I don't know why you feel the need to remain constrained by current limitations when you have access to unlimited labor
You don't have unlimited labor. Someone else does. And they'll just take whatever they want. And if you have any complaints, please discuss it with the armed battle bot over there. Shoo shoo.
We waste a bunch of money on fraud determining who is eligible
You save a lot more, though. In one month, a single person could easily eliminate a dozen non-eligible people from the program, which would easily pay for the expenses.
it was tried back in the 70s in Canada and was a success
No, that's invalid, because it was only a small scale experiment. The problem with that is that you use external money to fund the program. In a full scale version, the money needs to be generated by the people that receive it. That means that every person that gets a job and makes extra money on top of their UBI, needs to contribute a portion of their income towards the UBI program, which makes it much less attractive to get a job.
In the cities you mention it is more likely to die in a pub brawl or get killed by a jealous mate of the girl you look on than by a 'muslime'.
For now, yes, but in the coming years, I don't expect the number of deaths in pub brawls to go up, whereas the 'muslime' killings will continue to grow.
they can't be making mistakes that most humans would not have made
For sure, they will mistakes, and they will make mistakes that some humans would not have made in the same situation. On the other hand, they'll avoid other mistakes that humans often make. The only thing that makes sense is to compare overall statistics, not zoom in on particular cases.
If you compare male and female drivers, or old and young drivers, I'm sure you'll also see different patterns of mistakes. That doesn't mean that one group should be allowed to drive, while the other group shouldn't.
If everybody drives aggressively, traffic jams will get worse. When there are sufficient self-driving vehicles, they'll probably come up with some communication protocol so they can synchronize their strategies and achieve optimal road use, benefiting everybody.
On the other hand, self driving cars don't get mad at other drivers making a mistake and try to get back at them, causing all kinds of dangerous situations.
The fact that it'd take centuries to achieve means that progress would be impossible to measure effectively
We have very good monitoring of CO2 levels. It would be very easy to detect that they stopped rising, or at least rising more slowly. Of course, the climate will continue to get warmer for a couple of more decades, before reaching a new steady state.
There is never much focus on the benefits, only the (potential) downsides.
That's because the downsides are much bigger than the benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Tree ring data matches well with other proxies, until about 1960 when they started to diverge.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
F. A billion years ago, there was an active volcano where my house is, so why should I worry about a fire ?
Plus everything that is not directly related to the plane itself such as : cabin crew, airport fees, service, taxes, yield management, etc...
Don't forget the little bags of pretzels. Significant savings can be made by only serving 8 pretzels in a bag instead of 9.
they attack us in hopes that they can destroy us
Fixed that for you.
A percentage of UBI was clawed back
My standards are 100% of UBI funded by the participants. Was that met ?
Scale models are useful when they fail, though.
Then emulate the X86 instructions. A modern PC should still be running faster than the original did.
Robots are cheap and available today
Nobody's going to hire your robot to do their work, if they can just get their own cheap robot to do it, and pocket all the profits.
I don't know why you feel the need to remain constrained by current limitations when you have access to unlimited labor
You don't have unlimited labor. Someone else does. And they'll just take whatever they want. And if you have any complaints, please discuss it with the armed battle bot over there. Shoo shoo.
We waste a bunch of money on fraud determining who is eligible
You save a lot more, though. In one month, a single person could easily eliminate a dozen non-eligible people from the program, which would easily pay for the expenses.
What if I could purchase a robot that could go out and earn a living for me?
Won't work. Prices of labor will fall to a point where a robot is barely able to sustain itself on the income.
Want bread fine you don't need wheat you need robots that can plant a field
Well, you need a field.
What you don't need to do is trade with farmer Bob or hire him to tend your field. He has nothing to offer you of any value.
Farmer Bob owns a field.
it was tried back in the 70s in Canada and was a success
No, that's invalid, because it was only a small scale experiment. The problem with that is that you use external money to fund the program. In a full scale version, the money needs to be generated by the people that receive it. That means that every person that gets a job and makes extra money on top of their UBI, needs to contribute a portion of their income towards the UBI program, which makes it much less attractive to get a job.
Blaming government agents for starting riots is a good trick to get away with it.
What are you going to do ? Protest ?
If it's still going to have a link to the baby talk site, it's pointless to translate the title.
In the cities you mention it is more likely to die in a pub brawl or get killed by a jealous mate of the girl you look on than by a 'muslime'.
For now, yes, but in the coming years, I don't expect the number of deaths in pub brawls to go up, whereas the 'muslime' killings will continue to grow.
Obviously, the planet can support 7+ billion people
I can jump out of a building, and shout that I'm still alive. That doesn't mean the air can support me.
A lot of them have been caused by the fact that without modern medicine, we wouldn't survive long enough to experience them.
Except that we now have children with fatty liver disease and type II diabetes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Correct, but we're not stopping the average driver, so why should we stop a better-than-average one ?
they can't be making mistakes that most humans would not have made
For sure, they will mistakes, and they will make mistakes that some humans would not have made in the same situation. On the other hand, they'll avoid other mistakes that humans often make. The only thing that makes sense is to compare overall statistics, not zoom in on particular cases.
If you compare male and female drivers, or old and young drivers, I'm sure you'll also see different patterns of mistakes. That doesn't mean that one group should be allowed to drive, while the other group shouldn't.
If everybody drives aggressively, traffic jams will get worse. When there are sufficient self-driving vehicles, they'll probably come up with some communication protocol so they can synchronize their strategies and achieve optimal road use, benefiting everybody.
On the other hand, self driving cars don't get mad at other drivers making a mistake and try to get back at them, causing all kinds of dangerous situations.
The headline comes straight from the source article. I'd rather see that than some lame attempt to translate it, and end up with something worse.
The fact that it'd take centuries to achieve means that progress would be impossible to measure effectively
We have very good monitoring of CO2 levels. It would be very easy to detect that they stopped rising, or at least rising more slowly. Of course, the climate will continue to get warmer for a couple of more decades, before reaching a new steady state.
There is never much focus on the benefits, only the (potential) downsides.
That's because the downsides are much bigger than the benefits.