Then you just create barriers to people moving from state to state. Unless two states have a reciprocity agreement, someone can't move from one state to another without losing health coverage, even if they have the exact same system.
And, TBH, from a purely practical perspective, there's no reason to treat healthcare as a state issue to begin with. Everyone needs it. The fact you're in Texas doesn't mean your requirement to have healthcare cover is different to that of someone in NY. Even the right recognizes this: they've been talking about trying to eliminate barriers to insurers that require they actually have an office in a state in order to sell insurance.
State control is increasingly an anachronism as the country becomes more cohesive. For the most part, with one exception (legalizing pot), state control is almost exclusively used to enforce injustices and the OP is right that it's mostly a cover for treating black people like shit. We almost certainly need to review the constitutional relationships between citizens and the various layers of governments that want control over us, but alas, in the current political climate, I suspect a constitutional convention would result in an even worse governmental system than we have already.
So it's not about a compromise between truth and lies; it's about getting viewpoints from different perspectives
Well, it is a compromise between truth and lies if you choose to include news outlets that clearly and obviously have no regard for the truth and that's one of the problems here. (It's not as if the right doesn't have honest media either, why is it everyone says "Well, I read Brietbart and watch CNN to get a rounded picture"? Brietbart are liars. What about NewsMax? They're not perfect but I've yet to come across them actually lie about anything. I can understand not entirely trusting the Washington Times because of the Moonie connection but they're not Brietbart either.)
The other problem is the "both sides" narrative doesn't work with the current media. Right wingers keep claiming NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, et al, are "left wing". Those of us on the left just don't see it. When did any of those outlets support and campaign for, say, Single Payer healthcare? Weren't they all cheering for war after 9/11 or was that my imagination? Haven't all three spent most of the last few months doing thinkpieces on "What Trump supporters think about Trump", rather than trying to gauge the viewpoints of those most directly affected by his policies or rhetoric? For eight years, Meet the Press always made a point to include a major Republican on every show, and relatively rarely included a Democratic (let alone Liberal!) voice.
Sure, Trump is pissed at them, and they report a lot of news that's bad for Trump, but is that because they're "left wing", or is it because there's a lot of negative things about Trump right now?
I know, I know, people on the right think that the media is left wing, therefore ergo it must be and it must be that to get both sides you need to watch both. But, honestly, I don't recognize the morality and social awareness of the mainstream media. When the Washington Post starts arguing against wars, when it comes out as supporting single payer or government health care instead of half-witted hacks designed to not upset free market ideologues, when it comes out in favor of drugs legalization, when it admits that the forced suburbanization program of the 1950s onwards has been a financial and economic, moral, and ecological disaster and campaigns for urban renewal and improved transit, when it supports an expansion of welfare, when it supports the right to unionize across all industries, when it doesn't treat racial and sexual disparities as "He said, she said", THEN I and others on the left-of-center might reasonably think of it as a paper that's in touch with my views and my agenda.
Simply thinking the current President is terrible does not make you the counter to the right wing media. Hell, the intelligent side of the right thinks he's a moron too, they just don't say it in public.
A stock certificate has a tangible value, even if it's usually inflated several times that of the physical assets minus liabilities of the company divided by shares outstanding.
And while we're at it: a dollar? At minimum it's the recognized currency for paying your taxes in the US, which gives it value in that it's necessary.
A crypto-currency simply doesn't have anything backing it. Contrary to the assertions of advocates, it doesn't have energy, because I can't turn a Bitcoin back into the power that created it - indeed, Zimbabwe's currency has more legitimacy because the paper and ink that was used to create each bill can be converted back into paper, a useful commodity.
BTCs are like fiat currency, minus the actual fiat from a respected government. They're at best a social currency, and in the end, I suspect they'll fail for that reason.
If you need to escape fiat currency for some reason, ironically shares are a pretty good alternative, be they numbers in a computer or not.
No, that's not why UBI wouldn't work, you and your friends apparently do not understand how it's supposed to work.
It would be neutral in terms of income for the middle class. The concept isn't "We add UBI to the current system", but "We replace all forms of welfare and even the tiered taxation model with UBI and a flat tax". The savings that pay for it come from:
1. Everyone on the same tax rate. So you pay 25% on every dollar, you don't get the first $X thousand free of tax, then the next $Y thousand at a lower rate, etc.
2. Reduced bureaucracy due to qualifications testing for existing benefits being eliminated.
The problem, of course, is that the latter isn't really going to work. You can't replace disability with UBI because the average person on disability has much higher medical costs, and they can't exactly solve the discrepancy by finding a part time job.
That is the real problem with UBI. It ignores why we only provide certain benefits to certain people and assumes that everyone covered can just get a job if UBI doesn't cover their needs. So in practice, it wouldn't solve the bureaucracy issue. The best you can hope for is to combine it with a general improvement in public services - making healthcare free, for example, would at least reduce the problems for someone whose disability benefits are replaced by UBI - but that wouldn't solve the whole problem.
He means that he'll doubleclick on the icon for Trumpet Winsock, click on the "Dial" button, beep-boop-beep-boop-boop-beep-boop (pause) hmmmmbeepitybeewhoooooshcracklewhooosh (silence) and then a few seconds later, Eudora will suddenly report he has one new mail message. How do they know??! HOW DO THEY KNOW?!!!
ATV, not BBC. ATV was a rival British TV station, that was part of the ITV network.
To be more specific, Wikipedia says ITC Entertainment, but that was essentially a sister company that produced shows commissioned by ATV's boss Sir Lew Grade.
Buffer overflows are a uniquely C (and assembler) thing. Most programming languages do actually do bounds checking, and will generate a run time error if you attempt to write more data to an array/block/other fixed size container than will fit. Ada is a normal programming language in this respect.
Addressing memory leaks is a more complex subject, but you can reduce memory leaks if your programming language is built properly. You can't eliminate them, because it's always possible for a programmer to keep around data that they never intend to use again, but you can certainly reduce it through various garbage collection strategies.
In Adas case, the programming language's eschewing of (direct, rather than implied) pointers and general memory model is ideal for automatic garbage collection. Ada compilers usually don't implement it because AGC is difficult to make real time, which is a requirement for many Ada applications, but there's nothing stopping a desktop-oriented Ada implementation from implementing it.
It sounds like you're in a bad relationship. This is not normal, it is not normal to think "Nagging" when you think of your spouse. I'm not going to suggest you immediately leave her, but you probably need to sit down with her and discuss where your relationship is going.
I'm sorry you're in such a horrible relationship and I hope you can both take the steps needed to make it work.
TBH I think both are right. We need interaction - sometimes, and we also need the opportunity to hide and avoid distractions when we're working on something specific. I'd like to see businesses move to a more hybrid model, with say one day a week at the office, three days working-from-home.
(If anyone is saying "Surely four days working-from-home", well, I'd also like to see a four day week. And I can see this model actually helping with that - less travel means more time to work, and the balance can probably be attributed to increased productivity due to better working conditions.)
Leaving aside the attempt to change the subject: If you think those three problems are limited to "big cities" you're not paying attention. I see homeless people every day out here in Anytown USA. And right now the opioid epidemic is by and large nationwide. What drugs do you think you can get in the city that you can't get in the middle of Florida?
And crime? Are you kidding me? Seriously? You think crime is something that only happens in cities?
Regardless, the OP is right: it takes massive subsidies to keep suburbia and Anytown USA type small towns alive: what do you think the costs involved are of building massive networks of well maintained roads to nowhere? Why do you think it took legislative action to get the power companies and other utilities to run wires to these places in the 1930s?
Why do you think the cost of living is so sky high in the US compared to most of Europe?
And, here's the thing I don't understand: why do advocates of suburbia feel compelled to force this lifestyle on everyone? It's not necessary, if someone else lives in a city it doesn't impact your ability to live in the middle of nowhere. But no: you guys insist on State-imposed zoning and planning laws making urban development effectively illegal. You take the taxes people living in cities pay, and refuse to let any of it get spent on transit, while earmarking the entire thing for roads to nowhere.
Why not, you know, just let people live the way they want to live?
So you think they have negotiated better prices than newegg...
Quite possibly. Most of what I buy on Amazon is actually sold by a third party affiliate, often associated with the manufacturer itself, who is setting the prices themselves. Yet the prices are cheaper than Newegg et al.
You're paying $100 a year for that "free" shipping. Plus there's usually a profit margin on each item.
Will Amazon occasionally find that there are some customers that cost more than $100 a year? Obviously. Will Amazon find that across their entire Prime membership, the average will ever go above $100? Doubtful. Most of us buy an item from Amazon one or twice a month - given the volumes involved across all of Amazon's customers, I doubt we're getting close to half of that subscription price.
If you doubt this, look at the fact Amazon has been expanding the Prime benefits ever since it started. We get free video, free music, storage, and some deliveries are now one day instead of two. How is it able to afford to do so?
This isn't about Congress, it's about the US government itself. And, frankly, with Bezos and Trump being fairly open about their outright hostility to one another, this story doesn't surprise me.
I had Orange (a UK mobile phone operator) service in the late 1990s, and the plan - at that time - included a similar service, only not free. Used it once (and only once - I wasn't rich) to ask them to find out if a particular restaurant was open and get a taxi for some friends and I to take us there. Wonder if they (or rather their successor, I believe they merged with T-Mobile UK fka one2one) still do it?
You might think "That's what Google is for!" but... it's not really what Google is for, Google could have answered a series of questions and helped me organize that, but it'd still have been me organizing that. Given I was drunk at the time, had Google and Android been around in '98 I don't think it'd have gone so smoothly.
Other way around: pirates will continue to do what pirates do because EME will add nothing that Flash et al don't already do.
Users will, after initially losing Flash, go back to Flash-like plugins except with the added overhead that the video rendering will be done via an HTML5 layer. Flash may have been horrible, but it was at least efficient. Here's a breakdown for the inevitable idiot who doesn't read the entire comment and thinks EME is a DRM scheme rather than a plug-in platform:
(EME requires one plugin to be written for every single browser+operating system combination. Flash at least existed at a time when most browsers, IE excepted, implemented NSAPI for whatever operating system they ran on.)
HTML5 was one step forward. EME is two steps back.
They already do to a certain extent, there's a free tier of music streaming that comes with Prime, but a more Rhapsody like service available for a subscription fee. Given they're also selling HBO (and a few other) subscriptions, I can easily see them creating a premium video content collection package.
I'm not really understanding why. As others have pointed out, AppleTV is pretty much a non-player in the market. Prime Sticks are selling like crazy, and Roku (the major neutral platform) has been out in a 4k version for quite a while.
If they were to partner with someone, Roku would make more sense. They already do, in a way, in that the default remote includes Amazon as a one-touch button; Roku also highlights a single content provider (currently Fandango) on their core user interface. Presumably Apple could bid for that role fairly successfully.
This is about the President blocking them, not about not being retweeted by him. I have no idea how confused you have to be to assume this is about the President not republishing the views of others - if your analogy held, it would be legal and standard practice for congressional websites to block the IP addresses of anyone who publicly criticizes them.
I don't disagree, and I don't think he should be using Twitter as his primary means to communicate with the American people. But as long as he is, my point was we have to treat it as an official communications channel.
It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.
Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.
The X.org server has existed for Windows since long before this project.
Simply download Vcxsrv or Xming.
Neither of those are X.org. I suspect you're confusing X11 with X.org - the former is the protocol, the latter is a specific implementation. X.org itself is a fork of XFree86.
But yes, for those wanting an X11 server, those are two options.
Yeah, I'm sure a whole 2.5% in taxes for people with huge amounts of disposable income (with the first 250k untaxed) will mean they'll be moving out into the suburbs.
Just a example, but property prices, whether rented or bought, are typically 1.5-5x the cost in a decent city compared to the suburbs. If a less-than 2.5% drop in income is going to significantly affect someone's willingness to live in a city, they're probably already not living in one.
People live in cities because they want what cities provide that suburbs don't. They're generally willing to pay for that. Oddly enough, suburbanites historically aren't willing to pay for the benefits of living in a suburb, which means the latter have always been heavily subsidized, but that's another story...
Ubuntu comes in many flavors. What's available on Windows is something similar to Ubuntu Server, a bare bones system where opening a new window gives you another terminal session with a specified user. You can apt-get anything you want, though anything requiring a GUI will need an X server, and you won't be able to run X.org.
Be aware you're not getting Linux (the kernel) with this system - everything is running over a compatibility layer over Windows. Almost everything works anyway. The advantage is that it's tightly integrated with Windows in much the same way as Cygwin is. Unlike Cygwin, the Ubuntu environment runs in a file system very similar in functionality to ext2/3/4 (so, no "ls.exe" needed.) The actual Windows file system is at/mnt/c so you can process files on the Windows side too.
I like it more than Cygwin - the availability of apt-get alone to install packages is a major improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you just create barriers to people moving from state to state. Unless two states have a reciprocity agreement, someone can't move from one state to another without losing health coverage, even if they have the exact same system.
And, TBH, from a purely practical perspective, there's no reason to treat healthcare as a state issue to begin with. Everyone needs it. The fact you're in Texas doesn't mean your requirement to have healthcare cover is different to that of someone in NY. Even the right recognizes this: they've been talking about trying to eliminate barriers to insurers that require they actually have an office in a state in order to sell insurance.
State control is increasingly an anachronism as the country becomes more cohesive. For the most part, with one exception (legalizing pot), state control is almost exclusively used to enforce injustices and the OP is right that it's mostly a cover for treating black people like shit. We almost certainly need to review the constitutional relationships between citizens and the various layers of governments that want control over us, but alas, in the current political climate, I suspect a constitutional convention would result in an even worse governmental system than we have already.
Well, it is a compromise between truth and lies if you choose to include news outlets that clearly and obviously have no regard for the truth and that's one of the problems here. (It's not as if the right doesn't have honest media either, why is it everyone says "Well, I read Brietbart and watch CNN to get a rounded picture"? Brietbart are liars. What about NewsMax? They're not perfect but I've yet to come across them actually lie about anything. I can understand not entirely trusting the Washington Times because of the Moonie connection but they're not Brietbart either.)
The other problem is the "both sides" narrative doesn't work with the current media. Right wingers keep claiming NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, et al, are "left wing". Those of us on the left just don't see it. When did any of those outlets support and campaign for, say, Single Payer healthcare? Weren't they all cheering for war after 9/11 or was that my imagination? Haven't all three spent most of the last few months doing thinkpieces on "What Trump supporters think about Trump", rather than trying to gauge the viewpoints of those most directly affected by his policies or rhetoric? For eight years, Meet the Press always made a point to include a major Republican on every show, and relatively rarely included a Democratic (let alone Liberal!) voice.
Sure, Trump is pissed at them, and they report a lot of news that's bad for Trump, but is that because they're "left wing", or is it because there's a lot of negative things about Trump right now?
I know, I know, people on the right think that the media is left wing, therefore ergo it must be and it must be that to get both sides you need to watch both. But, honestly, I don't recognize the morality and social awareness of the mainstream media. When the Washington Post starts arguing against wars, when it comes out as supporting single payer or government health care instead of half-witted hacks designed to not upset free market ideologues, when it comes out in favor of drugs legalization, when it admits that the forced suburbanization program of the 1950s onwards has been a financial and economic, moral, and ecological disaster and campaigns for urban renewal and improved transit, when it supports an expansion of welfare, when it supports the right to unionize across all industries, when it doesn't treat racial and sexual disparities as "He said, she said", THEN I and others on the left-of-center might reasonably think of it as a paper that's in touch with my views and my agenda.
Simply thinking the current President is terrible does not make you the counter to the right wing media. Hell, the intelligent side of the right thinks he's a moron too, they just don't say it in public.
A stock certificate has a tangible value, even if it's usually inflated several times that of the physical assets minus liabilities of the company divided by shares outstanding.
And while we're at it: a dollar? At minimum it's the recognized currency for paying your taxes in the US, which gives it value in that it's necessary.
A crypto-currency simply doesn't have anything backing it. Contrary to the assertions of advocates, it doesn't have energy, because I can't turn a Bitcoin back into the power that created it - indeed, Zimbabwe's currency has more legitimacy because the paper and ink that was used to create each bill can be converted back into paper, a useful commodity.
BTCs are like fiat currency, minus the actual fiat from a respected government. They're at best a social currency, and in the end, I suspect they'll fail for that reason.
If you need to escape fiat currency for some reason, ironically shares are a pretty good alternative, be they numbers in a computer or not.
IRC is just below Slack. Unix's "talk" isn't there as you suggest, but wall is. Happy to help ;-)
No, that's not why UBI wouldn't work, you and your friends apparently do not understand how it's supposed to work.
It would be neutral in terms of income for the middle class. The concept isn't "We add UBI to the current system", but "We replace all forms of welfare and even the tiered taxation model with UBI and a flat tax". The savings that pay for it come from:
1. Everyone on the same tax rate. So you pay 25% on every dollar, you don't get the first $X thousand free of tax, then the next $Y thousand at a lower rate, etc.
2. Reduced bureaucracy due to qualifications testing for existing benefits being eliminated.
The problem, of course, is that the latter isn't really going to work. You can't replace disability with UBI because the average person on disability has much higher medical costs, and they can't exactly solve the discrepancy by finding a part time job.
That is the real problem with UBI. It ignores why we only provide certain benefits to certain people and assumes that everyone covered can just get a job if UBI doesn't cover their needs. So in practice, it wouldn't solve the bureaucracy issue. The best you can hope for is to combine it with a general improvement in public services - making healthcare free, for example, would at least reduce the problems for someone whose disability benefits are replaced by UBI - but that wouldn't solve the whole problem.
He means that he'll doubleclick on the icon for Trumpet Winsock, click on the "Dial" button, beep-boop-beep-boop-boop-beep-boop (pause) hmmmmbeepitybeewhoooooshcracklewhooosh (silence) and then a few seconds later, Eudora will suddenly report he has one new mail message. How do they know??! HOW DO THEY KNOW?!!!
ATV, not BBC. ATV was a rival British TV station, that was part of the ITV network.
To be more specific, Wikipedia says ITC Entertainment, but that was essentially a sister company that produced shows commissioned by ATV's boss Sir Lew Grade.
Buffer overflows are a uniquely C (and assembler) thing. Most programming languages do actually do bounds checking, and will generate a run time error if you attempt to write more data to an array/block/other fixed size container than will fit. Ada is a normal programming language in this respect.
Addressing memory leaks is a more complex subject, but you can reduce memory leaks if your programming language is built properly. You can't eliminate them, because it's always possible for a programmer to keep around data that they never intend to use again, but you can certainly reduce it through various garbage collection strategies.
In Adas case, the programming language's eschewing of (direct, rather than implied) pointers and general memory model is ideal for automatic garbage collection. Ada compilers usually don't implement it because AGC is difficult to make real time, which is a requirement for many Ada applications, but there's nothing stopping a desktop-oriented Ada implementation from implementing it.
It sounds like you're in a bad relationship. This is not normal, it is not normal to think "Nagging" when you think of your spouse. I'm not going to suggest you immediately leave her, but you probably need to sit down with her and discuss where your relationship is going.
I'm sorry you're in such a horrible relationship and I hope you can both take the steps needed to make it work.
TBH I think both are right. We need interaction - sometimes, and we also need the opportunity to hide and avoid distractions when we're working on something specific. I'd like to see businesses move to a more hybrid model, with say one day a week at the office, three days working-from-home.
(If anyone is saying "Surely four days working-from-home", well, I'd also like to see a four day week. And I can see this model actually helping with that - less travel means more time to work, and the balance can probably be attributed to increased productivity due to better working conditions.)
Leaving aside the attempt to change the subject: If you think those three problems are limited to "big cities" you're not paying attention. I see homeless people every day out here in Anytown USA. And right now the opioid epidemic is by and large nationwide. What drugs do you think you can get in the city that you can't get in the middle of Florida?
And crime? Are you kidding me? Seriously? You think crime is something that only happens in cities?
Regardless, the OP is right: it takes massive subsidies to keep suburbia and Anytown USA type small towns alive: what do you think the costs involved are of building massive networks of well maintained roads to nowhere? Why do you think it took legislative action to get the power companies and other utilities to run wires to these places in the 1930s?
Why do you think the cost of living is so sky high in the US compared to most of Europe?
And, here's the thing I don't understand: why do advocates of suburbia feel compelled to force this lifestyle on everyone? It's not necessary, if someone else lives in a city it doesn't impact your ability to live in the middle of nowhere. But no: you guys insist on State-imposed zoning and planning laws making urban development effectively illegal. You take the taxes people living in cities pay, and refuse to let any of it get spent on transit, while earmarking the entire thing for roads to nowhere.
Why not, you know, just let people live the way they want to live?
Quite possibly. Most of what I buy on Amazon is actually sold by a third party affiliate, often associated with the manufacturer itself, who is setting the prices themselves. Yet the prices are cheaper than Newegg et al.
You're paying $100 a year for that "free" shipping. Plus there's usually a profit margin on each item.
Will Amazon occasionally find that there are some customers that cost more than $100 a year? Obviously. Will Amazon find that across their entire Prime membership, the average will ever go above $100? Doubtful. Most of us buy an item from Amazon one or twice a month - given the volumes involved across all of Amazon's customers, I doubt we're getting close to half of that subscription price.
If you doubt this, look at the fact Amazon has been expanding the Prime benefits ever since it started. We get free video, free music, storage, and some deliveries are now one day instead of two. How is it able to afford to do so?
This isn't about Congress, it's about the US government itself. And, frankly, with Bezos and Trump being fairly open about their outright hostility to one another, this story doesn't surprise me.
I had Orange (a UK mobile phone operator) service in the late 1990s, and the plan - at that time - included a similar service, only not free. Used it once (and only once - I wasn't rich) to ask them to find out if a particular restaurant was open and get a taxi for some friends and I to take us there. Wonder if they (or rather their successor, I believe they merged with T-Mobile UK fka one2one) still do it?
You might think "That's what Google is for!" but... it's not really what Google is for, Google could have answered a series of questions and helped me organize that, but it'd still have been me organizing that. Given I was drunk at the time, had Google and Android been around in '98 I don't think it'd have gone so smoothly.
Other way around: pirates will continue to do what pirates do because EME will add nothing that Flash et al don't already do.
Users will, after initially losing Flash, go back to Flash-like plugins except with the added overhead that the video rendering will be done via an HTML5 layer. Flash may have been horrible, but it was at least efficient. Here's a breakdown for the inevitable idiot who doesn't read the entire comment and thinks EME is a DRM scheme rather than a plug-in platform:
Efficient? Flash: Yes. HTML5+EME: OMG.
Secure? Flash: No. HTML5+EME: No.
Platform independent? Flash: Bad. HTML5+EME: OMG, it actually makes Flash look platform independent.
(EME requires one plugin to be written for every single browser+operating system combination. Flash at least existed at a time when most browsers, IE excepted, implemented NSAPI for whatever operating system they ran on.)
HTML5 was one step forward. EME is two steps back.
Democratic primary in 2020: Cuomo vs Dwayne Johnson vs Zuckerberg.
I'm just going to go ahead and slit my wrists now.
They already do to a certain extent, there's a free tier of music streaming that comes with Prime, but a more Rhapsody like service available for a subscription fee. Given they're also selling HBO (and a few other) subscriptions, I can easily see them creating a premium video content collection package.
I'm not really understanding why. As others have pointed out, AppleTV is pretty much a non-player in the market. Prime Sticks are selling like crazy, and Roku (the major neutral platform) has been out in a 4k version for quite a while.
If they were to partner with someone, Roku would make more sense. They already do, in a way, in that the default remote includes Amazon as a one-touch button; Roku also highlights a single content provider (currently Fandango) on their core user interface. Presumably Apple could bid for that role fairly successfully.
This is about the President blocking them, not about not being retweeted by him. I have no idea how confused you have to be to assume this is about the President not republishing the views of others - if your analogy held, it would be legal and standard practice for congressional websites to block the IP addresses of anyone who publicly criticizes them.
I don't disagree, and I don't think he should be using Twitter as his primary means to communicate with the American people. But as long as he is, my point was we have to treat it as an official communications channel.
It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.
Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.
Neither of those are X.org. I suspect you're confusing X11 with X.org - the former is the protocol, the latter is a specific implementation. X.org itself is a fork of XFree86.
But yes, for those wanting an X11 server, those are two options.
Yeah, I'm sure a whole 2.5% in taxes for people with huge amounts of disposable income (with the first 250k untaxed) will mean they'll be moving out into the suburbs.
Just a example, but property prices, whether rented or bought, are typically 1.5-5x the cost in a decent city compared to the suburbs. If a less-than 2.5% drop in income is going to significantly affect someone's willingness to live in a city, they're probably already not living in one.
People live in cities because they want what cities provide that suburbs don't. They're generally willing to pay for that. Oddly enough, suburbanites historically aren't willing to pay for the benefits of living in a suburb, which means the latter have always been heavily subsidized, but that's another story...
Ubuntu comes in many flavors. What's available on Windows is something similar to Ubuntu Server, a bare bones system where opening a new window gives you another terminal session with a specified user. You can apt-get anything you want, though anything requiring a GUI will need an X server, and you won't be able to run X.org.
Be aware you're not getting Linux (the kernel) with this system - everything is running over a compatibility layer over Windows. Almost everything works anyway. The advantage is that it's tightly integrated with Windows in much the same way as Cygwin is. Unlike Cygwin, the Ubuntu environment runs in a file system very similar in functionality to ext2/3/4 (so, no "ls.exe" needed.) The actual Windows file system is at /mnt/c so you can process files on the Windows side too.
I like it more than Cygwin - the availability of apt-get alone to install packages is a major improvement.