The funding of UBI is simple. It basically amounts to moving everyone closer to the mean income. People below the mean pay less than the UBI in relevant taxes, and people above the mean pay more.
Granted, there isn't much data. But the fact that someone ideologically opposed to it ended it when the obtained power suggests that the data itself might be quite promising.
The problem with most UBI programs is that they don't require it's recipients to look for work and thus encourage people to be passive and not bother looking for work.
UBI doesn't 'encourage' anything. That's kind of the main point.
Reductions in overhead costs mostly stem from the removal of systems intended to prevent abuse and when added to an UBI pram, the program will be just as inefficient and complex as the programs it's supposed to replace.
That's why you don't implement anti-abuse measures. Policing abuse costs more than abuse, so it's not worth doing.
UBI basically just throws all of these safeguards to the side and assumes people won't abuse the program when the safeguards were originally put into place exactly because people were abusing the old systems.
No, it assumes that just giving people enough money to cover their basic needs is just as effective as other social safety nets, while costing less.
The money is going to be coming from the top, where it is disproportionately allocated. The overall trend is that median income will come closer to mean income.
Because the singular focus on Trump and Russia is not about electoral intergrity. It's flag waving pageantry to explain how the "perfect" candidate lost to an orange manchild.
There'll be superficial efforts by Facebook that will probably amount to giving the right oligarchs a ban hammer. There's be action by there government that ends up being mostly handing money to contractors for security theater, and maybe replacing Windows XP voting machines.
Effective means of protecting our democracy would end up protecting our citizens from foreign and domestic interference by government or corporations. That's where you can have a security model. But if you leave a backdoor for one group of oligarchs, it's going to be security by obscurity, and that's a horrible defense against people and organizations who have lots of resources and few legal consequences for their actions.
I think it's more constructive to have the data ourselves, so it can be assessed independently. A politician may define success very differently than we would, and I'd prefer my own judgment.
Look, I 100% support "an appropriate response." To me, an appropriate response would consist of the following:
1. Basic security training for all major campaigns.
2. Tightening up the security of voting infrastructure.
3. Hacking/Leaking the correspondence of every dictator in the world, Putin included.
However, I don't think any of those have been given serious effort. The closest is MS's offers of help, but that's more PR than anything else.
I'm definitely a terrible person, but my judgment is probably better than yours. You feel the need to call people who disagree with you Russian trolls, so you are not likely to be able carry on a constructive agreement. I think we are in mutual agreement about the likelihood of this being a worthwhile conversation, so kindly fuck off and die.
Murder has been going on, in some form or another for pretty much all of human history. So why worry about murder? Give me any problem, and I'll argue that it's been happening in some form or another for pretty much all of human history, so why worry about anything?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned or do anything about it, but I'm also not clutching my pearls, especially when there isn't a productive solution being proposed.
Let me guess, you also think that the solution to rape is to "stop dressing so provocatively"? The solution to school shootings is, "step sending your kids to schools, which is where all these shootings keep happening!"
Nope. Just a slashdotter with at least an ounce of pride, and less than total naivete regarding the intelligence community. If someone within the top ranks of a presidential campaign falls for such low-level phishing, they are not qualified for the position. The world absolutely will not play nice at that level, and they will get others hurt.
There's actually evidence that they were targeting swing states, both in their hacking and their social media campaigns. It's impossible to really know how much of an effect that we have, especially when the President is stonewalling investigations and attempts to increase security. I wonder why he would do that?
It's impossible to tell, and the actual memes themselves were C-tier 4chan material used with considerably less granularity than the much more well-funded legitimate campaigns, but we should, of course, assume that it had a major effect, even though not a single meme posted was remotely aimed at any kind of conversion.
You've got blinders on that make you incapable of actually thinking, so instead, you are just regurgitating rationales without considering whether the people making them are morons, biased, or both.
There is certainly a legal difference. But from a practical perspective, it's one group of oligarchs vs. another, and their geographical location is largely irrelevant in regards to the people being represented. To the extent to which it does matter, the local oligarchs are a bigger threat, for many of the same reasons that people you know are the most likely to murder you, and why most accidents happen at or near your home.
That's entirely irrelevant. Even if you totally ignore who the candidates were and which one won, it's still a huge problem that Russia is engaging in such a big campaign to hack and influence our elections.
It's a "huge problem" that's been going on, in some form or another, for pretty much all of human history. it's also a huge problem that is occurring with corporate interests, and that has more actual effects on Americans than foreign interference.
I'm not saying that it's nice or good. But it's routine statecraft.
The fact that phishing was a component of the "hacking" and shitposting was a component of the propaganda campaign doesn't make it any better. That's like saying, "Don't worry that your wife was murdered. It was only stabbing. It's not like she was shot or something!" The precise method isn't at issue. The effect is the problem.
The precise method is very important. The level of a security breach is important to finding an effective solution. Sure, from a strictly moral sense, it doesn't matter. But from a practical and technical standpoint, low level attacks should be treated differently than sophisticated attacks like Stuxnet. The reality of politics is that we will always face this level of threat from anybody, ally or enemy, so the solution is to train our politicians to be a little less stupid.
And finally, just as a side note, the Russians almost certainly changed the outcome of the election. Trump won by a few thousand votes in a couple of states. At the level that Russia was campaigning on his behalf, it's very hard to imagine that they didn't saw a few thousand votes in a couple of states.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's unlikely that the Russian campaign, which is FAR less targeted than political campaigns or Super PACs, influenced the RIGHT few thousand votes. They could have convinced a million voters in Texas, and it would have had no effect. However, I've seen no suggestion that they had any efforts that were particularly effective in swing states.
You've provided a way that it could have happened, but have not provided any evidence that
The issue is selective outrage. If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence, they probably wouldn't get all that much push back (relatively speaking, obviously,because someone on the internet will be upset about everything).
But if you are focused only on Russia, then it's a scapegoat based on the results, not the underlying bad behavior.
And while pro-Trumpers obviously have that mindset, it's also a sentiment shared by the politically competent anti-Trumpers. You could take Trump down in a heartbeat for colluding with the Saudis or Israel, but he'd be sharing a cell with powerful DC insiders.
Let's cut the crap. The people who are passing these theories don't even have a coherent explanation for what they think went on. They just babble on, instead of actually having a complete theory.
It's phishing and largely undifferentiated shitposting. The only reason they might have, but probably didn't, affect the election is because the Dems ran about the only candidate that could lose to Trump in a general election. For example, their entire campaign would have HURT Trump had Bernie been the Dem nominee.
Could we have better suits? Almost certainly. Could we also remake the original suit designs for a pittance (relative to NASA/federal budget ? Most likely.
The biggest burden is not the technical task of recreating those suits, but rather, the need to be cozy with contractors.
Sorry that you believe that you "deserve" to sit around, do nothing, and get paid for it.
I didn't say that I deserve that. I'm saying that it effectively solves many societal problems. if a hypothetical scenario were available where I could ensure that society has a UBI, but I were not personally eligible for it, I would still support it, because I don't want sick peasants in the streets.
I don't. If you want money, the ability to survive in society, and you don't have a condition that contraindicates work, YOU FUCKING WORK
Okay, so you're saying Paris Hilton is going into the salt mines, eh, comrade? Or is it only the poor that have to work?
I don't believe in a redistributionist, freeloader society.
Okay, so you don't believe in every single society that has ever existed? Because feeding peasants is the first thing just about any form of government has done, including organized crime and religion.
Slashdot Mirror
The funding of UBI is simple. It basically amounts to moving everyone closer to the mean income. People below the mean pay less than the UBI in relevant taxes, and people above the mean pay more.
Granted, there isn't much data. But the fact that someone ideologically opposed to it ended it when the obtained power suggests that the data itself might be quite promising.
So, you trust the word of the government on its face?
Because of Calvinist brainwashing. Not working = sin.
Or, we can just accept that some people just want to get high and binge watch Netflix. Much less risky than major changes to the gene pool.
UBI doesn't 'encourage' anything. That's kind of the main point.
That's why you don't implement anti-abuse measures. Policing abuse costs more than abuse, so it's not worth doing.
No, it assumes that just giving people enough money to cover their basic needs is just as effective as other social safety nets, while costing less.
Overworking human machines causes them greater wear and lower productivity.
The money is going to be coming from the top, where it is disproportionately allocated. The overall trend is that median income will come closer to mean income.
Found the problem. You are clearly living in an alternate universe. In this universe, the US military backs dictators and corporations.
Because the singular focus on Trump and Russia is not about electoral intergrity. It's flag waving pageantry to explain how the "perfect" candidate lost to an orange manchild.
There'll be superficial efforts by Facebook that will probably amount to giving the right oligarchs a ban hammer. There's be action by there government that ends up being mostly handing money to contractors for security theater, and maybe replacing Windows XP voting machines.
Effective means of protecting our democracy would end up protecting our citizens from foreign and domestic interference by government or corporations. That's where you can have a security model. But if you leave a backdoor for one group of oligarchs, it's going to be security by obscurity, and that's a horrible defense against people and organizations who have lots of resources and few legal consequences for their actions.
I think it's more constructive to have the data ourselves, so it can be assessed independently. A politician may define success very differently than we would, and I'd prefer my own judgment.
I believe the disinfectant used here are around 60%, so there's still a good bit of room before they are threatened.
All you need to know is that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
I'm going to put more faith in a magic 8-ball than the US intelligence community, especially if it's information being released to the public.
Look, I 100% support "an appropriate response." To me, an appropriate response would consist of the following:
1. Basic security training for all major campaigns.
2. Tightening up the security of voting infrastructure.
3. Hacking/Leaking the correspondence of every dictator in the world, Putin included.
However, I don't think any of those have been given serious effort. The closest is MS's offers of help, but that's more PR than anything else.
I'm definitely a terrible person, but my judgment is probably better than yours. You feel the need to call people who disagree with you Russian trolls, so you are not likely to be able carry on a constructive agreement. I think we are in mutual agreement about the likelihood of this being a worthwhile conversation, so kindly fuck off and die.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned or do anything about it, but I'm also not clutching my pearls, especially when there isn't a productive solution being proposed.
Nope. Just a slashdotter with at least an ounce of pride, and less than total naivete regarding the intelligence community. If someone within the top ranks of a presidential campaign falls for such low-level phishing, they are not qualified for the position. The world absolutely will not play nice at that level, and they will get others hurt.
It's impossible to tell, and the actual memes themselves were C-tier 4chan material used with considerably less granularity than the much more well-funded legitimate campaigns, but we should, of course, assume that it had a major effect, even though not a single meme posted was remotely aimed at any kind of conversion.
You've got blinders on that make you incapable of actually thinking, so instead, you are just regurgitating rationales without considering whether the people making them are morons, biased, or both.
There is certainly a legal difference. But from a practical perspective, it's one group of oligarchs vs. another, and their geographical location is largely irrelevant in regards to the people being represented. To the extent to which it does matter, the local oligarchs are a bigger threat, for many of the same reasons that people you know are the most likely to murder you, and why most accidents happen at or near your home.
It's a "huge problem" that's been going on, in some form or another, for pretty much all of human history. it's also a huge problem that is occurring with corporate interests, and that has more actual effects on Americans than foreign interference.
I'm not saying that it's nice or good. But it's routine statecraft.
The precise method is very important. The level of a security breach is important to finding an effective solution. Sure, from a strictly moral sense, it doesn't matter. But from a practical and technical standpoint, low level attacks should be treated differently than sophisticated attacks like Stuxnet. The reality of politics is that we will always face this level of threat from anybody, ally or enemy, so the solution is to train our politicians to be a little less stupid.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's unlikely that the Russian campaign, which is FAR less targeted than political campaigns or Super PACs, influenced the RIGHT few thousand votes. They could have convinced a million voters in Texas, and it would have had no effect. However, I've seen no suggestion that they had any efforts that were particularly effective in swing states.
You've provided a way that it could have happened, but have not provided any evidence that
The issue is selective outrage. If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence, they probably wouldn't get all that much push back (relatively speaking, obviously,because someone on the internet will be upset about everything).
But if you are focused only on Russia, then it's a scapegoat based on the results, not the underlying bad behavior.
And while pro-Trumpers obviously have that mindset, it's also a sentiment shared by the politically competent anti-Trumpers. You could take Trump down in a heartbeat for colluding with the Saudis or Israel, but he'd be sharing a cell with powerful DC insiders.
Let's cut the crap. The people who are passing these theories don't even have a coherent explanation for what they think went on. They just babble on, instead of actually having a complete theory.
It's phishing and largely undifferentiated shitposting. The only reason they might have, but probably didn't, affect the election is because the Dems ran about the only candidate that could lose to Trump in a general election. For example, their entire campaign would have HURT Trump had Bernie been the Dem nominee.
Also known as politics
Could we have better suits? Almost certainly. Could we also remake the original suit designs for a pittance (relative to NASA/federal budget ? Most likely.
The biggest burden is not the technical task of recreating those suits, but rather, the need to be cozy with contractors.
I didn't say that I deserve that. I'm saying that it effectively solves many societal problems. if a hypothetical scenario were available where I could ensure that society has a UBI, but I were not personally eligible for it, I would still support it, because I don't want sick peasants in the streets.
Okay, so you're saying Paris Hilton is going into the salt mines, eh, comrade? Or is it only the poor that have to work?
Okay, so you don't believe in every single society that has ever existed? Because feeding peasants is the first thing just about any form of government has done, including organized crime and religion.