.
Of course, how well that works out in practice depends on how well (or not) the government does on implementing it, but that's a problem you face with any welfare system, including the one you have right now.
Slashdot Mirror
You can download the files that compose the individual iterations from the Github site you linked:
E.g. traversing to fonts/otf/PublicSans-Regular.otf will bring you to the page where you can download the OTF file to install the Public Sans Regular font.
I've used Windows for a long time, as an end-user, as an IT technician and occasionally as a network administrator. Recently I've been experimenting with Linux.
I quickly came to a realization: Windows was developed _with the expectation that the user has no idea what they're doing_. It's not as prevalent these days, especially since Windows Vista, 8 and 10, not to mention the horrific idiocy that is dimensionless design, but back in the good old days? The GUI was designed to hold your hand and I could usually hit F1 and expect to get a contextualized help window that presumed I had no idea what I was doing and needed my hand held. Even the help for the OS's CLI utilities tended to be written in a plain and simpler style.
Linux, however, _expects the user to already know what they're doing_. Which makes complete sense given its origins, but doesn't help it penetrate Windows' primary demographic: everyone else.
Given how one of the benefits of a properly implemented UBI is supposed to be much less overhead than the current crapshow, is your issue truly with UBI itself or are you just expecting the government to make a half-assed mess of it too?
People are already dependent on their government for a living; the government already decides how much tax each person pays and what (who) that tax is spent on.
The (theoretical) difference with UBI is that everyone gets to know exactly how much everyone else is getting out of the deal, instead of the current setup where conveniently complex rules let the unscrupulous exploit the system.
Asking as an ignorant foreigner, how does the US government reconcile the use of coercing testimony from a witness with the First Amendment?
Mostly out of curiosity, does that include the mines supplying the fuel?
What happens if Apple and Google's response is to take all their balls and go home, and 25 million Australians wake up to the following message on their iPhones, iPads, iMacs, Chromebooks, Android devices, etc:
"Error 451. The requested resource is not available due to an attempt by the Australian government to enable the installation of secret surveillance on our customers. We have withdrawn all services from Australia until this issue is resolved."
No apple/google maps, no apple/google email, no apple/google search, no apple/google app stores, no youtube, nada. Nothing that needs to talk to an Apple or Google server works anymore. What a wonderful Christmas present for Aussie voters...
Could you explain how?
Now, some of the abusive apps are able to be abusive only because of badly-designed Android APIs. For example, I don't think there's any reason even to have an API that allows apps to retrieve a user's whole contacts database. If an app legitimately needs contact information (say, to make a phone call), they should request a contact from a system API which presents the user with a picker to select the contact whose phone number they wish to provide, and only that number should be provided to the requesting app.
What if you want to use an app that lets you display/manipulate your contacts database in ways that aren't already supported by the default app included with the OS?
Tangentially, I'm disappointed that the Google Play Store doesn't let us filter our app searches by their permissions, e.g. "apps that don't demand access to our contacts" and/or "apps that don't demand access to our call history".
If I was a statistician, presumably the same way I'd do it for any other study examining how a state's policies affected its economy versus that of other states that didn't enact those policies? Since I'm not, I guess (if I cared enough) I'd ask a bunch of other universities to peer review it and/or do their own studies and see what they found (whether "yeah the work looks sound" or "they can't even carry a two").
Besides, actually reading the study itself, this is the conclusion's TLDR: "The employment to population ratio in Alaska after the introduction of the dividend is similar to that of synthetic control states. On the other hand, the share of people employed part-time in the overall population increases by 1.8 percentage points after the introduction of the dividend and relative to the synthetic controls. The unconditional cash transfer thus has no significant effect on employment, yet increases part-time work."
That's it. But somehow the phrase "Universal Basic Income" seems to have become a sorcerous incantation with which to conjure a multitude of armchair economists.
The other 49 states?
"They are claiming we should be worried despite admitting we had no idea the ocean could absorb heat a lot faster than we thought which seems like it helps mitigate the danger greatly, all models now being wrong in terms of some excess heat taken up by the oceans."
The study isn't saying that the ocean is able to absorb more heat, it's that more of the heat is going into the oceans _instead of into space_.
Think of it like fueling a car: it turns out we're pumping gasoline into the tank at a faster rate than we thought, but that doesn't make the tank any bigger.
The scientists are worried because when the tank (oceans) is full, the gasoline (heat) is going to start spilling out onto the road (atmosphere) instead. At that point our only choices will be to stand in a rapidly growing pool of gasoline or hit the Emergency Stop on civilization.
Has LO yet fixed the PDF export bug that occasionally and secretly* mangles your text just because you used a different font? I went back to OO because of this.
* In LO, at least the 5.x and 6.x versions I've used, the text in the exported PDF _looks_ fine but if you actually highlight and copy-paste it, the results are occasionally not what you'd expect.
So if you are ever falsely convicted of a crime due to your elected government creating an environment that encourages the police and prosecutors to be more interested in looking good than in being good, you're fine with having your ultimate First Amendment right - to change that government - muzzled?
Innocent people haven't magically stopped going to prison. Responsible government depends on checks and balances, while prisons are increasingly being operated as commercial, for-profit companies, complete with lobbyists and political financing. I hope you can do the math.
Thankyou. I can see where I've been messing up now. I regret I can't edit my original reply to go "strike that, I totally dun goofed, mod parent up (more)."
Sorry, my bad. Per my reply to your other post, I'd still like to see your step-through of the car-car scenario from the reference frame of one of the cars (pre-collision, since as you point out it's an inertial frame) so that I can understand the process.
Could you please now show me through the same steps but with the car-car scenario, with the frame of reference of one of the cars prior to the collision?
I am not mixing up energy with impulse, nor did I "fail to add 50 plus 50 to 100". GP's error was that they compared the two situations using different reference frames, when the kinetic energy formula returns different values depending on the reference frame used.
The catch is that kinetic energy (I'll use the term Ek) is a relative quantity, which means that the Ek of any given object will be different in reference frames in which its velocity is different, and you changed between such frames in the scenarios.
* In the "car vs wall" scenario you used frame B: the wall, to which only one of the objects is in relative motion (car A at 100 MPH, wall B at 0 MPH).
* In the "car vs car" scenario you used frame C: the Earth, to which both of the objects are in relative motion (car A at 50 MPH, car B at -50 MPH, earth C at 0 MPH).
For both scenarios to be compared in terms of Ek, you either have to stay with the same frame (e.g. "car A" at 0 MPH relative to itself in both scenarios) or apply an appropriate frame-conversion transformation.
Now someone might say, "but what if we calculated the Ek using the Earth as our reference frame in both scenarios?"
Sure, we can do that. However, remember, Ek is a _relative quantity_. Choosing "car A" as our frame is arguably more useful as it gives us the Ek relative to that car (and any hypothetical occupant); after all, it's not the Earth that's going to be at risk if the car collides with something. For example: relative to the centre of the Sun, the 1kg keyboard on my desk can be said to have an Ek of roughly 450 megajoules - about a third of the energy in a typical lightning bolt - yet my fingers still manage to safely type on ("collide" with) that keyboard every day.
"You can instead use another frame of reference (for example, of the car), but keep in mind that in any other frame the speed of the car post-collision won't be zero"
If we choose the car as the reference frame then its velocity relative to itself (and thus also its kinetic energy relative to itself) will be zero - before, during and after the collision. If it changes from zero, you've changed reference frames.
The only realistic answers you can get is "maybe" to your first and third questions and "no" to your second. A well-designed AI-driven car can react faster than any human (and never get bored or sleepy or distracted either) but whether "faster" equals "fast enough" still depends on a lot of factors.
The difference is that Counter-Strike is (supposedly) a game whose outcome is predominantly determined by skill rather than chance.
Your analogy would make it illegal to pay people to play sports.
Your conclusion is correct but you're off with the kinetic energy formula. The formula presumes an inertial frame of reference; simply put, the "oncoming" object - whether a car or a wall - will have the same relative speed so the KE transfer will be the same (mass differences and inelasticity aside) in both scenarios.
However, as you point out, the "car vs car" scenario involves twice as much crumple zone - which means for any given relative speed, twice as much energy can be absorbed rather than going into the occupants.
Your "best reason" is wrong. Paper voting in Australia does not have that problem; the system is quick, efficient and designed specifically to prevent parties - political or criminal - from being able to change or know who you vote for.
That's okay, the cops did too.
Re "The UBI given to all wealthy citizens who are working full time would be a free flow of tax payers money to them."
No, because if the government has implemented a UBI properly, the extra income will be offset by the extra tax. Whether that leaves wealthy citizens "better" or "worse" off from an immediate (net annual income before qualitative adjustments) perspective will depend on various factors; however, the goal of a UBI is to result in a net growth in a post-qualitative assessment (or in simple terms, it doesn't matter if the wealthy are a little bit less wealthy in the short term, because the goal is to reduce the poverty traps, economic failures, civil unrest and revolutions that make everyone a lot less wealthy in the long term).
Re "The UBI given to citizens who need a basic income would be what a UBI should be for."
Exactly! The UBI is for the people in need.
Re "Why given a nations most wealthy citizens a UBI? They are working full time and have to pay tax. The UBI would just put more of a tax rate on them."
Here's the thing. Part of the appeal of UBI is that it reduces the cost overheads of social welfare. Think about it. You have a taxation system. Money goes into the treasury. You have a welfare system. Money goes out again to those in need. These two linked systems each require the citizens involved to expend resources on determining how much has to go where, and each requires the government to expend further resources to process those determinations. By implementing a UBI and having the excess recouped via back-end algorithms in the taxation system, it's possible to vastly reduce the resources expended by the citizens and the government on the welfare system.
Of course, how well that works out in practice depends on how well (or not) the government does on implementing it, but that's a problem you face with any welfare system, including the one you have right now.