This argument doesn't quite sit right with me. Sure some people might give up on working completely on UBI, but I'd imagine UBI being at so low a level that you would still need a job if you wanted to do anything like live on the beach or buy a new shiny computer etc. Some people also just can't take doing nothing constantly. They go stir crazy. Or want to do SOMETHING to benefit society. I imagine these are the Star Trek people who fly on the space ships to see new worlds. They don't have to; they CHOOSE to. Imagine how much we could advance if people were allowed to do what they chose to do (passion) rather than what they needed to do (work). I don't consider pursuing a passion seriously because I'm too busy working. (Though I am happy being a programmer and would only make slight adjustments to the things I program rather than stopping being a programmer.)
That said, I don't know that UBI is actually a good solution to achieve the results I want. I just don't get the "Everyone would stop working" argument. Maybe some people would, but I doubt they'd lead good fulfilling lives.
I'm not sure I want to reply because I don't really want to weigh in on this, but just curious what the general welfare part of that phrase means to you if not some base line level of support?
Personally I don't think the government should guarantee you a job or step in to ensure you have a job other than enforcing laws about equal opportunity employment, which I do think is a good thing. My personal career prospects have not been harmed by H1B despite working with several. But I do think it is bullshit to be training your replacement and I wouldn't do it.
My bill dropped about $100. I didn't change my streaming services because that was how I preferred to consume content even when I had cable so for me don't really factor into the equation. Besides my streaming services together are about $50 a month. (I have 4.) My bill was around $170. Cutting cable dropped it to $70. Just to provide a counter anecdote to your anecdote. As long as you're continuing to get any level of cable at all there additional fees you're paying that with just internet you don't have to. I also decided to buy my own cable modem which will end up only paying off if I stay subscribed for a year, but it is unlikely that I won't use internet for more than a year. You pay rental fees on your cable box, your cable modem, and there's taxes involved. Oh and I decided to increase my internet package or it would have been only $60 a month.
The answer to this is it depends. I'm sure there are lots of shops where the dev team don't care where you got your diploma from, but in honesty a diploma from a prestigious university DOES open doors for you that are normally closed. I used to work at a job board website and recruiters (read people who paid us) really did care about making sure we parsed the school from the resume correctly and ranked in search results. We would receive complaints if person who didn't list their education and had 10 years of experience was ranked higher than someone who listed their education as MIT degree with 10 years of experience and MIT should be ranked higher than no-name state college. I could understand somewhat needing that for entry level positions, but these weren't entry level positions that the recruiters were trying to place. And I'm using recruiter in the broad sense as in HR person at company and drone at recruiting agency. The request came from both places. And even if you claim that you wouldn't want to work for someplace that did place value on the level of education you achieved; having more doors open to you results in more opportunity and unless you actually talk with these people who can't *know* that they aren't good.
Do you actually believe a jury of 12 of your "peers" are not swayed by the most eloquent orator rather than the "facts" as you "claim" them to be? Money talks in courts. Which sucks, and punishes honest poor people, but we haven't seen a better system. I'd use the court system in its current format simply because I have some faith in humanity still, but not enough to wager a million dollars if I lose. I put "peers" in quotes because showing knowledge and intelligence are often disqualifying criteria for jury selection, not always, but often.
This is probably the most lucid counter argument to natural language programming I have seen. Hell we often need to spend 30 minutes discussing design before people on my team are all on the same page with what we need to do. And we're all operating under the assumption that everyone giving us work has the same vision we're decided on, and even that isn't always true.
Because Franklin D Roosevelt was a horrible president. I mean can you imagine? He hid his inability to walk from the public! People disqualify qualified people for the stupidest reasons. They also vote for unqualified people for the stupidest reasons. I'd be in favor of a presidental candidate being required to go through a health screening by a nonpartison doctor, but unless there's a condition that would seriously undermine their ability to perform in the capacity of president, anything discovered should not be shared with the public. Your health is between you and your doctor unless you choose to share that information with others.
Oh I like the idea of a piss test as well for any elected official. Prove you don't break the law before you enforce law on others. But the only thing I'd want to know is pass/fail.
Let's say Nebraska decides that corporations that host in their borders do not have to pay any local, state, or federal taxes. If a corporation took that deal and stopped paying federal taxes, I think the I.R.S. would still be upset with them. Ireland being part of the E.U. has agreed to a bunch of treaties about how corporate taxes can be accommodated. This investigation is based on that. If Ireland was not party to any treaties about this then you would be accurate that there is nothing anyone else can say.
The bigger intent of my comment was to indicate that the idea that something whose defining characteristic is race based is not necessarily racist is ridiculous. There might be organizations out there specifically targeting disadvantaged races for privilege, but that doesn't make those organizations not racist. The ESSA thing bothers me because one of the rejection criteria is race. That's pretty horrible. Like saying only women and non-white, non-Asian minorities should be programmers. If they were encouragement based and not segregation based I would be really glad about it. I would also like it more if it was socioeconomic based rather than race based. Meaning have the program mostly for economically disadvantaged children. That would result in better race statistic while also not telling kids it's ok to make decisions based on the color of someone's skin.
To the contrary I do have experience with minorities. And I don't think them feeble. I'm also aware of the barriers that they face. Though honestly while I think a lot of the barriers they face are economic in nature, some of them are truly racial. The combination of the economic and racial and societal barriers can be insurmountable for a lot of people. Not everyone, but why should anyone be held down or held back simply because of their birth? The intention of my comment is more along the lines of I think it is ridiculous to say something that has qualifying characteristics including race is not racist.
So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?
Your premise is coming from an angle of "You shouldn't expect to be paid well enough to live." Even if you argue from the standpoint of our lifestyle is unsustainable, that's a pretty bogus angle. We should be able to expect to be paid well enough to live. Because if we aren't the money is only pooled at the top. I agree that our current pace is unsustainable. But the pace of approaching unsustainability is being driven primarily by wealth desparity and not lack of resources. Money and resources are being pooled at the top and having the poor, working, and middle class lower their expectations that thinking a family can have their own home is unrealistic is not going to slow the consumption of resources. It's only going to increase the wealth disparity.
So the US has to provide 100% free trade to China and guarantee prices for not just their own country but *every* "western" country before we can talk about imbalanced barriers to entry? That's ridiculous. The US shouldn't have any say over how a different countries tax products sold in their jurisdiction. Even given states should be allowed to establish different tax rates. Both of those things will result in fluctuating prices. Hell different western world countries use different currencies and those will fluctuate in comparison to each other which will also change real price in different countries. And why should the US be required to remove all barriers from its side before discussing if barriers in China are unfairly high compared to the barriers the US currently has against Chinese companies operating in the US? Your options are not only ridiculous they are infeasible.
Well... Reagan was the source of implementation of Voodoo Economics (trickle-down economics, supply-side economics, choose your name) and started the destruction of the strength of unions so yeah some of the blame for the poor and working class economic woes really can be laid appropriately at his feet.
If I do something to try and get someone elected do I need to wait for them to give me permission or ask before I do it? Or is it possible I may do something I believe will lead to support of a candidate or a drop in support for an opposing candidate? I haven't heard anyone claim that Trump asked the Russians to do the initial hack. I have heard rumors that they did it to support him, but I'm not sure if that's their primary intent. I do know that Putin has spoken in support of Trump, so it would not be unbelievable someone in Russia would do this with that motivation except the timeline does make that unlikely since no one considered him a contender last year. Maybe the hack was done with a different intent and the release of the emails was done with that intent?
My point of view is that the original leaks being exposed is fine. Reporting on them is a good thing, and we should look for maleficence in the emails that have been exposed. But calling upon a foreign power to attack someone is over the line. Does he really think they will go find those emails and nothing else? And I "hope" is an invitation to action. When your mom says "I hope you clean this basement soon." She isn't really making a meaningless statement. She wants you to do it.
One of the funniest ironies in video games to me was a line from Star Ocean on PS2. The main character is a HUGE game fanatic. And that's why he is incredibly fit. Because in that world all the video games were developed for a system that's like a holodeck. I did not consider that an implausible future.
All it takes is one country to decide that it is worth the risk and the world is over. That's insane. Nukes don't threaten a single country. They threaten all countries and are a force that should never be used. Owning nukes would force countries to grow up? Why? Does giving a kid a gun make the kid grow up or make the kid think he's invincible and get people hurt? If the US having nukes doesn't discourage other countries from attacking us or our citizens why would them suddenly having nukes discourage them? If every country in the world starts building nuclear arsenals it puts us (all humans) into a more precarious position. Escalating tension does not lead to peace. If you think nukes make people able to negotiate from a position of strength it would be at best the position of a bully. I don't consider that a good position. (And it is the position of the United States often and I don't think that is good either.)
That said. I'm against nuclear proliferation, but I'm not really for complete nuclear disarmament. Decreasing the world's stockpile would probably be good and I'm glad that research into making more powerful bombs has pretty much stopped, but I can agree that nukes have had a great impact on countries willingness to go to war for the countries that have nukes currently.
By this logic there's no problem with North Korea getting nukes. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and nukes is a pretty damn good line. Ideally NO ONE should have nukes. Being OK with any country getting them, ally or foe, shows a lack of understanding about these weapons and think they are just big bombs. Saying Japan or South Korea should grow their military so we don't budget for their defense is an understandable argument and a case can be made for it, though increased world militarization might lead to another world war so I personally don't agree with that stance, but a case can be made for it. But nukes are far too dangerous to allow them to proliferate.
I never had cavities either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth or problems of that nature either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth and detected what he called microcavities and drilled like 1/3rd of my teeth. Now I have problems with cavities -.- Just a warning for if you ever change dentists.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I pick the amount of hair on my arms.
This argument doesn't quite sit right with me. Sure some people might give up on working completely on UBI, but I'd imagine UBI being at so low a level that you would still need a job if you wanted to do anything like live on the beach or buy a new shiny computer etc. Some people also just can't take doing nothing constantly. They go stir crazy. Or want to do SOMETHING to benefit society. I imagine these are the Star Trek people who fly on the space ships to see new worlds. They don't have to; they CHOOSE to. Imagine how much we could advance if people were allowed to do what they chose to do (passion) rather than what they needed to do (work). I don't consider pursuing a passion seriously because I'm too busy working. (Though I am happy being a programmer and would only make slight adjustments to the things I program rather than stopping being a programmer.)
That said, I don't know that UBI is actually a good solution to achieve the results I want. I just don't get the "Everyone would stop working" argument. Maybe some people would, but I doubt they'd lead good fulfilling lives.
The other side of the world from any potential social safety net you have crafted for yourself, a vastly different culture, much different climate...
I'm not sure I want to reply because I don't really want to weigh in on this, but just curious what the general welfare part of that phrase means to you if not some base line level of support?
Personally I don't think the government should guarantee you a job or step in to ensure you have a job other than enforcing laws about equal opportunity employment, which I do think is a good thing. My personal career prospects have not been harmed by H1B despite working with several. But I do think it is bullshit to be training your replacement and I wouldn't do it.
Ahhh... sometimes I like to believe in the good of humanity as well.
My bill dropped about $100. I didn't change my streaming services because that was how I preferred to consume content even when I had cable so for me don't really factor into the equation. Besides my streaming services together are about $50 a month. (I have 4.) My bill was around $170. Cutting cable dropped it to $70. Just to provide a counter anecdote to your anecdote. As long as you're continuing to get any level of cable at all there additional fees you're paying that with just internet you don't have to. I also decided to buy my own cable modem which will end up only paying off if I stay subscribed for a year, but it is unlikely that I won't use internet for more than a year. You pay rental fees on your cable box, your cable modem, and there's taxes involved. Oh and I decided to increase my internet package or it would have been only $60 a month.
The answer to this is it depends. I'm sure there are lots of shops where the dev team don't care where you got your diploma from, but in honesty a diploma from a prestigious university DOES open doors for you that are normally closed. I used to work at a job board website and recruiters (read people who paid us) really did care about making sure we parsed the school from the resume correctly and ranked in search results. We would receive complaints if person who didn't list their education and had 10 years of experience was ranked higher than someone who listed their education as MIT degree with 10 years of experience and MIT should be ranked higher than no-name state college. I could understand somewhat needing that for entry level positions, but these weren't entry level positions that the recruiters were trying to place. And I'm using recruiter in the broad sense as in HR person at company and drone at recruiting agency. The request came from both places. And even if you claim that you wouldn't want to work for someplace that did place value on the level of education you achieved; having more doors open to you results in more opportunity and unless you actually talk with these people who can't *know* that they aren't good.
Do you actually believe a jury of 12 of your "peers" are not swayed by the most eloquent orator rather than the "facts" as you "claim" them to be? Money talks in courts. Which sucks, and punishes honest poor people, but we haven't seen a better system. I'd use the court system in its current format simply because I have some faith in humanity still, but not enough to wager a million dollars if I lose. I put "peers" in quotes because showing knowledge and intelligence are often disqualifying criteria for jury selection, not always, but often.
This is probably the most lucid counter argument to natural language programming I have seen. Hell we often need to spend 30 minutes discussing design before people on my team are all on the same page with what we need to do. And we're all operating under the assumption that everyone giving us work has the same vision we're decided on, and even that isn't always true.
Because Franklin D Roosevelt was a horrible president. I mean can you imagine? He hid his inability to walk from the public! People disqualify qualified people for the stupidest reasons. They also vote for unqualified people for the stupidest reasons. I'd be in favor of a presidental candidate being required to go through a health screening by a nonpartison doctor, but unless there's a condition that would seriously undermine their ability to perform in the capacity of president, anything discovered should not be shared with the public. Your health is between you and your doctor unless you choose to share that information with others.
Oh I like the idea of a piss test as well for any elected official. Prove you don't break the law before you enforce law on others. But the only thing I'd want to know is pass/fail.
Let's say Nebraska decides that corporations that host in their borders do not have to pay any local, state, or federal taxes. If a corporation took that deal and stopped paying federal taxes, I think the I.R.S. would still be upset with them. Ireland being part of the E.U. has agreed to a bunch of treaties about how corporate taxes can be accommodated. This investigation is based on that. If Ireland was not party to any treaties about this then you would be accurate that there is nothing anyone else can say.
The bigger intent of my comment was to indicate that the idea that something whose defining characteristic is race based is not necessarily racist is ridiculous. There might be organizations out there specifically targeting disadvantaged races for privilege, but that doesn't make those organizations not racist. The ESSA thing bothers me because one of the rejection criteria is race. That's pretty horrible. Like saying only women and non-white, non-Asian minorities should be programmers. If they were encouragement based and not segregation based I would be really glad about it. I would also like it more if it was socioeconomic based rather than race based. Meaning have the program mostly for economically disadvantaged children. That would result in better race statistic while also not telling kids it's ok to make decisions based on the color of someone's skin.
To the contrary I do have experience with minorities. And I don't think them feeble. I'm also aware of the barriers that they face. Though honestly while I think a lot of the barriers they face are economic in nature, some of them are truly racial. The combination of the economic and racial and societal barriers can be insurmountable for a lot of people. Not everyone, but why should anyone be held down or held back simply because of their birth? The intention of my comment is more along the lines of I think it is ridiculous to say something that has qualifying characteristics including race is not racist.
So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?
Your premise is coming from an angle of "You shouldn't expect to be paid well enough to live." Even if you argue from the standpoint of our lifestyle is unsustainable, that's a pretty bogus angle. We should be able to expect to be paid well enough to live. Because if we aren't the money is only pooled at the top. I agree that our current pace is unsustainable. But the pace of approaching unsustainability is being driven primarily by wealth desparity and not lack of resources. Money and resources are being pooled at the top and having the poor, working, and middle class lower their expectations that thinking a family can have their own home is unrealistic is not going to slow the consumption of resources. It's only going to increase the wealth disparity.
So the US has to provide 100% free trade to China and guarantee prices for not just their own country but *every* "western" country before we can talk about imbalanced barriers to entry? That's ridiculous. The US shouldn't have any say over how a different countries tax products sold in their jurisdiction. Even given states should be allowed to establish different tax rates. Both of those things will result in fluctuating prices. Hell different western world countries use different currencies and those will fluctuate in comparison to each other which will also change real price in different countries. And why should the US be required to remove all barriers from its side before discussing if barriers in China are unfairly high compared to the barriers the US currently has against Chinese companies operating in the US? Your options are not only ridiculous they are infeasible.
Well... Reagan was the source of implementation of Voodoo Economics (trickle-down economics, supply-side economics, choose your name) and started the destruction of the strength of unions so yeah some of the blame for the poor and working class economic woes really can be laid appropriately at his feet.
If I do something to try and get someone elected do I need to wait for them to give me permission or ask before I do it? Or is it possible I may do something I believe will lead to support of a candidate or a drop in support for an opposing candidate? I haven't heard anyone claim that Trump asked the Russians to do the initial hack. I have heard rumors that they did it to support him, but I'm not sure if that's their primary intent. I do know that Putin has spoken in support of Trump, so it would not be unbelievable someone in Russia would do this with that motivation except the timeline does make that unlikely since no one considered him a contender last year. Maybe the hack was done with a different intent and the release of the emails was done with that intent?
My point of view is that the original leaks being exposed is fine. Reporting on them is a good thing, and we should look for maleficence in the emails that have been exposed. But calling upon a foreign power to attack someone is over the line. Does he really think they will go find those emails and nothing else? And I "hope" is an invitation to action. When your mom says "I hope you clean this basement soon." She isn't really making a meaningless statement. She wants you to do it.
One of the funniest ironies in video games to me was a line from Star Ocean on PS2. The main character is a HUGE game fanatic. And that's why he is incredibly fit. Because in that world all the video games were developed for a system that's like a holodeck. I did not consider that an implausible future.
All it takes is one country to decide that it is worth the risk and the world is over. That's insane. Nukes don't threaten a single country. They threaten all countries and are a force that should never be used. Owning nukes would force countries to grow up? Why? Does giving a kid a gun make the kid grow up or make the kid think he's invincible and get people hurt? If the US having nukes doesn't discourage other countries from attacking us or our citizens why would them suddenly having nukes discourage them? If every country in the world starts building nuclear arsenals it puts us (all humans) into a more precarious position. Escalating tension does not lead to peace. If you think nukes make people able to negotiate from a position of strength it would be at best the position of a bully. I don't consider that a good position. (And it is the position of the United States often and I don't think that is good either.)
That said. I'm against nuclear proliferation, but I'm not really for complete nuclear disarmament. Decreasing the world's stockpile would probably be good and I'm glad that research into making more powerful bombs has pretty much stopped, but I can agree that nukes have had a great impact on countries willingness to go to war for the countries that have nukes currently.
By this logic there's no problem with North Korea getting nukes. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and nukes is a pretty damn good line. Ideally NO ONE should have nukes. Being OK with any country getting them, ally or foe, shows a lack of understanding about these weapons and think they are just big bombs. Saying Japan or South Korea should grow their military so we don't budget for their defense is an understandable argument and a case can be made for it, though increased world militarization might lead to another world war so I personally don't agree with that stance, but a case can be made for it. But nukes are far too dangerous to allow them to proliferate.
I like that last definition. Killing plants is WAY too easy.
I never had cavities either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth or problems of that nature either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth and detected what he called microcavities and drilled like 1/3rd of my teeth. Now I have problems with cavities -.- Just a warning for if you ever change dentists.
I have no data about University of Texas standing to clarify my point.