I lived way out in the country and there were no kids to hang out with. I played down by a creek, caught frogs/lizards/snacks, played with my dogs, rode my bike, etc..
I can't really see anything wrong with spending time by yourself as a kid. Either using a computer, or riding your bike. It is just exploration, and it teaches you to entertain yourself, and you find out what makes you the most happy.
Youtube could care less about the content. This all started happening because big advertisers like Ford, Walmart, etc, noticed that their ads were being displayed randomly across all sorts of youtube videos. And some of the videos were ones that the big companies didn't want their name associated with.
We are not the customers of youtube. Ford/Walmart, etc.. those are the customers that youtube is trying to please.
So youtube basically de-monetized ANY video that was even remotely "controversial". Critical of terrorism? Bam, no ads. In favor of terrorism? Bam no ads. Left wing, bam no ads. Right wing, bam no ads.
"their 63 current content groups are just political groups censoring conservatives."
Complete and utter bullshit. This liberal show lost 99% of their youtube revenue: https://davidpakman.com/
Well I hope they do something, because what is happening now is stupid. Their algorithm is basically flagging anything even remotely related to religion, politics, any sort of conflict, and de-monetizing it.
For instance, make a video that is critical of terrorism. De-monetized instantly. Shows like this have lost 99% of their youtube revenue: https://davidpakman.com/ .
That isn't how the youtube algorithm is working. It appears to be de-monetizing nearly anything about religion or conflicts or politics (except for big mainstream ones, like Fox/CNN, etc..).
You can make a video about how bad Isis is in the world, and it gets de-monetized. I hope youtube figures it out, because a lot of independent media and political channels have basically lost 99% of their revenue.
No it was very much hillary who got him elected, Anyone who was not a completely worthless human or clump of grass would of won over him; and the grass would of been in the running
Trump went up against umpteen senior GOP candidates incl 1/2 a dozen former governors and beat them like rented mules, garnering the most votes ever in a Republican primary. Seems there were a lot of completely worthless humans both running against him & voting for him.
Well, not to mention that none of this came about because of a single factor. Everyone likes to try to find the 'one true cause', but this election cycle just seemed like a perfect storm of some truths, lots of lies, a general authoritarian+populist rise across the globe, massive increase in use of disinformation systems (facebook, etc..), please even possible things like personal grudges Putin had against Hillary. No one factor.
It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.
What's really odd is that Trump let this circus go on as long as he did...
Evidence provided by the FBI to federal prosecutors has just recently resulted in two people close to Trump's cabinet receiving grand jury supoenas. Do you think maybe that is what made Trump fire him and not any of the Hillary/Email crap?
You aren't missing anything. But I think you are thinking of this as just a tax/welfare system, no different than any other in history. It isn't.
Think of a (maybe dystopian) future, where 100% of all production is entirely done by automated processes. Processes that can even repair and improve themselves. What then?
Well, someone will own those processes, and be making a lot of profit, with zero labor costs. Do they have an obligation to society to pay for the infrastructure, police, military, etc.. if there are literally no jobs to be had, so no one else has any money at all?
We aren't there yet, but the reason UBI is being discussed and experimented with, is because that is the direction we've been headed for a long time now. US production and efficiency has been climbing every decade. But the gains in profit from that increased production, has not translated into more jobs, or higher paying jobs.
The majority of American workers have not had a pay increase, adjusted for inflation and buying power, in over 30 years. But that doesn't mean someone else isn't getting more money. The owners of production have had record profits. And the wealth and income inequality in the US is approaching historic highs as well. Almost as high as it was right before the great depression.
Or, think of it this way: In the future, an owner of a factory may have two choices: 1. Employee 1000 people making widgets, make 100,000,000 in profit, Pay 75,000,000 in labor. Net profit, 25 million - minus some regular taxes. 2. Full automation, 0 workers. Make 100,000,000 profit, pay 75,000,000 extra in UBI taxes. Net profit, 25 million - minus some regular taxes.
You are making an assumption that taxes have to go up to support a program like UBI. They don't. Well, not in the way you think.
The entire point of UBI is that productivity and efficiency gains have increased drastically as various types of automation (an numerous other factors) have improved.
Some day, 100% of car manufacturing will be automated. Zero workers needed. So at that point in time, the owners are still making X dollars per year, but have zero labor costs. UBI is the government taking the profit from gains in productivity and spreading it back to the workers that are no longer required. Theoretically, the owner of the car plant will have the same net profit at the end of the day. In that model, owners of production will be able to ask themselves: "Do I want to employee 1000 people, make 100,000,000 million in profit, but spend 75,000,000 million on labor, leaving me 25,000,000 as profit. Or, do I want to employee 0 people, make 100,000,000 million in profit, pay 0 in labor costs, but get taxed 75,000,000, leaving me 25,000,000 million in profit." At least, that is how I understand the theory.
You do realize that we have near historic high wealth and income inequality in the US right now, right? That is because our factories and other processes have become highly automated, requiring less skilled workers, and none of that gain in productivity has benefited anyone except the owners of those production facilities (whatever the product).
Do you think that "the elite" wanted TPP cancelled, NAFTA re-negotiated, and subsidized pensions/healthcare for coal miners?
Do you think 'the elite' care about the messaging of a campaign vs what is actually done once in office? Because so far Trump has accomplished zero of his promised changes, so..... time will tell I guess.
That advantage has been systemically taken off the board though. The 2010 gerrymandering alone removes the advantage. But you can also toss in things like voter id (aka suppression) laws as well. Here is the Governor of Pennsylvania admitting that voter id laws will help Romney win his state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
But it can't go on forever, eventually demographic changes will force the Republicans to change. Change their messaging at the very least, but eventually their policies.
Waiting for the public to take a greater interest in politics, or expecting more people to become better informed, is something you'll wait your whole life for and never see.
Promoting end user behavior change is far less effective than putting systems in place to 'force' change.
That is why when a city wants to increase recycling, they don't beg their citizens to recycle more. No, they put a program in place that makes it either easier to recycle, or harder not to recycle.
Instant run off voting is a system that would help I think.
Instead of voting only for a single candidate, voters in IRV elections can rank the candidates in order of preference.
I bet more people would have voted for Bernie if they could have also voted for Hillary. Hedging their bets.
There are systems that would help reduce or remove the effects of Gerrymandering. Heck, getting rid of the Electoral College with zero other changes would have meant Al Gore instead of George Bush and Hillary instead of Trump.
The problem is convincing politicians and news agencies to undo the systems that keep the hyper-partisanship alive. It is their bread and butter. That is why I encourage friends and family to vote for politicians who want things like instant run off voting, or campaign finance reform. Solve the problems at the source instead of trying to fight the resulting problems.
This is the perfect example of a bad idea that just can't be killed.
I've just started assuming that people that hold on to those ideas are not real people. They are shills for the fossil fuel industry or something similar.
How else do you explain a site for nerds, having a large percent of users who apparently cannot do a simple google query?
Ever watch that show the Last Alaskan's? The people on that show often talk about freedom, living off the land, being sustainable and close to nature. And they are.
However, if 300 million American's tried that, there would be zero caribou/deer left, no trees left to burn, etc.
Cities support the majority of the world's population because they are order's of magnitude more efficient at resource use than everyone having their own 40 acres and a mule.
If you happen to have found work that is outside a big city, out in the country some place, or in a smaller town, and can afford a house, good for you. But it won't work for the majority.
Making cities more livable should be our focus. And just like planning a layout in Factorio or Civ-type games, it takes a lot of thought and resources. And often a lot of re-building and experimentation. Which can be expensive.
"Either live with it or move to a less populated area."
I was watching that show "The Last Alaskans". Very often those people living in the middle of no where claim their lifestyle is extra sustainable. Living off the land, not burning any fossil fuels, heating with wood they cut down themselves, 'harvesting' your own meat and crops, etc..
If 300 million Americans all started hunting for all their meat, there would be no wild game left very quickly. Ditto for lumber/firewood.
Cramming into the 'anthill' really is the most efficient way to live. The problem is some cities are much better at ant management then others. And infrastructure is slow to change and expensive. It doesn't help when the Federal Government has decided to politicize things like infrastructure. It used to be a bi-partisan thing that bridges, highways, helping cities re-make themselves, was good for everyone.
If your assertion is correct, that native citizens won't do the field work because it pays too little, then wouldn't the answer to that problem be to ensure that we have a fair minimum wage in all industries?
There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government.
It just takes one "super scary" attack or other incident, and martial law and other things could be granted by congress. Remember, this the congress that puts "cause jesus said so" types in charge of science committees....
When large percentages of the population are willing to believe blatant lies, even lies that are very easy to disprove with a simple google search, the populace is primed to allow pretty much anything, if their "strong man" authoritarian leader commands it.
You make his tactics seem more complex than they actually are.
The basic methodology is to confuse the public to the point where they do not know what is true or false. At that point, an election is essentially issue-free and fact-free, and comes down to charisma and who the public trusts. It also overwhelms the fact checkers.
I saw a short video on this tactic. I just tried to find it and couldn't. But basically, this method is the primary method that one of Putin's top advisors implemented, and it has been extremely successful.
The wise use of antibiotics is not a substitute for, but a complement to, good sanitation and husbandry practices.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216502/
If you don't like it then go ahead and buy your "organic" meat or go vegan. I know what farmers do to get animals to market and if these animals weren't treated for infections then meat gets real expensive due to losses. Quality would go down too because healthy animals make tasty meat.
1. Meat needs to become more expensive in my opinion. If you care about the environment and human health. 2. Quality does not go down. The opposite. I'd put up any of the free-range organic beef I buy against any feedlot beef any day of the year. 100% guarantee that the expensive beef I buy is much better quality than any of the corn-fed feedlot beef.
Was your farm a large scale cattle/pig feedlot? Because those are typically run a lot differently than smaller family farms. For instance, cattle in feedlots are often given feed with antibiotics in it, as a disease prevention measure.
For example: http://www.hubbardfeeds.com/product/chlorotetracycline-ctc-crumbles
I grew up on a farm as well, and have been around agriculture through relatives most my life. I know from experience that not many farmers follow labels very closely. Not finishing a full course of antibiotics, etc.. Just like some dumb parents do to their kids, giving them a single antibiotic pill from the cupboard from time to time when they get a cold.
Probably no one. With a few notable exceptions (bacterial meningitis, TB) most bacterial infections aren't very contagious. You mainly pick them up if you're exposed to a large source of them in the environment (drinking or swimming in contaminated water, poorly cleaned kitchens, cuts, that kind of thing) or if you have an already weakened immune system.
Person to person, yeah, not much risk. But patient to nurse/doctor's hands/gloves/clothes, to the next patient, is a problem.
I was trying to find a documentary I watched about this, but couldn't. It was a big, very prominent cutting edge hospital. Like a Mayo clinic or something. And they had a superbug spreading around the hospital, and it took them a surprisingly long time to figure out how to contain. And in the end, I don't think they every really knew why it stopped or started spreading. Many people died.
Almost everything can be automated, the crucial question is whether it is cost-effective to do so.
The cost of automation is going down. Eventually, it will reach near zero. That is the entire point about universal basic income discussions. Some day, maybe 20 years, 50 years, 1000 years from now, the cost of energy and automation will approach zero.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived way out in the country and there were no kids to hang out with. I played down by a creek, caught frogs/lizards/snacks, played with my dogs, rode my bike, etc..
I can't really see anything wrong with spending time by yourself as a kid. Either using a computer, or riding your bike. It is just exploration, and it teaches you to entertain yourself, and you find out what makes you the most happy.
Youtube could care less about the content. This all started happening because big advertisers like Ford, Walmart, etc, noticed that their ads were being displayed randomly across all sorts of youtube videos. And some of the videos were ones that the big companies didn't want their name associated with.
We are not the customers of youtube. Ford/Walmart, etc.. those are the customers that youtube is trying to please.
So youtube basically de-monetized ANY video that was even remotely "controversial". Critical of terrorism? Bam, no ads. In favor of terrorism? Bam no ads. Left wing, bam no ads. Right wing, bam no ads.
"their 63 current content groups are just political groups censoring conservatives."
Complete and utter bullshit. This liberal show lost 99% of their youtube revenue: https://davidpakman.com/
Well I hope they do something, because what is happening now is stupid. Their algorithm is basically flagging anything even remotely related to religion, politics, any sort of conflict, and de-monetizing it.
For instance, make a video that is critical of terrorism. De-monetized instantly. Shows like this have lost 99% of their youtube revenue: https://davidpakman.com/ .
That isn't how the youtube algorithm is working. It appears to be de-monetizing nearly anything about religion or conflicts or politics (except for big mainstream ones, like Fox/CNN, etc..).
You can make a video about how bad Isis is in the world, and it gets de-monetized. I hope youtube figures it out, because a lot of independent media and political channels have basically lost 99% of their revenue.
No it was very much hillary who got him elected, Anyone who was not a completely worthless human or clump of grass would of won over him; and the grass would of been in the running
Trump went up against umpteen senior GOP candidates incl 1/2 a dozen former governors and beat them like rented mules, garnering the most votes ever in a Republican primary.
Seems there were a lot of completely worthless humans both running against him & voting for him.
Well, not to mention that none of this came about because of a single factor. Everyone likes to try to find the 'one true cause', but this election cycle just seemed like a perfect storm of some truths, lots of lies, a general authoritarian+populist rise across the globe, massive increase in use of disinformation systems (facebook, etc..), please even possible things like personal grudges Putin had against Hillary. No one factor.
It's hard to tell whether the Trump team are some of the most malicious individuals who have ever occupied the most powerful position in the world, or are simply arrogant halfwits. I'm leaning towards the latter.
They can't be both?
What's really odd is that Trump let this circus go on as long as he did...
Evidence provided by the FBI to federal prosecutors has just recently resulted in two people close to Trump's cabinet receiving grand jury supoenas. Do you think maybe that is what made Trump fire him and not any of the Hillary/Email crap?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/
You aren't missing anything. But I think you are thinking of this as just a tax/welfare system, no different than any other in history. It isn't.
Think of a (maybe dystopian) future, where 100% of all production is entirely done by automated processes. Processes that can even repair and improve themselves. What then?
Well, someone will own those processes, and be making a lot of profit, with zero labor costs. Do they have an obligation to society to pay for the infrastructure, police, military, etc.. if there are literally no jobs to be had, so no one else has any money at all?
We aren't there yet, but the reason UBI is being discussed and experimented with, is because that is the direction we've been headed for a long time now. US production and efficiency has been climbing every decade. But the gains in profit from that increased production, has not translated into more jobs, or higher paying jobs.
The majority of American workers have not had a pay increase, adjusted for inflation and buying power, in over 30 years. But that doesn't mean someone else isn't getting more money. The owners of production have had record profits. And the wealth and income inequality in the US is approaching historic highs as well. Almost as high as it was right before the great depression.
Or, think of it this way:
In the future, an owner of a factory may have two choices:
1. Employee 1000 people making widgets, make 100,000,000 in profit, Pay 75,000,000 in labor. Net profit, 25 million - minus some regular taxes.
2. Full automation, 0 workers. Make 100,000,000 profit, pay 75,000,000 extra in UBI taxes. Net profit, 25 million - minus some regular taxes.
You are making an assumption that taxes have to go up to support a program like UBI. They don't. Well, not in the way you think.
The entire point of UBI is that productivity and efficiency gains have increased drastically as various types of automation (an numerous other factors) have improved.
Some day, 100% of car manufacturing will be automated. Zero workers needed. So at that point in time, the owners are still making X dollars per year, but have zero labor costs. UBI is the government taking the profit from gains in productivity and spreading it back to the workers that are no longer required. Theoretically, the owner of the car plant will have the same net profit at the end of the day. In that model, owners of production will be able to ask themselves: "Do I want to employee 1000 people, make 100,000,000 million in profit, but spend 75,000,000 million on labor, leaving me 25,000,000 as profit. Or, do I want to employee 0 people, make 100,000,000 million in profit, pay 0 in labor costs, but get taxed 75,000,000, leaving me 25,000,000 million in profit." At least, that is how I understand the theory.
You do realize that we have near historic high wealth and income inequality in the US right now, right? That is because our factories and other processes have become highly automated, requiring less skilled workers, and none of that gain in productivity has benefited anyone except the owners of those production facilities (whatever the product).
Do you think that "the elite" wanted TPP cancelled, NAFTA re-negotiated, and subsidized pensions/healthcare for coal miners?
Do you think 'the elite' care about the messaging of a campaign vs what is actually done once in office? Because so far Trump has accomplished zero of his promised changes, so..... time will tell I guess.
despite increasingly favorable demographic advantages.
That advantage has been systemically taken off the board though. The 2010 gerrymandering alone removes the advantage. But you can also toss in things like voter id (aka suppression) laws as well. Here is the Governor of Pennsylvania admitting that voter id laws will help Romney win his state: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
But it can't go on forever, eventually demographic changes will force the Republicans to change. Change their messaging at the very least, but eventually their policies.
Waiting for the public to take a greater interest in politics, or expecting more people to become better informed, is something you'll wait your whole life for and never see.
Promoting end user behavior change is far less effective than putting systems in place to 'force' change.
That is why when a city wants to increase recycling, they don't beg their citizens to recycle more. No, they put a program in place that makes it either easier to recycle, or harder not to recycle.
Instant run off voting is a system that would help I think.
Instead of voting only for a single candidate, voters in IRV elections can rank the candidates in order of preference.
I bet more people would have voted for Bernie if they could have also voted for Hillary. Hedging their bets.
There are systems that would help reduce or remove the effects of Gerrymandering. Heck, getting rid of the Electoral College with zero other changes would have meant Al Gore instead of George Bush and Hillary instead of Trump.
The problem is convincing politicians and news agencies to undo the systems that keep the hyper-partisanship alive. It is their bread and butter. That is why I encourage friends and family to vote for politicians who want things like instant run off voting, or campaign finance reform. Solve the problems at the source instead of trying to fight the resulting problems.
This is the perfect example of a bad idea that just can't be killed.
I've just started assuming that people that hold on to those ideas are not real people. They are shills for the fossil fuel industry or something similar.
How else do you explain a site for nerds, having a large percent of users who apparently cannot do a simple google query?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ROI+on+solar+panels+2017
Ever watch that show the Last Alaskan's? The people on that show often talk about freedom, living off the land, being sustainable and close to nature. And they are.
However, if 300 million American's tried that, there would be zero caribou/deer left, no trees left to burn, etc.
Cities support the majority of the world's population because they are order's of magnitude more efficient at resource use than everyone having their own 40 acres and a mule.
If you happen to have found work that is outside a big city, out in the country some place, or in a smaller town, and can afford a house, good for you. But it won't work for the majority.
Making cities more livable should be our focus. And just like planning a layout in Factorio or Civ-type games, it takes a lot of thought and resources. And often a lot of re-building and experimentation. Which can be expensive.
"Either live with it or move to a less populated area."
I was watching that show "The Last Alaskans". Very often those people living in the middle of no where claim their lifestyle is extra sustainable. Living off the land, not burning any fossil fuels, heating with wood they cut down themselves, 'harvesting' your own meat and crops, etc..
If 300 million Americans all started hunting for all their meat, there would be no wild game left very quickly. Ditto for lumber/firewood.
Cramming into the 'anthill' really is the most efficient way to live. The problem is some cities are much better at ant management then others. And infrastructure is slow to change and expensive. It doesn't help when the Federal Government has decided to politicize things like infrastructure. It used to be a bi-partisan thing that bridges, highways, helping cities re-make themselves, was good for everyone.
Your link did not work. Is it this vid? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
Have you tried recently? Every time I search for a movie, google shows the RT score, imdb, and amazon score, and they all pretty much align.
The Man from Earth - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
Extremely original story line, low budget, pretty much takes place in one room, and is just people talking.
If your assertion is correct, that native citizens won't do the field work because it pays too little, then wouldn't the answer to that problem be to ensure that we have a fair minimum wage in all industries?
There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government.
It just takes one "super scary" attack or other incident, and martial law and other things could be granted by congress. Remember, this the congress that puts "cause jesus said so" types in charge of science committees....
When large percentages of the population are willing to believe blatant lies, even lies that are very easy to disprove with a simple google search, the populace is primed to allow pretty much anything, if their "strong man" authoritarian leader commands it.
You make his tactics seem more complex than they actually are.
The basic methodology is to confuse the public to the point where they do not know what is true or false. At that point, an election is essentially issue-free and fact-free, and comes down to charisma and who the public trusts. It also overwhelms the fact checkers.
I saw a short video on this tactic. I just tried to find it and couldn't. But basically, this method is the primary method that one of Putin's top advisors implemented, and it has been extremely successful.
The wise use of antibiotics is not a substitute for, but a complement to, good sanitation and husbandry practices.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216502/
If you don't like it then go ahead and buy your "organic" meat or go vegan. I know what farmers do to get animals to market and if these animals weren't treated for infections then meat gets real expensive due to losses. Quality would go down too because healthy animals make tasty meat.
1. Meat needs to become more expensive in my opinion. If you care about the environment and human health.
2. Quality does not go down. The opposite. I'd put up any of the free-range organic beef I buy against any feedlot beef any day of the year. 100% guarantee that the expensive beef I buy is much better quality than any of the corn-fed feedlot beef.
Was your farm a large scale cattle/pig feedlot? Because those are typically run a lot differently than smaller family farms. For instance, cattle in feedlots are often given feed with antibiotics in it, as a disease prevention measure.
For example:
http://www.hubbardfeeds.com/product/chlorotetracycline-ctc-crumbles
I grew up on a farm as well, and have been around agriculture through relatives most my life. I know from experience that not many farmers follow labels very closely. Not finishing a full course of antibiotics, etc.. Just like some dumb parents do to their kids, giving them a single antibiotic pill from the cupboard from time to time when they get a cold.
Probably no one. With a few notable exceptions (bacterial meningitis, TB) most bacterial infections aren't very contagious. You mainly pick them up if you're exposed to a large source of them in the environment (drinking or swimming in contaminated water, poorly cleaned kitchens, cuts, that kind of thing) or if you have an already weakened immune system.
Person to person, yeah, not much risk.
But patient to nurse/doctor's hands/gloves/clothes, to the next patient, is a problem.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/16/cre-superbug/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/superbug-appears-spreading-stealthily-u-s-hospitals-study-finds/
I was trying to find a documentary I watched about this, but couldn't. It was a big, very prominent cutting edge hospital. Like a Mayo clinic or something. And they had a superbug spreading around the hospital, and it took them a surprisingly long time to figure out how to contain. And in the end, I don't think they every really knew why it stopped or started spreading. Many people died.
Almost everything can be automated, the crucial question is whether it is cost-effective to do so.
The cost of automation is going down. Eventually, it will reach near zero. That is the entire point about universal basic income discussions. Some day, maybe 20 years, 50 years, 1000 years from now, the cost of energy and automation will approach zero.