Oh look, my personal anti-science stalker is back. Why am I not surprised you're also against burning plastics for their energy directly, and are instead for losing massive amounts of energy to liquefy them?
We're living in a world of overabundance of liquid fuels across most of the world right now. Between shale boom in US and OPEC + Russia sitting at all time high production, prices are low.
At the same time, burners burning various waste products are in high demand, and their fuel is in high demand as well.
Plastic is literally fuel for the burner as it's almost always made out of petrochemicals. Why would you lose a massive amount of energy to make it a liquid fuel instead of a solid one?
Correction: they changed rules recently. I never picked unemployment benefits in my life, but I did have to get a citation from TE-toimisto once in my student days that I'm not employed. Today, KELA is responsible for paying the basic benefits, and your work union/unemployment collective is paying for the earnings-related unemployment benefits.
But TE-toimisto is still the organisation responsible for determining your status as unemployed and seeking work, so you still have to deal with their bureaucracy to get those other organisations to actually pay you. Those other organisations will simply get the citation on your status from TE-toimisto once its determined.
If you work for about 26 calendar weeks, you get 400 days of approximately 60% of their salary in Finland for each day of unemployment. This consists of 705 EUR "base daily payment" (peruspäiväraha) and earned part (ansio-osa) determined by salary while working. Additionally if recepient has children, base daily payment is increased by 5,29EUR/day for one child, 7,77EUR for two and 10,02EUR for three or more.
Note that even the base payment rate is higher than this particular UBI test run.
If you don't meet the requirement, you fall to base unemployment benefits, which are approximately 702EUR/month, paid weekly. You can earn up to 300EUR on top of that in salary without it impacting these benefits, and you can also earn additional 4,74EUR per day if you participate in activity "which improves your chances of getting employment".
UBI was paid on top of these social benefits (among others, these are far from the only social benefits unemployed person is entitled to), and its primary stated goal was to amortize against the often small difference of gaining salary but losing unemployment benefits. Result show the test run to be an abysmal failure, as test group scored marginally lower on finding employment than control group that didn't get the extra money on top of their unemployment benefits.
"Wage slaves" already get up to 400 days of approximately 60% of their salary in Finland, provided they worked enough (=26 calendar weeks working) for each day of unemployment. This consists of 705 EUR "base daily payment" (peruspäiväraha) and earned part (ansio-osa) determined by salary while working. Additionally if recepient has children, base daily payment is increased by 5,29EUR/day for one child, 7,77EUR for two and 10,02EUR for three or more.
Note that even the base payment rate is higher than this particular UBI test run.
If you don't meet the requirement, you fall to base unemployment benefits, which are approximately 702EUR/month, paid weekly. You can earn up to 300EUR on top of that in salary without it impacting these benefits, and you can also earn additional 4,74EUR per day if you participate in activity "which improves your chances of getting employment".
It's free if you can pass entry exams, and you get extra benefits for re-educating yourself into a different field. Things like increased assistance with your rent payments (opiskelijan asumistuki), social benefits for studying (opintotuki) etc. You also get a student card which grants you a lot of benefits, such as half price off train and bus tickets, very cheap meals in university/college cafeterias, etc.
In Finland, you already get to sit on your butt collecting payments that go directly in your bank account. Unemployment benefits are typically significantly higher than this UBI and are paid straight to you. This test kept those payments, and invested extra on top of them to see if it would help offset loss of benefits vs salary.
It shows no such thing. The goal of the test was to keep all the old systems of payout in place (by US standards, impossibly generous) and then invest extra 600-ish euro to make them find much more employment as it would amortise against "get salary but lose generous benefits" effect.
They ended up getting slightly less employment than control group. The test was an abysmal failure and demonstrated that UBI does not in fact motivate people finding work.
In Finland, that has been done for decades. It results in employers just hiring people until legal timer of "try out time" for new employer is about to expire and firing them actually gets fairly difficult, firing them and hiring a new worker. Ad infinitum.
It's not a good solution for anyone. Workers know they're only going to work for a few months after they get passed through the system once or twice, so quality of work suffers. Employer knows that worker won't be working for more than a few months so he doesn't invest in worker. And state just pays money to employer to pay for part of employee's salary, only to worsen the overall situation.
Ones they don't have to deal with is not KELA but TE-toimisto, "Työ ja Elinkeinotoimisto", literally "work and means of life office". It's a government organisation that is specifically responsible for dispensing state unemployment benefits among other things.
And its bureaucracy is far more horrifying that anything KELA could even dream of having. We have more than one case of politicians indirectly admitting that rules for TE-toimisto are made to punish the job seekers to make them not want to have anything to do with it. So they either find any job at all, or just stop asking for benefits and live off their relatives.
The aid was given to people who were already unemployed. In Finland, there's a chronic problem with such people not finding work, which is a sum of lack of jobs in certain fields where most of unemployment is centred, lack of motivation on part of people who have been jobless for a prolonged period of time as jobless benefits are quite good (amazingly excellent by US standards), and competition with cheap imported labour from Eastern Europe that breaks the local rules and works on what is essentially a starvation salary by local standards in some fields (mainly a problem with fields populated by older men such as metalwork).
As such, employment benefits in Finland are specifically crafted to try to motivate people to find work, even if they have to look beyond their immediate profession. They do things like mandatory courses that literally do nothing but force you to be active in going to some random school to "learn how to write a CV". It's basically a punishment, which makes you want to not have anything to do with TE-toimisto, the local government agency responsible for job seekers. If you don't participate, you lose your benefits. With that motivator removed, people are obviously going to be less stressed while jobless, which also means that they'll be a whole lot less motivated to look for work beyond their immediate knowledge and sector of interest and just enjoy life. Why stress over looking for work when you're paid for just existing?
Fear of needles is a severe problem in medicine. It causes people to skip injections they really need. There's also a problem with scarification and bruising.
It's why injection ports, essentially a multi-use cannula are a thing for insulin injecting patients.
Do you understand that after showing your ignorance of the [concept] three times across three posts, telling the world that "I do work in [concept]" doesn't tell us anything about your skill with [concept]?
It merely tells that you're either lying on the internet, or you're a great example of nepotism and/or corruption.
And now, you think that modelling something is the same thing as "predicting something". That's strike three on utter ignorance of the very basics of modelling. I rest my case.
In your desperate need to call me a fool, you managed to once again show how utterly idiotic you are, as you once again failed to notice that your entire complaint has been long ago addressed.
All while being very, very sure that you're right.
Which is why people like you are a severe detriment to any causes they champion.
Your type of a person are one of the primary reasons why it's been so utterly hard to convince anti-vaxxer crowd to change their mind.
Not only are you incapable of comprehending the argument made above at all, you're also utterly horrible at relevant math, as 1/10.000 is for people who contracted the diseases regardless of vaccination status. Which means that vaccination status is irrelevant for that particular ratio, but you also call people who are actually in top five percentile if not higher of entire population in terms of intelligence "morons".
So when people like that hear opinionated and ignorant fools like yourself advocate for vaccination with all the crudeness of yours, they are reinforced in their views. After all, if arguments are made by ignorant fools who can't even comprehend basic math or who think that observable top intelligence people in the society are "morons", why would you give any arguments against their stance any consideration? It's all made by clearly observably foolish people like you after all.
And then, we get the outbreaks in such communities, and they vaccinate after it occurs, because of factors mentioned above. Because unlike you, they're actually far smarter than you in terms of relevant theory. They're just really bad at understanding other people.
It's best modelling efforts. Modelling distant future is where your error margins are much greater than your conclusion. It's how we got "massive global starvation by 2020 because of global warming" in 1990s best models. Assumptions used were that warming would rapidly desertify main food production sites as well as several other similar assumptions considered to be "scientific consensus" at the time.
Reality check - we're on the way to eliminate non-political (i.e. warfare caused) hunger entirely by around the same time frame. We're already almost done, and we beat even the most positive outlier models by a wide margin. Because all models modelling tens of years in the future are wildly inaccurate as they rely on assumption of linearity, cannot predict future technological changes, and cannot predict effects not yet understood/known/realised by people both behind the scientific facts and the assumptions going into the model.
In reality, desertification effect was vastly overestimated. In addition to it, logistics improved to the point where we effectively can ship food almost anywhere on the planet where there isn't political obstruction to it very cheaply. And finally, increase of CO2 in the atmosphere made plant life significantly more efficient, farming practices improved dramatically, and amount of viable arable land in the more northern areas is climbing rapidly as warming progresses while arable land in more northern temperate climate areas is starting to reach points where it can produce two sets of crops instead of one per year.
So we have a global food production system that is more plentiful than ever that can be shipped to areas that are suffering from lack of local production for almost no cost. Global starvation: solved. In spite of desertification of some areas and massive population increase in those areas.
Next time someone talks to you about modern climate catastrophism being reality rather than a result of almost certainly inaccurate modelling process, remind them of the opposite outcome of best scientific consensus on global warming's impact on world hunger and how it wasn't just wrong. It was the worst kind of wrong - it was the diametric opposite of what actually happened.
This is fairly advanced human biology/psychology. Establishing rules for safety of everyday activity vs exceedingly rare activity people have little to no experience in happens as completely different processes. This is an evolutionary adaptation that exists across essentially every entity that has a brain that consists of two hemispheres, because processing related to the rare unknown event happens in a different hemisphere, using completely different neural systems than processing known events.
It's why one of the biggest risks to our lives today, driving, is considered safe by vast majority of people - it's a known element and is processed as such. All while things that are very safe, but done only very rarely are feared by a notable minority, because to our brain, it's an unknown thing that must be processed completely differently.
Slashdot Mirror
Effectively all of it in modern burners. Not only do we have very fine levels of burn control, but we also have wide variety of exhaust filters.
Oh look, my personal anti-science stalker is back. Why am I not surprised you're also against burning plastics for their energy directly, and are instead for losing massive amounts of energy to liquefy them?
We're living in a world of overabundance of liquid fuels across most of the world right now. Between shale boom in US and OPEC + Russia sitting at all time high production, prices are low.
At the same time, burners burning various waste products are in high demand, and their fuel is in high demand as well.
Plastic is literally fuel for the burner as it's almost always made out of petrochemicals. Why would you lose a massive amount of energy to make it a liquid fuel instead of a solid one?
Correction: they changed rules recently. I never picked unemployment benefits in my life, but I did have to get a citation from TE-toimisto once in my student days that I'm not employed. Today, KELA is responsible for paying the basic benefits, and your work union/unemployment collective is paying for the earnings-related unemployment benefits.
But TE-toimisto is still the organisation responsible for determining your status as unemployed and seeking work, so you still have to deal with their bureaucracy to get those other organisations to actually pay you. Those other organisations will simply get the citation on your status from TE-toimisto once its determined.
If you work for about 26 calendar weeks, you get 400 days of approximately 60% of their salary in Finland for each day of unemployment. This consists of 705 EUR "base daily payment" (peruspäiväraha) and earned part (ansio-osa) determined by salary while working. Additionally if recepient has children, base daily payment is increased by 5,29EUR/day for one child, 7,77EUR for two and 10,02EUR for three or more.
Note that even the base payment rate is higher than this particular UBI test run.
Source:
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you don't meet the requirement, you fall to base unemployment benefits, which are approximately 702EUR/month, paid weekly. You can earn up to 300EUR on top of that in salary without it impacting these benefits, and you can also earn additional 4,74EUR per day if you participate in activity "which improves your chances of getting employment".
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
UBI was paid on top of these social benefits (among others, these are far from the only social benefits unemployed person is entitled to), and its primary stated goal was to amortize against the often small difference of gaining salary but losing unemployment benefits. Result show the test run to be an abysmal failure, as test group scored marginally lower on finding employment than control group that didn't get the extra money on top of their unemployment benefits.
"Wage slaves" already get up to 400 days of approximately 60% of their salary in Finland, provided they worked enough (=26 calendar weeks working) for each day of unemployment. This consists of 705 EUR "base daily payment" (peruspäiväraha) and earned part (ansio-osa) determined by salary while working. Additionally if recepient has children, base daily payment is increased by 5,29EUR/day for one child, 7,77EUR for two and 10,02EUR for three or more.
Note that even the base payment rate is higher than this particular UBI test run.
Source:
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you don't meet the requirement, you fall to base unemployment benefits, which are approximately 702EUR/month, paid weekly. You can earn up to 300EUR on top of that in salary without it impacting these benefits, and you can also earn additional 4,74EUR per day if you participate in activity "which improves your chances of getting employment".
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's free if you can pass entry exams, and you get extra benefits for re-educating yourself into a different field. Things like increased assistance with your rent payments (opiskelijan asumistuki), social benefits for studying (opintotuki) etc. You also get a student card which grants you a lot of benefits, such as half price off train and bus tickets, very cheap meals in university/college cafeterias, etc.
In Finland, you already get to sit on your butt collecting payments that go directly in your bank account. Unemployment benefits are typically significantly higher than this UBI and are paid straight to you. This test kept those payments, and invested extra on top of them to see if it would help offset loss of benefits vs salary.
It shows no such thing. The goal of the test was to keep all the old systems of payout in place (by US standards, impossibly generous) and then invest extra 600-ish euro to make them find much more employment as it would amortise against "get salary but lose generous benefits" effect.
They ended up getting slightly less employment than control group. The test was an abysmal failure and demonstrated that UBI does not in fact motivate people finding work.
They got less jobs actually. Just not a whole lot less.
As goal was to invest in these people so they find much more employment, the test was an utter failure.
In Finland, that has been done for decades. It results in employers just hiring people until legal timer of "try out time" for new employer is about to expire and firing them actually gets fairly difficult, firing them and hiring a new worker. Ad infinitum.
It's not a good solution for anyone. Workers know they're only going to work for a few months after they get passed through the system once or twice, so quality of work suffers. Employer knows that worker won't be working for more than a few months so he doesn't invest in worker. And state just pays money to employer to pay for part of employee's salary, only to worsen the overall situation.
In Finland, they give direct bank transfers to your account.
Ones they don't have to deal with is not KELA but TE-toimisto, "Työ ja Elinkeinotoimisto", literally "work and means of life office". It's a government organisation that is specifically responsible for dispensing state unemployment benefits among other things.
And its bureaucracy is far more horrifying that anything KELA could even dream of having. We have more than one case of politicians indirectly admitting that rules for TE-toimisto are made to punish the job seekers to make them not want to have anything to do with it. So they either find any job at all, or just stop asking for benefits and live off their relatives.
The aid was given to people who were already unemployed. In Finland, there's a chronic problem with such people not finding work, which is a sum of lack of jobs in certain fields where most of unemployment is centred, lack of motivation on part of people who have been jobless for a prolonged period of time as jobless benefits are quite good (amazingly excellent by US standards), and competition with cheap imported labour from Eastern Europe that breaks the local rules and works on what is essentially a starvation salary by local standards in some fields (mainly a problem with fields populated by older men such as metalwork).
As such, employment benefits in Finland are specifically crafted to try to motivate people to find work, even if they have to look beyond their immediate profession. They do things like mandatory courses that literally do nothing but force you to be active in going to some random school to "learn how to write a CV". It's basically a punishment, which makes you want to not have anything to do with TE-toimisto, the local government agency responsible for job seekers. If you don't participate, you lose your benefits. With that motivator removed, people are obviously going to be less stressed while jobless, which also means that they'll be a whole lot less motivated to look for work beyond their immediate knowledge and sector of interest and just enjoy life. Why stress over looking for work when you're paid for just existing?
For those with fear of needles and type 1, there are multi-use simple install injection ports.
Fear of needles is a severe problem in medicine. It causes people to skip injections they really need. There's also a problem with scarification and bruising.
It's why injection ports, essentially a multi-use cannula are a thing for insulin injecting patients.
Do you understand that after showing your ignorance of the [concept] three times across three posts, telling the world that "I do work in [concept]" doesn't tell us anything about your skill with [concept]?
It merely tells that you're either lying on the internet, or you're a great example of nepotism and/or corruption.
And now, you think that modelling something is the same thing as "predicting something". That's strike three on utter ignorance of the very basics of modelling. I rest my case.
In your desperate need to call me a fool, you managed to once again show how utterly idiotic you are, as you once again failed to notice that your entire complaint has been long ago addressed.
All while being very, very sure that you're right.
Which is why people like you are a severe detriment to any causes they champion.
Your type of a person are one of the primary reasons why it's been so utterly hard to convince anti-vaxxer crowd to change their mind.
Not only are you incapable of comprehending the argument made above at all, you're also utterly horrible at relevant math, as 1/10.000 is for people who contracted the diseases regardless of vaccination status. Which means that vaccination status is irrelevant for that particular ratio, but you also call people who are actually in top five percentile if not higher of entire population in terms of intelligence "morons".
So when people like that hear opinionated and ignorant fools like yourself advocate for vaccination with all the crudeness of yours, they are reinforced in their views. After all, if arguments are made by ignorant fools who can't even comprehend basic math or who think that observable top intelligence people in the society are "morons", why would you give any arguments against their stance any consideration? It's all made by clearly observably foolish people like you after all.
And then, we get the outbreaks in such communities, and they vaccinate after it occurs, because of factors mentioned above. Because unlike you, they're actually far smarter than you in terms of relevant theory. They're just really bad at understanding other people.
You continue to show the same lack of even cursory understanding you showed before.
>Sure, but it was recognized as a risk- not a certainty.
This statement tells us that you do not understand what modelling is.
It's best modelling efforts. Modelling distant future is where your error margins are much greater than your conclusion. It's how we got "massive global starvation by 2020 because of global warming" in 1990s best models. Assumptions used were that warming would rapidly desertify main food production sites as well as several other similar assumptions considered to be "scientific consensus" at the time.
Reality check - we're on the way to eliminate non-political (i.e. warfare caused) hunger entirely by around the same time frame. We're already almost done, and we beat even the most positive outlier models by a wide margin. Because all models modelling tens of years in the future are wildly inaccurate as they rely on assumption of linearity, cannot predict future technological changes, and cannot predict effects not yet understood/known/realised by people both behind the scientific facts and the assumptions going into the model.
In reality, desertification effect was vastly overestimated. In addition to it, logistics improved to the point where we effectively can ship food almost anywhere on the planet where there isn't political obstruction to it very cheaply. And finally, increase of CO2 in the atmosphere made plant life significantly more efficient, farming practices improved dramatically, and amount of viable arable land in the more northern areas is climbing rapidly as warming progresses while arable land in more northern temperate climate areas is starting to reach points where it can produce two sets of crops instead of one per year.
So we have a global food production system that is more plentiful than ever that can be shipped to areas that are suffering from lack of local production for almost no cost. Global starvation: solved. In spite of desertification of some areas and massive population increase in those areas.
Next time someone talks to you about modern climate catastrophism being reality rather than a result of almost certainly inaccurate modelling process, remind them of the opposite outcome of best scientific consensus on global warming's impact on world hunger and how it wasn't just wrong. It was the worst kind of wrong - it was the diametric opposite of what actually happened.
This is fairly advanced human biology/psychology. Establishing rules for safety of everyday activity vs exceedingly rare activity people have little to no experience in happens as completely different processes. This is an evolutionary adaptation that exists across essentially every entity that has a brain that consists of two hemispheres, because processing related to the rare unknown event happens in a different hemisphere, using completely different neural systems than processing known events.
It's why one of the biggest risks to our lives today, driving, is considered safe by vast majority of people - it's a known element and is processed as such. All while things that are very safe, but done only very rarely are feared by a notable minority, because to our brain, it's an unknown thing that must be processed completely differently.