Yes, and if you ban CNN for a week and THEN you ban Fox, Fox won't be able to cry about being persecuted little snowflakes that were singled out. Not that any Fox viewers even know how to use the internet anyway.
I'm sorry, but anyone who replaces something problematic with another thing that is a thousand times worse has no one to blame but themselves.
Personal responsibility is an illusion. Yes, it's shitty behavior, but it's also reality. You can either try and blame people, or look at the problem amorally and figure out how to solve the damn problem.
The reason "fake news" can thrive is because MSM is so constantly horseshit that people correctly distrust it. The problem is that the replacements often have lower quality and reliability. The answer is to bludgeon MSM into shape. Ban CNN's account for a week when they post a bullshit story, and this will be resolved pretty quickly, because it's treating the cause. What Youtube is proposing here is treating the symptoms.
This sounds like the system is combining object recognition of musical instrument and processing the audio in order to separate the musical instruments. But that's not the hard part. A middle school band student can provide a list of the instruments in a video. The hard part is going to be separating the instruments in a way that sounds good.
As for previewing the same line on a different instrument, that's what MIDI is for. The issue would be the quality of the samples used.
How about, instead of whining about purely hypothetical complaints, we make sure that we take care of making sure that it's easy and free to get ID before we worry about a form of electoral fraud that has never, ever been prevalent.
Do you really think that a 0.7% change in eligible voters is going to lead to federally-funded murder? I think you demonstrate quite clearly that a limited ability for abstraction and a poor understanding of statistics is a greater threat than wider suffrage.
That's where that whole "democracy" thing comes in. If a politician runs on "murder is a $50 fine" platform, they would probably lose more voters than they would gain.
Yeah, people go to jail on purpose to fight against unjust laws, and people getting angry about those laws as being unjust. If you don't get angry, the system breaks down.
Drugs generally aren't worth punishment, and that's what kind of non-violent offender fills our prisons. As for the violence, I'm talking about the first time they were put in a cage being unjust. The later violence is often hard to avoid, due to the fact that our prisons don't rehabilitate, and the first offense will lead to difficulty finding employment, which leads to more drugs and often, to violent crime. Judging those people doesn't really work with standard moral views, because they are caught up by forces much larger than them. The real problem is systemic, and as people who understand first-hand how the system is broken, they deserve to have their input heard on fixing it.
Universal suffrage should be considered the norm, and the necessity for excluding a group from said suffrage needs a strong rationale. So long as the majority of the population thinks crime is bad, and a minority of the population is in prison, we don't really risk actual criminals getting extreme leniency. What we do see is amnesty for bullshit crimes, which Obama did quite a bit of, and states are starting to do as well. Blindseer is obsessing over a completely contrived hypothetical.
Perhaps they should have considered voting for people to legalize these drugs BEFORE they went about using or dealing them.
Okay, so you're too damn sheltered/not paranoid enough to have a reasonable adult conversation.
Tight elections can be won with far smaller margins. I recall that an election for POTUS was won based on the margin of less than 600 votes in a district in Florida.
And while Florida has a lot of problems and weirdness, I suspect that a campaign promise of "SETTING MURDERERS FREE" is going to cost more votes than the total prison population. Your fears are rooted in a situation that has no reasonable chance of ever happening.
Let's also consider the logistics on this, should a person in prison vote based on where they lived before being incarcerated?
Generally speaking, I'd say that the equivalent of an absentee ballot at their last address would be appropriate.
If what you claim is true, that the voting block of prisoners are unlikely to change the results of the vote then that only means that allowing prisoners to vote gains us little to nothing in determining the outcome
Yes, practically speaking, the vote of prisoners is not important to the outcome. It is important in terms of principle and precedent. If you can jail people to keep them from voting, then the law can be utilized to silence your enemies. That is a lot of the reason for the war on drugs, which is responsible for our enormous prison population.
Most likely, prisoners voting won't drastically change election results, but the threat of disenfranchisement is much more realistic than the threat of violent criminals hijacking our democracy.
On top of that I don't want criminals voting in other criminals should the margin be close enough that it might get them past the post.
Then your concern would be with lobbyists, not the prison system.
Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.
As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.
DrTJ isn't saying that the laws of physics are different, they are saying that the reactions of life may be occurring on a completely different scale. Instead of water-based chemical reactions, we might have lifeforms that , for example, operate on the kinds of mechanisms of tectonic plates (for the slow end) or that are plasma-based (for the fast end).
I find it absurd that people cite 'management' and 'spending money to manage the program' is seen as bad, whichin itself employs thousands, or tens of thousands per province/state
The reason it's seen as bad is that it's extra steps that use up money, and human time on both sides. You said that making sure that checks are basically a job in and of themselves. Before reading the rest of your post, I thought you were making a pro-UBI argument. The hoops we make the unemployed jump through are enough work that they get in the way of real self-starting or focusing on a particular job.
Even if you move on to pure, real basic income -- that is, every single person in the country gets $20k or what not, you'd STILL want to know how successful it is. If people's lives change. If it does what you hope.
True, but we already measure those things.
And on top of all that? You have to make sure people aren't lying. Grandpa died 4 years ago, but we keep his basic income cheque -- and just buried him out back!
Checking obituaries isn't a particularly high hurdle.
Your post goes off the rails a bit, because I was talking specifically about the goals of UBI, not the meaning of life. Not that I don't agree that those other things aren't concerns, just that UBI exists to solve a specific one. My main critique was the ridiculous mindset of GDP growth over everything else, as opposed to the improvements in efficiency and well-being of not having people starving in the streets.
Here's a good rundown. The person that convinced Nixon was Martin Anderson, and he cited a falsified report on Speenhamland, which ran a similar kind of experiment.
Actually, a UBI would likely see an INCREASE in overall wages, even if it does remove the need for a minimum wage. Because we're arming workers with the power to say "Fuck Off!" if given a lousy deal.
There might be some exceptions for jobs where most of the job is waiting for something to happen.
The point of UBI is not to increase GDP, it's to allocate the GDP to where it's most useful. This may result in an increase in the GDP, but the goal is a reduction in poverty, and the costs associated with poverty. Furthermore, it reduces the overhead relative to welfare systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and if you ban CNN for a week and THEN you ban Fox, Fox won't be able to cry about being persecuted little snowflakes that were singled out. Not that any Fox viewers even know how to use the internet anyway.
Personal responsibility is an illusion. Yes, it's shitty behavior, but it's also reality. You can either try and blame people, or look at the problem amorally and figure out how to solve the damn problem.
The reason "fake news" can thrive is because MSM is so constantly horseshit that people correctly distrust it. The problem is that the replacements often have lower quality and reliability. The answer is to bludgeon MSM into shape. Ban CNN's account for a week when they post a bullshit story, and this will be resolved pretty quickly, because it's treating the cause. What Youtube is proposing here is treating the symptoms.
Less than 15 'A' characters.
This sounds like the system is combining object recognition of musical instrument and processing the audio in order to separate the musical instruments. But that's not the hard part. A middle school band student can provide a list of the instruments in a video. The hard part is going to be separating the instruments in a way that sounds good.
As for previewing the same line on a different instrument, that's what MIDI is for. The issue would be the quality of the samples used.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Maybe try to stop licking boots for a few minutes.
Newly invented term to describe a "wall-wart" to millennials.
How about, instead of whining about purely hypothetical complaints, we make sure that we take care of making sure that it's easy and free to get ID before we worry about a form of electoral fraud that has never, ever been prevalent.
Do you really think that a 0.7% change in eligible voters is going to lead to federally-funded murder? I think you demonstrate quite clearly that a limited ability for abstraction and a poor understanding of statistics is a greater threat than wider suffrage.
That's where that whole "democracy" thing comes in. If a politician runs on "murder is a $50 fine" platform, they would probably lose more voters than they would gain.
Yeah, people go to jail on purpose to fight against unjust laws, and people getting angry about those laws as being unjust. If you don't get angry, the system breaks down.
Drugs generally aren't worth punishment, and that's what kind of non-violent offender fills our prisons. As for the violence, I'm talking about the first time they were put in a cage being unjust. The later violence is often hard to avoid, due to the fact that our prisons don't rehabilitate, and the first offense will lead to difficulty finding employment, which leads to more drugs and often, to violent crime. Judging those people doesn't really work with standard moral views, because they are caught up by forces much larger than them. The real problem is systemic, and as people who understand first-hand how the system is broken, they deserve to have their input heard on fixing it.
Universal suffrage should be considered the norm, and the necessity for excluding a group from said suffrage needs a strong rationale. So long as the majority of the population thinks crime is bad, and a minority of the population is in prison, we don't really risk actual criminals getting extreme leniency. What we do see is amnesty for bullshit crimes, which Obama did quite a bit of, and states are starting to do as well. Blindseer is obsessing over a completely contrived hypothetical.
Okay, so you're too damn sheltered/not paranoid enough to have a reasonable adult conversation.
And while Florida has a lot of problems and weirdness, I suspect that a campaign promise of "SETTING MURDERERS FREE" is going to cost more votes than the total prison population. Your fears are rooted in a situation that has no reasonable chance of ever happening.
Generally speaking, I'd say that the equivalent of an absentee ballot at their last address would be appropriate.
Yes, practically speaking, the vote of prisoners is not important to the outcome. It is important in terms of principle and precedent. If you can jail people to keep them from voting, then the law can be utilized to silence your enemies. That is a lot of the reason for the war on drugs, which is responsible for our enormous prison population.
Most likely, prisoners voting won't drastically change election results, but the threat of disenfranchisement is much more realistic than the threat of violent criminals hijacking our democracy.
Then your concern would be with lobbyists, not the prison system.
A few factors to consider, depend on the exact methodology used.:
1. People not in the workforce, such as children and retirees.
2. Part timers.
3. Vacation time.
Just two weeks vacation turns a 40 hour week into a 38.5 workweek.
Prison is a punishment. In an ideal world, it would be a punishment for anti-social behavior, but prison is often used as a political tool. For example. a lot of people in prison are there on non-violent drug charges, and a good chunk of those in there for violent charges because the prior drug charges hurt their employment opportunities. These people were unjustly put in the cage by the state, so they certainly need the ability to vote.
As for your concern about criminals buying pardons, it just doesn't work out unless there is a ridiculous, yet legitimate prison population. El Salvador has the highest homicide rate, at 83 per 100k. If we multiply that over 10 years, that's still only 0.83%, even in the murder capital of the world, easily within the margin of error. If there are enough violent criminals that they constitute a major voting block, your country has far bigger problems.
Why shouldn't people in prison be able to vote? They are citizens, and they likely have grievances with the way our government currently functions.
Because humans are bad at intuitively understanding statistics, especially when there is a sensationalism bias involved.
More likely, there were Patreon creators that made furry and incest porn. If that surprises or shocks you, welcome to the internet.
I'd be fine with being a sucker if I got as much money as they did.
DrTJ isn't saying that the laws of physics are different, they are saying that the reactions of life may be occurring on a completely different scale. Instead of water-based chemical reactions, we might have lifeforms that , for example, operate on the kinds of mechanisms of tectonic plates (for the slow end) or that are plasma-based (for the fast end).
The reason it's seen as bad is that it's extra steps that use up money, and human time on both sides. You said that making sure that checks are basically a job in and of themselves. Before reading the rest of your post, I thought you were making a pro-UBI argument. The hoops we make the unemployed jump through are enough work that they get in the way of real self-starting or focusing on a particular job.
True, but we already measure those things.
Checking obituaries isn't a particularly high hurdle.
Your post goes off the rails a bit, because I was talking specifically about the goals of UBI, not the meaning of life. Not that I don't agree that those other things aren't concerns, just that UBI exists to solve a specific one. My main critique was the ridiculous mindset of GDP growth over everything else, as opposed to the improvements in efficiency and well-being of not having people starving in the streets.
Here's a good rundown. The person that convinced Nixon was Martin Anderson, and he cited a falsified report on Speenhamland, which ran a similar kind of experiment.
Actually, a UBI would likely see an INCREASE in overall wages, even if it does remove the need for a minimum wage. Because we're arming workers with the power to say "Fuck Off!" if given a lousy deal.
There might be some exceptions for jobs where most of the job is waiting for something to happen.
The point of UBI is not to increase GDP, it's to allocate the GDP to where it's most useful. This may result in an increase in the GDP, but the goal is a reduction in poverty, and the costs associated with poverty. Furthermore, it reduces the overhead relative to welfare systems.