Yeah, just banning them without proper cause doesn't seem like a smart idea either.
"Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser!"
Even if this is attributed to Lenin, and you may think about him and his ideology what you want, there is some pragmatic caution to this attitude.
Especially after we've already been burned by an ally, who probably took that Lenin quote to heart, it would be foolish to just assume the next big competitor we turn to would never ever abuse our trust and will always refrain from getting an edge over us if there is a chance. By extension it also only seems prudent if the same caution is extended to all other vendors as well.
Are you kidding? The comment section talks about the NSA every fucking time an article like this is posted.
This is why I try to keep my nose out of political stuff here on slashdot. The comment section quickly turns into weapon's grade bullshit polemics and people with mod points only exacerbate it.
Come on. You just stated that WE are not stupid. So I'm going to assume that you include yourself.
Just because the US does not want us to use Huawei for their own selfish reasons, does not mean that we should just trust China and Huwawei out of spite. Turn our backs on one big power that has pissed us off in the recent past, just to become dependent on another big power who? What kind of stupid reasoning is that?
Even if there's no evidence of spying so far, we should still demand from them to let us review all their hardware and code. Get the CCC involved. It's in our own best interest to do this.
BOS is an optical density visualization technique, belonging to the same family as schlieren photography, shadowgraphy or interferometry. In contrast to these older techniques, BOS uses correlation techniques on a background dot pattern to quantitatively characterize compressible and thermal flows with good spatial and temporal resolution. The main advantages of this technique, the experimental simplicity and the robustness of correlation-based digital analysis, mean that it is widely used, and variant versions are reviewed in the article.
Or for those who are not inclined to refuse Wikipedia as a source:
Background-oriented schlieren (BOS) is a novel technique for flow visualization of density gradients in fluids using the Gladstone–Dale relation between density and refractive index of the fluid.
BOS simplifies the visualization process by eliminating the need for the use of expensive mirrors, lasers and knife-edges. In its simplest form, BOS makes use of simple background patterns of the form of a randomly generated dot-pattern, an inexpensive strobe light source and a high speed digital camera.
This in particular is not my field of expertise, but I do work in measurement engineering where I design prototypes for new instruments. And I have a general interest in methods that allow us to visualize phenomenon like these.
Schlieren is what came to my mind as well. The article however does not mention this method. Instead they write:
In an intricate maneuver by "rock star" pilots at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, two supersonic T-38 jets flew just 30 feet (nine meters) apart below another plane waiting to photograph them with an advanced, high-speed camera, the agency said.
Besides of mentioning that advanced high-speed camera they do not disclose the rest of the setup they used. Does this mean that the need for a dedicated light source (replaced by the sun) and a parabolic mirror can be eliminated these days? Well, at least when it comes to performing measurements on these scales.
Modern high-speed cameras are already able to pick up shock waves from explosions, which was a big audience favourite on shows like Mythbusters.
It's good to see things progress and getting simpler.
Ah, the good old Nihilism argument. Because there's no absolute truth, everything is an opinion and the end. And all opinions are equally valid.
However, some opinions have resulted in us being able to converse about this nonsense over the internet at about the speed of light, while half a planet may be between us. Don't you think these are a bit more desirable than those opinions that, to use one other extreme as an example, caused genocides?
But how long did the average player have to practice the game before they could beat it without virtual deaths? I'd wager that most players of these old games have never reached the ending on their own before saving features were introduced.
I would say that this practice made the games still repetitive. So that's not a good argument here.
Disclaimer: Now I'm talking about myself here in a more subjective manner. Your mileage may differ.
I used to play games. I'd still do if most of them weren't just so terrible. What do I mean by terrible?
When I was first confronted with video games, this new form of media thrived on innovation. Practically all games had their unique angles that required the player to either learn new motor skills or new ways of thinking to solve the problems the game posed. You had to learn to master these new skills in order to beat the game, which then was a reward on its own.
Today however, most of the games have to play pretty much exactly the same, because apparently you can't ask from your consumers to learn and train a new skill, which can lead to frustrating experiences if it doesn't work right away. Therefore pretty much every big first person shooter has to play exactly like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Every 3rd person shooter has to play like Uncharted. Every 3rd person action RPG has to play like Dark Souls. And so forth. Then there's also this competitive-multiplayer craze, which I won't touch here because it'll take too long.
From my perspective the few things that make these games different are their graphics and the stories they try to tell. The one thing that distinguishes games from other forms of media -- interactivity -- appears to become less and less important.
So I came to the realization that I do not need to spend $60 every time a big studio craps out one of these games, just in order to get essentially the same experience that I can get on platforms like youtube or twitch (played by a trusted streamer) for almost no additional costs. There's no more need for an expensive gaming computer or maybe a console as I can watch these things on my phone, while I'm on the go. If I want good stories there are even simpler ways like picking up plain simple book or even audio book if I'm lazy.
Now and then I still pick up some simulation games like ArmA or DCS. The odd low budget indy game can be interesting to me. But all in all I've shifted my focus on other, factually healthier activities for my spare time.
Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter.
That would be a rational move from 'our' consumer perspective. Other online services have done this before.
A prime example would be online games, where only one login at a time is possible per account. So you can't have more than one person using the service at the same time. But still, virtually all of these contracts include a standard clause where the provider specifies that the customer is not allowed to share access to their services with any other person. And this does appear to be enforceable at least as far as terminating access to the services goes.
The reasons for these clauses may a bit more complex. For example a provider may not like the account security risks that come with sharing. Sharing your login and passwords can result in a stolen account. This can create additional costs for their customer service, which they do not like. Hence they might just terminate your account for having violated their ToS instead of going through the process of restoring your access. If something like this ever happens to you, know that you should never tell them that you willingly shared access with anyone else!
Then there's also potential abuse for people who sell their accounts to others and then try to reclaim access.
Therefore I do not think that this would actually solve the problem from the perspective of corporations and economists that easily.
Regardless, if I'm paying for a stream, why does it matter who I allow to use it? If that person hogs the stream and locks me out, that is no one's problem but mine. Either I change the password, or I buy another stream.
There you answered your own question. The assumption is that if you do not allow anyone else to use it, those other persons would have to buy another or their own stream.
As far as my knowledge of economics go, all of this thinking is based on the concept of Opportunity Cost. This concept essentially dictates that profit that you could have made equals a loss of money. It can be a useful concept if applied correctly, like in cases where resources are scarce. But when you apply it to information that can be copied ad infinitum without expending any significant amount of resources in the process it becomes tricky to use it correctly.
Of course there's also other angles to this. For example you could argue that the contract made between you and an on demand video provider like Netflix is non transferable as specified in the contract you agreed to.
Imagine to having to wade through all that cerebral diarrhoea that people post on facebook all of your work day. On top of that you get shitty pay that can't possibly cover any psychological or psychiatric treatment.
Losing faith in humanity and descending into hedonistic nihilism seems like a natural progression here.
What kind of person would it take to do such a job?
Bad translation on my side. I don't 'pump' like a body builder does. I train for mountain bike racing. It requires a lot of leg strength for uphill parts but over time and not in short bursts like in weight lifting. Endurance athlete would be more fitting I guess.
It's weird, since sustained exercise like running, cycling, swimming, rowing have been the traditional cardio exercises.
And as an strength athlete (cycling) I can confirm that the daily 1 hour cycling session (~25km through not so flat terrain) does get my heart pumping quite a bit.
I also do my 50 push-ups in the morning to get my circulatory system running. This is exhausting and gets my heart beating at a higher rate than cycling. But this happens only during the short time of perhaps 2 minutes.
The former also burns a lot more calories than the latter and makes me sweat a lot more.
Einstein was pretty good at math and natural sciences in school. The whole failing math thing is based on a translation error as far as I know.
I can't speak for graduate school. When I graduated this wasn't a thing here in Germany.
Today I work mostly with 2nd or higher up (of 7) semester undergrads. From my experience I can say that smart people come in all shapes. Here I mean either motivated people or those who are quick to grasp concepts and can solve their problems without a lot of assistance afterwards. Nurture can work pretty well here.
Up until the 3rd semester I can say that not-so-smart also comes in all shapes. Sometimes it's laziness. Sometimes people aren't really interested. Sometimes they may have problems grasping the material that our courses build on and still try to do it. Maybe sometimes it's because I suck. I can't answer every question they may have on the spot.
I can only assume that most of your grad students already passed what is supposed to be that "great filter" in academia. Which increases the likelihood that dumber, lazy, and uninterested people were removed already. Keep that in mind when you use your students as your sample group.
What game? You may be ask Ubisoft about that one as they've implemented crazy always-online DRM into a couple of their purely single player products in the past. And they got a lot of flak for that.
You may argue that their games aren't really depending on those connections over the internet, after all they've all been cracked sooner or later, but that is certainly what those software studios are trying to make their games act like.
Well, time dilation and length contraction are part of Special and General Relativity. And that's exactly what those wayward satellites affirm. At least these particular news are not about some grand theory of the cosmos. That is until you brought up relativity reigns supreme.
The mathematics and the current system is enough to give us a certainty of about 5m, which is used in conjunction with various types of accelerometers and fibre optic gyroscopes. Accurate enough. We probably would be able solve deviations through time dilation through a lot of measurements using numerical methods, but from what I see, the math we'd approximate is what we already have.
So what do you think the equations are saying exactly? What predictions would your hypothesis make? How would you propose to test your hypothesis?
I mean how would we receive information about something before its information reaches you, which propagates at the speed of light?
So far all FTL phenomenons (like tunnelling) involve loss of information or have not successfully been used for transferring information (entanglement).
This also isn't an all or nothing thing. If I remember correctly even Einstein himself stated that he does not know for sure whether space and time or actually contract. But it for all intents and purposes we perceive the universe like it does work that way.
That's true for pretty much all physical models. It's mostly convenient mathematics to describe some aspects of the universe.
In my line of work its predictions are right perhaps 95% of the time when I work with inertial navigation systems and GPS. And in those other cases it is usually human, hardware, or some other external influence that leads to inaccuracies.
Not being able to predict orbits of objects lightyears away with accuracy is mostly irrelevant for me for example. If you have a better explanation for the rest of the cosmos and can't also account for the relativistic effects of motion and gravity, your model won't be useful for me. But that's just my line of work. It does not rely on the existence of something like dark matter or dark energy in the first place.
Further I would assume that it is irrelevant for most people who are not in the field of astronomy/astrophysics and associated fields and of course some nerds like us. Therefore saying that it is 100% wrong all of the time is a bit exaggerated.
A hypothesis in physics does not need to be 100% accurate either to be of use.
For example we still use Newtonian Physics where applicable, even though they don't tell the entire story.
We still heavily rely on Maxwell's Equations, even though they don't tell the entire story.
Why? They all provide accurate enough predictions in certain fields. Not being able to answer everything does not invalidate their usefulness.
Conversely we're using Relativity and Quantum Physics where it suits us.
The wording in your comment makes it sound like Relativity is garbage at even predicting something as simple as planet orbits accurately.
Do you happen to know a hypothesis that does provide better predictions as a whole?
That kind of is what physics is about. We choose apply and test the models that have proven to be accurate enough for a lot of things. And then you may have some exceptions here and there. There's probably a good deal of trust in Relativity because the models provided by relativity are serving us pretty well.
These days, the majority of people who access the internet would probably do that through their mobile devices. And it often happens outside of the WiFi they have control over.
Coincidentally systems where the developer also made it less convenient to block them than on PC operating systems.
From personal experience, most people can't be assed to do something about it on their own, so they bear it on their mobile devices.
I would assume that a significant part of the population is exposed to their personalized ads.
Now I can't speak from personal experience, since I do block ads as well. I don't have looked enough at other people's ads to be sure what they are getting. But if so many complain about it, from what should be a decent sample size (if taken care of other biases), there must be something about it that bothers these people.
True enough.
To use a mathematical analogy the statement is:
x is not > a.
This leaves the possibility that:
x ~= a; (about the same) or that
x
Although as far as biases go, we'll see. GP pretty obviously does categorically reject the idea of UBI and therefore interpreted a negative correlation into the the gap of the statement. I'm undecided and interpreted no correlation into that gap. Technically both arguments from ignorance I suppose.
Not quite.
The way you are putting it makes it sound like unemployment would rise as a consequence. That however can not be inferred by the information we're provided with.
So, did it work?
That depends what you mean by 'work'.
Did it help unemployed people in Finland find jobs, as the centre-right Finnish government had hoped? No, not really.
Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money. They are still trying to work out exactly why this is, for the final report that will be published in 2020.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
This only tells us that it won't effect unemployment one way or the other compared to their control group.
Of course that still calls into question how effective UBI would be in helping jobless people in finding a job, because apparently it makes no difference.
Now what's left is other data that would be interesting. For example how much did the UBI test group cost in bureaucratic overhead for the state compared to conventional social programs (if applicable)? Because this is also an argument that I frequently hear from UBI proponents. It's supposed to reduce costs that stem from tracking social program eligibility among the citizens.
I haven't done the math myself, but I would be interested to see where or even if there is a break even point between those two systems.
I've only ever looked at google news on my android phone.
There when I swipe right on the home screen I have not seen snippets for a while whether or not the source is from the EU.
Here in Germany I already see an ever increasing number of pay-walled news articles popping up from major newspapers. You'll find these listed on google only with their head- and subheadline.
That is also where most the investigative journalism, where you can find original information, has moved to. Of course besides of being available in print. There's also some freemium articles on newspapers like Zeit.de, where free users can read a certain number in a given time interval, but would have to sign up to get access to more. All while the aggregated news that you can find everywhere are free to anyone.
I have no reliable data (except some anecdotal one) on how popular these pay-walled articles are among the public. My hypothesis is that the aggregated news trash which is usually geared towards this current outrage culture generates a lot more clicks and therefore revenue than most balanced investigative story can do.
Therefore I'm not sure if this will work out for them.
But it appears that this is the direction we're going for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, just banning them without proper cause doesn't seem like a smart idea either.
"Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser!"
Even if this is attributed to Lenin, and you may think about him and his ideology what you want, there is some pragmatic caution to this attitude.
Especially after we've already been burned by an ally, who probably took that Lenin quote to heart, it would be foolish to just assume the next big competitor we turn to would never ever abuse our trust and will always refrain from getting an edge over us if there is a chance. By extension it also only seems prudent if the same caution is extended to all other vendors as well.
Are you kidding? The comment section talks about the NSA every fucking time an article like this is posted.
This is why I try to keep my nose out of political stuff here on slashdot. The comment section quickly turns into weapon's grade bullshit polemics and people with mod points only exacerbate it.
Come on. You just stated that WE are not stupid. So I'm going to assume that you include yourself.
Just because the US does not want us to use Huawei for their own selfish reasons, does not mean that we should just trust China and Huwawei out of spite. Turn our backs on one big power that has pissed us off in the recent past, just to become dependent on another big power who? What kind of stupid reasoning is that?
Even if there's no evidence of spying so far, we should still demand from them to let us review all their hardware and code. Get the CCC involved. It's in our own best interest to do this.
Source: https://link.springer.com/arti...
Or for those who are not inclined to refuse Wikipedia as a source:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Google schoolar places the earliest mention of this method into 2001, which is not that new: https://iopscience.iop.org/art...
Schlieren is what came to my mind as well. The article however does not mention this method. Instead they write:
Source: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-...
Besides of mentioning that advanced high-speed camera they do not disclose the rest of the setup they used. Does this mean that the need for a dedicated light source (replaced by the sun) and a parabolic mirror can be eliminated these days? Well, at least when it comes to performing measurements on these scales.
Modern high-speed cameras are already able to pick up shock waves from explosions, which was a big audience favourite on shows like Mythbusters.
It's good to see things progress and getting simpler.
Ah, the good old Nihilism argument. Because there's no absolute truth, everything is an opinion and the end. And all opinions are equally valid.
However, some opinions have resulted in us being able to converse about this nonsense over the internet at about the speed of light, while half a planet may be between us.
Don't you think these are a bit more desirable than those opinions that, to use one other extreme as an example, caused genocides?
But how long did the average player have to practice the game before they could beat it without virtual deaths? I'd wager that most players of these old games have never reached the ending on their own before saving features were introduced.
I would say that this practice made the games still repetitive. So that's not a good argument here.
Disclaimer: Now I'm talking about myself here in a more subjective manner. Your mileage may differ.
I used to play games. I'd still do if most of them weren't just so terrible. What do I mean by terrible?
When I was first confronted with video games, this new form of media thrived on innovation. Practically all games had their unique angles that required the player to either learn new motor skills or new ways of thinking to solve the problems the game posed. You had to learn to master these new skills in order to beat the game, which then was a reward on its own.
Today however, most of the games have to play pretty much exactly the same, because apparently you can't ask from your consumers to learn and train a new skill, which can lead to frustrating experiences if it doesn't work right away. Therefore pretty much every big first person shooter has to play exactly like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Every 3rd person shooter has to play like Uncharted. Every 3rd person action RPG has to play like Dark Souls. And so forth. Then there's also this competitive-multiplayer craze, which I won't touch here because it'll take too long.
From my perspective the few things that make these games different are their graphics and the stories they try to tell. The one thing that distinguishes games from other forms of media -- interactivity -- appears to become less and less important.
So I came to the realization that I do not need to spend $60 every time a big studio craps out one of these games, just in order to get essentially the same experience that I can get on platforms like youtube or twitch (played by a trusted streamer) for almost no additional costs. There's no more need for an expensive gaming computer or maybe a console as I can watch these things on my phone, while I'm on the go. If I want good stories there are even simpler ways like picking up plain simple book or even audio book if I'm lazy.
Now and then I still pick up some simulation games like ArmA or DCS. The odd low budget indy game can be interesting to me. But all in all I've shifted my focus on other, factually healthier activities for my spare time.
Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter.
That would be a rational move from 'our' consumer perspective. Other online services have done this before.
A prime example would be online games, where only one login at a time is possible per account. So you can't have more than one person using the service at the same time. But still, virtually all of these contracts include a standard clause where the provider specifies that the customer is not allowed to share access to their services with any other person. And this does appear to be enforceable at least as far as terminating access to the services goes.
The reasons for these clauses may a bit more complex. For example a provider may not like the account security risks that come with sharing. Sharing your login and passwords can result in a stolen account. This can create additional costs for their customer service, which they do not like. Hence they might just terminate your account for having violated their ToS instead of going through the process of restoring your access. If something like this ever happens to you, know that you should never tell them that you willingly shared access with anyone else!
Then there's also potential abuse for people who sell their accounts to others and then try to reclaim access.
Therefore I do not think that this would actually solve the problem from the perspective of corporations and economists that easily.
There you answered your own question. The assumption is that if you do not allow anyone else to use it, those other persons would have to buy another or their own stream.
As far as my knowledge of economics go, all of this thinking is based on the concept of Opportunity Cost. This concept essentially dictates that profit that you could have made equals a loss of money. It can be a useful concept if applied correctly, like in cases where resources are scarce. But when you apply it to information that can be copied ad infinitum without expending any significant amount of resources in the process it becomes tricky to use it correctly.
Of course there's also other angles to this. For example you could argue that the contract made between you and an on demand video provider like Netflix is non transferable as specified in the contract you agreed to.
Don't those usually sit at the top of the corporate chain?
It lends credence to scenarios like in Terminator or the Matrix.
Imagine to having to wade through all that cerebral diarrhoea that people post on facebook all of your work day. On top of that you get shitty pay that can't possibly cover any psychological or psychiatric treatment.
Losing faith in humanity and descending into hedonistic nihilism seems like a natural progression here.
What kind of person would it take to do such a job?
Bad translation on my side.
I don't 'pump' like a body builder does. I train for mountain bike racing. It requires a lot of leg strength for uphill parts but over time and not in short bursts like in weight lifting. Endurance athlete would be more fitting I guess.
It's weird, since sustained exercise like running, cycling, swimming, rowing have been the traditional cardio exercises.
And as an strength athlete (cycling) I can confirm that the daily 1 hour cycling session (~25km through not so flat terrain) does get my heart pumping quite a bit.
I also do my 50 push-ups in the morning to get my circulatory system running. This is exhausting and gets my heart beating at a higher rate than cycling. But this happens only during the short time of perhaps 2 minutes.
The former also burns a lot more calories than the latter and makes me sweat a lot more.
Einstein was pretty good at math and natural sciences in school. The whole failing math thing is based on a translation error as far as I know.
I can't speak for graduate school. When I graduated this wasn't a thing here in Germany.
Today I work mostly with 2nd or higher up (of 7) semester undergrads. From my experience I can say that smart people come in all shapes. Here I mean either motivated people or those who are quick to grasp concepts and can solve their problems without a lot of assistance afterwards. Nurture can work pretty well here.
Up until the 3rd semester I can say that not-so-smart also comes in all shapes. Sometimes it's laziness. Sometimes people aren't really interested. Sometimes they may have problems grasping the material that our courses build on and still try to do it. Maybe sometimes it's because I suck. I can't answer every question they may have on the spot.
I can only assume that most of your grad students already passed what is supposed to be that "great filter" in academia. Which increases the likelihood that dumber, lazy, and uninterested people were removed already. Keep that in mind when you use your students as your sample group.
What game? You may be ask Ubisoft about that one as they've implemented crazy always-online DRM into a couple of their purely single player products in the past. And they got a lot of flak for that.
You may argue that their games aren't really depending on those connections over the internet, after all they've all been cracked sooner or later, but that is certainly what those software studios are trying to make their games act like.
Well, time dilation and length contraction are part of Special and General Relativity. And that's exactly what those wayward satellites affirm. At least these particular news are not about some grand theory of the cosmos. That is until you brought up relativity reigns supreme.
The mathematics and the current system is enough to give us a certainty of about 5m, which is used in conjunction with various types of accelerometers and fibre optic gyroscopes. Accurate enough. We probably would be able solve deviations through time dilation through a lot of measurements using numerical methods, but from what I see, the math we'd approximate is what we already have.
So what do you think the equations are saying exactly? What predictions would your hypothesis make? How would you propose to test your hypothesis?
I mean how would we receive information about something before its information reaches you, which propagates at the speed of light?
So far all FTL phenomenons (like tunnelling) involve loss of information or have not successfully been used for transferring information (entanglement).
This also isn't an all or nothing thing. If I remember correctly even Einstein himself stated that he does not know for sure whether space and time or actually contract. But it for all intents and purposes we perceive the universe like it does work that way.
That's true for pretty much all physical models. It's mostly convenient mathematics to describe some aspects of the universe.
In my line of work its predictions are right perhaps 95% of the time when I work with inertial navigation systems and GPS. And in those other cases it is usually human, hardware, or some other external influence that leads to inaccuracies.
Not being able to predict orbits of objects lightyears away with accuracy is mostly irrelevant for me for example. If you have a better explanation for the rest of the cosmos and can't also account for the relativistic effects of motion and gravity, your model won't be useful for me. But that's just my line of work. It does not rely on the existence of something like dark matter or dark energy in the first place.
Further I would assume that it is irrelevant for most people who are not in the field of astronomy/astrophysics and associated fields and of course some nerds like us.
Therefore saying that it is 100% wrong all of the time is a bit exaggerated.
A hypothesis in physics does not need to be 100% accurate either to be of use.
For example we still use Newtonian Physics where applicable, even though they don't tell the entire story.
We still heavily rely on Maxwell's Equations, even though they don't tell the entire story.
Why? They all provide accurate enough predictions in certain fields. Not being able to answer everything does not invalidate their usefulness.
Conversely we're using Relativity and Quantum Physics where it suits us.
The wording in your comment makes it sound like Relativity is garbage at even predicting something as simple as planet orbits accurately.
Do you happen to know a hypothesis that does provide better predictions as a whole?
That kind of is what physics is about. We choose apply and test the models that have proven to be accurate enough for a lot of things. And then you may have some exceptions here and there.
There's probably a good deal of trust in Relativity because the models provided by relativity are serving us pretty well.
Afraid of the Dyson swarm isolating Earth from the rest of the universe?
These days, the majority of people who access the internet would probably do that through their mobile devices. And it often happens outside of the WiFi they have control over.
Coincidentally systems where the developer also made it less convenient to block them than on PC operating systems.
From personal experience, most people can't be assed to do something about it on their own, so they bear it on their mobile devices.
I would assume that a significant part of the population is exposed to their personalized ads.
Now I can't speak from personal experience, since I do block ads as well. I don't have looked enough at other people's ads to be sure what they are getting. But if so many complain about it, from what should be a decent sample size (if taken care of other biases), there must be something about it that bothers these people.
True enough.
To use a mathematical analogy the statement is:
x is not > a.
This leaves the possibility that: x ~= a; (about the same) or that
x Although as far as biases go, we'll see. GP pretty obviously does categorically reject the idea of UBI and therefore interpreted a negative correlation into the the gap of the statement. I'm undecided and interpreted no correlation into that gap. Technically both arguments from ignorance I suppose.
The way you are putting it makes it sound like unemployment would rise as a consequence. That however can not be inferred by the information we're provided with.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
This only tells us that it won't effect unemployment one way or the other compared to their control group.
Of course that still calls into question how effective UBI would be in helping jobless people in finding a job, because apparently it makes no difference.
Now what's left is other data that would be interesting. For example how much did the UBI test group cost in bureaucratic overhead for the state compared to conventional social programs (if applicable)? Because this is also an argument that I frequently hear from UBI proponents. It's supposed to reduce costs that stem from tracking social program eligibility among the citizens.
I haven't done the math myself, but I would be interested to see where or even if there is a break even point between those two systems.
I've only ever looked at google news on my android phone.
There when I swipe right on the home screen I have not seen snippets for a while whether or not the source is from the EU.
Here in Germany I already see an ever increasing number of pay-walled news articles popping up from major newspapers. You'll find these listed on google only with their head- and subheadline.
That is also where most the investigative journalism, where you can find original information, has moved to. Of course besides of being available in print. There's also some freemium articles on newspapers like Zeit.de, where free users can read a certain number in a given time interval, but would have to sign up to get access to more. All while the aggregated news that you can find everywhere are free to anyone.
I have no reliable data (except some anecdotal one) on how popular these pay-walled articles are among the public. My hypothesis is that the aggregated news trash which is usually geared towards this current outrage culture generates a lot more clicks and therefore revenue than most balanced investigative story can do.
Therefore I'm not sure if this will work out for them. But it appears that this is the direction we're going for now.