What would stop us from building an AI that could process the same material as the task force and producing the legal foundation for prosecuting tax fraud by the ultra-wealthy. There are lots of other wonderful targets one could work on while whiling away the hours on UBI
A lot of people like to point out that basic income will not motivate people to work, yet we're subsidizing that laziness, and that's certainly true. However, the mistake is assuming that we aren't paying for it already. I would rather use a basic income to replace all of the existing social programs that we spend billions of dollars on per year. It's far better solution in that it's more adaptive (food stamps are useless if you need to repair your car to get to a job) and less expensive to administer since it's a single program.
It's important to remember that we subsidize laziness by encouraging wealth transfer by inheritance and under taxing income from rent seeking behavior. We have divorced work from money a long time ago. Pension plans, retirement savings, 401(k) etc. are all sources of money without working. Yes work does create the initial seed capital but it's only through rent extraction (money without work) do these money piles grow so you can afford to live without working.
So the way I look at it, UBI extends the benefit of money without work to everyone and it should be funded by taking money from those who don't work and have a lot of money.
I hate to say it but if a bot is representing a person, they could be seen as having First Amendment rights by virtue of representing and enabling an individual's anonymous speech as long as that speech is one of the permitted classes under the First Amendment.
Assuming that a bot is a speech proxy for an individual or an entity (i.e. Corporation) one needs to look at what examples we have of speech proxies and how they are handled with regards to speech rights. One example that come to mind immediately is lawyers. Sock puppets, meat puppets, and Astroturfing are other examples of speech proxies.
Given that anonymous speech is a large component of First Amendment rights, speaking through a lawyer anonymously should be sufficient to preserve your first amendment anonymous speech rights. If there was societal or government pressure keeping the lawyer from speaking, that would be an infringement on your speech rights. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if a bot is considered to be a proxy speaking on behalf of an individual and the individuals speech rights are conferred to the proxy, then the bot has the individuals speech rights.
If you want to retire comfortably, you need to make the most of your productive years. Not hope for a last minute bail out.
to your advice I would add, live a solo life, never have kids, never suffer a major illness and never trust the finance industry. any one of those mistakes and all your hard won savings vanishes.
Don't beat yourself up. It sounds like you're under a fair amount of stress both externally and internally generated. Stress/anxiety/depression all impair your ability to make decisions. When I'm having a bad day, I don't get done what I need to do which only makes me feel worse and the only way out is to stop, take a walk, meditate get some distance from the feelings and then give yourself permission to start over. Continuing to push will only dig a deeper hole.
Markets can't correct this behavior because drugs are effectively a monopoly situation. Not just from the patent perspective but from the biological. When treating a condition, it's not uncommon to find that a patient can't tolerate one drug but can another. A classic example of this is statins. The protocol for using statin says if a patient can't tolerate the cheap ones, gradually try the increasingly more expensive ones until you find one that works.
If the patient can only tolerate one particular drug to treat a condition, there is no market (i.e. only one supplier, the drug that works). The only power the patient has is to decide whether or not to treat the condition. There is no way the patient can put any pressure on the drug manufacturer to change pricing. If anything, the drug manufacturer is saying "you want to live? Don't ask about the price, just pay it."
I'm not talking about more single/multi family homes. We need more 15 story urban apartment bricks around each transit stop. The population density should approach 10k people per transit stop at that density you can also support multiple food marts and other retailers to fight the tyranny of the local merchant while preserving a car free/walkable environment.
Hollywood has been spreading anti-religous bigotry for many decades. Also, Western Europe has been moving away from Christianity for generations. Neither has made people more egalitarian or happy.
This could be to Western Europe's cultural advantage. Start producing shows that highlight the oppressive nature of religion and male behavior. Make the people who follow religion look like fools (not that they need any help) and highlight secular, egalitarian people as happy, successful families.
There is lots of ways to cut this particular cake
Tons of programming languages, libraries, tools, etc, etc. Some are easier than others save when you have a problem they aren't suited for. There is no such thing as one size fits all programming, and I'm pretty sure never will be.
many of those libraries are driven by ego. others are driven by unintelligible code bases that make it easier to create another unintelligible code base than modify the existing unintelligible code base.
2 possibilities: Conservatives are afraid social programs will let the poor improve their lot so they structure them for failure or Conservatives fear someone will cheat the system better than they do
Um, what?
1. This is Canada.
They still have mean spirited conservative politicians
2. "Progressive" "conservatives"
oxymoron??? google's description leads me to believe they are likely mean spirited..
governments don't print money, they issue bonds which are bought by bankers. bankers create money out of thin air by adding another line in their ledger.
2 possibilities: Conservatives are afraid social programs will let the poor improve their lot so they structure them for failure or Conservatives fear someone will cheat the system better than they do
FTA: The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."
Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."
Personally, I would be more concerned about a properly bribed election official or two losing votes in a voting machine or even worse, a voting machine with remote access https://www.newsweek.com/elect....
This article from Vox highlights one of vote-by-mail strengths which is that it is very distributed and hard to tamper with at large scale. It's second strength is that is a fair process making voting accessible to anyone who is registered to vote. No need for polling places or special times and days, only a voting deadline of when your vote must be in an order to be counted.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Slashdot Mirror
What would stop us from building an AI that could process the same material as the task force and producing the legal foundation for prosecuting tax fraud by the ultra-wealthy. There are lots of other wonderful targets one could work on while whiling away the hours on UBI
+1
in another country than it is to hire developers older than 40 and pay them for their skills??
Or will peeNet be built on Russian tube-based Cisco router clones? Might not be a bad thing. At least those routers would survive an EMP blast
A lot of people like to point out that basic income will not motivate people to work, yet we're subsidizing that laziness, and that's certainly true. However, the mistake is assuming that we aren't paying for it already. I would rather use a basic income to replace all of the existing social programs that we spend billions of dollars on per year. It's far better solution in that it's more adaptive (food stamps are useless if you need to repair your car to get to a job) and less expensive to administer since it's a single program.
It's important to remember that we subsidize laziness by encouraging wealth transfer by inheritance and under taxing income from rent seeking behavior. We have divorced work from money a long time ago. Pension plans, retirement savings, 401(k) etc. are all sources of money without working. Yes work does create the initial seed capital but it's only through rent extraction (money without work) do these money piles grow so you can afford to live without working.
So the way I look at it, UBI extends the benefit of money without work to everyone and it should be funded by taking money from those who don't work and have a lot of money.
I hate to say it but if a bot is representing a person, they could be seen as having First Amendment rights by virtue of representing and enabling an individual's anonymous speech as long as that speech is one of the permitted classes under the First Amendment.
Assuming that a bot is a speech proxy for an individual or an entity (i.e. Corporation) one needs to look at what examples we have of speech proxies and how they are handled with regards to speech rights. One example that come to mind immediately is lawyers. Sock puppets, meat puppets, and Astroturfing are other examples of speech proxies.
Given that anonymous speech is a large component of First Amendment rights, speaking through a lawyer anonymously should be sufficient to preserve your first amendment anonymous speech rights. If there was societal or government pressure keeping the lawyer from speaking, that would be an infringement on your speech rights. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if a bot is considered to be a proxy speaking on behalf of an individual and the individuals speech rights are conferred to the proxy, then the bot has the individuals speech rights.
by the way, the king is a Fink
*all* the messages from whatsapp worldwide encoded in such a way that you need all the messages to determine the content of any message.
time to dig out my old kim-1 and forth env.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you want to retire comfortably, you need to make the most of your productive years. Not hope for a last minute bail out.
to your advice I would add, live a solo life, never have kids, never suffer a major illness and never trust the finance industry. any one of those mistakes and all your hard won savings vanishes.
export regulations worked so well with crypto...
Don't beat yourself up. It sounds like you're under a fair amount of stress both externally and internally generated. Stress/anxiety/depression all impair your ability to make decisions. When I'm having a bad day, I don't get done what I need to do which only makes me feel worse and the only way out is to stop, take a walk, meditate get some distance from the feelings and then give yourself permission to start over. Continuing to push will only dig a deeper hole.
inverse square law is your friend.
Markets can't correct this behavior because drugs are effectively a monopoly situation. Not just from the patent perspective but from the biological. When treating a condition, it's not uncommon to find that a patient can't tolerate one drug but can another. A classic example of this is statins. The protocol for using statin says if a patient can't tolerate the cheap ones, gradually try the increasingly more expensive ones until you find one that works. If the patient can only tolerate one particular drug to treat a condition, there is no market (i.e. only one supplier, the drug that works). The only power the patient has is to decide whether or not to treat the condition. There is no way the patient can put any pressure on the drug manufacturer to change pricing. If anything, the drug manufacturer is saying "you want to live? Don't ask about the price, just pay it."
I'm not talking about more single/multi family homes. We need more 15 story urban apartment bricks around each transit stop. The population density should approach 10k people per transit stop at that density you can also support multiple food marts and other retailers to fight the tyranny of the local merchant while preserving a car free/walkable environment.
Hollywood has been spreading anti-religous bigotry for many decades. Also, Western Europe has been moving away from Christianity for generations. Neither has made people more egalitarian or happy.
really?? see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 17 countries ranked higher than the US. 12 of them were from europe.
This could be to Western Europe's cultural advantage. Start producing shows that highlight the oppressive nature of religion and male behavior. Make the people who follow religion look like fools (not that they need any help) and highlight secular, egalitarian people as happy, successful families. There is lots of ways to cut this particular cake
man, my T430 is older than that (and has more ram, m2 ssd and 1tb ssr (slowly spinning rust). still going strong.
Tons of programming languages, libraries, tools, etc, etc. Some are easier than others save when you have a problem they aren't suited for. There is no such thing as one size fits all programming, and I'm pretty sure never will be.
many of those libraries are driven by ego. others are driven by unintelligible code bases that make it easier to create another unintelligible code base than modify the existing unintelligible code base.
what, like Frank Loyd Wright and the Johnson Wax corporate headquarters?
2 possibilities: Conservatives are afraid social programs will let the poor improve their lot so they structure them for failure or Conservatives fear someone will cheat the system better than they do
Um, what?
1. This is Canada.
They still have mean spirited conservative politicians
2. "Progressive" "conservatives"
oxymoron??? google's description leads me to believe they are likely mean spirited..
governments don't print money, they issue bonds which are bought by bankers. bankers create money out of thin air by adding another line in their ledger.
2 possibilities: Conservatives are afraid social programs will let the poor improve their lot so they structure them for failure or Conservatives fear someone will cheat the system better than they do
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...
FTA: The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."
Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."
Personally, I would be more concerned about a properly bribed election official or two losing votes in a voting machine or even worse, a voting machine with remote access https://www.newsweek.com/elect....
This article from Vox highlights one of vote-by-mail strengths which is that it is very distributed and hard to tamper with at large scale. It's second strength is that is a fair process making voting accessible to anyone who is registered to vote. No need for polling places or special times and days, only a voting deadline of when your vote must be in an order to be counted. https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
of course, if you want to steal an election, here's your how to: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018...