But... that's already taken into account when they've calculated the fiscal multipliers. The delta-value of GDP for a dollar added in one place or taken away in another place is what is worked out by economists. With that correct information, you can make the decision where to extract or add dollars to increase GDP growth. This is *evidence based* reasoning.
There's also the fact that low-income people spend almost every cent they receive. In terms of GDP growth, that's a good job-creator. A dollar isn't just a dollar: every time that dollar is spent that's GDP that's created. Google "fiscal multipliers". $1 in food stamps was found to create about $1.75 in extra GDP. That's because if you give $1 to a poor person who wouldn't have had that money otherwise, then they spend all of it, and it creates jobs as it's spent and passed around. It makes the most economic sense to increase taxes in areas with a LOW fiscal multiplier and spend them on areas with a HIGH fiscal multiplier. It just happens that money earned by the ultra-rich has a very low fiscal multiplier and giving money to the ultra-poor has a very high fiscal multiplier. So, you can justify taking money out at the top of the wealth pyramid and injecting it at the bottom on a purely rational self-interest basis for the working and middle-class, without even appealing to any ethical or emotional sentiment. If you told a computer "maximize GDP" it would increased taxes on the rich and give the money to those who otherwise wouldn't have money to spend.
If you don't support people with basic food you'll end up paying even more taxes to support sticking way more people in prison. USA has 2 million inmates, who cost between $30000 - $60000 each to house per year depending on what state you live on.
If you let people starve to save money, some of them will turn to crime to survive. You'll end up paying a lot more in increased taxes for prisons, police etc. Your community becomes more militarized, and you end up with beggars everywhere, street crime etc. So you end up having to pay more in both taxes, and have to spend more on personal security that you would other wise.
TL;DR: starving the poor is a foolish way of "saving money".
Your argument isn't evidence-based. The counter-evidence to your point is presented in the article summary: recipients of the UBI were no less likely to work than those on unemployment benefits with a you-must-look-for-work component. Your point: already debunked by the study in question. Go get better evidence if you think you know better. If you think this study is wrong, all the more reason to have more studies to prove that. So far, no UBI study backs up your point.
The main thing here is that giving UBI is significantly less-expensive than hiring the army of petty bureaucrats needed to police the poor to make sure they're looking for work. Making them jump through hoops doesn't in fact make them more likely to get a job, so that component is actually a waste of time and taxpayers money (paying a basic allowance isn't a waste of taxpayers money BTW because the alternative is to house much of the poor in prison, which costs about 10 times as much as just giving people basic food and housing and letting them take care of themselves).
Yeah, not quite. Power is always relative, not absolute. Money is the ultimate power, and USA GDP is currently 24% of world GDP. That sounds like a lot, however GW Bush inherited a USA with over 30% of world GDP. USA isn't growing as fast as the rest of the world, and this is making the USA much less relevant on the world stage. We've really moved on from a bi-polar world to a tri-polar world: USA, Europe and China are the three big players. And when it goes from 2 to 3 players it's much easier to exclude any one player from any one game, such as how USA failed to stop Europe from working with China in this case. The fact is, EU+China can do their own deals now and ignore America. That's why going from 35+% of world GDP down to under 25% of world GDP is in fact a game-changer for the USA. People are more free to ignore you.
Seriously, can you ACs stop spamming about Kendall. I see 20 times the amount of these comments than any actual comment from the person you're talking about. Please stop the gossip and talk about the story, or this is just completely hypocritical. Or at least have the balls to post this with your user name.
A large sample size won't winnow-out and differences, because that assumes that the variables are independently varying, which they are not.
If "bacon and eggs" is a common meal, then just taking a bigger sample size won't winnow-out the effect of bacon vs the effect of eggs. This is because the consumption of bacon and the consumption of eggs are interlinked, they're not independently varying. They'd need to do a study on eggs which adjusted for other lifestyle factors and see what incremental difference each egg makes for someone who otherwise eats and exercises the same amount. This study doesn't seem to make any adjustment for that.
The contents might be owned by a different company for the bad-singing version. For example, the tune and lyrics are owned by the writer of the song, not the record company.
Additionally, any interpretation remains the property of the creator. In this case, the bad-singing version is owned by the bad-singer.
Not quite, robots can be internally or externally controlled from a control unit. whether that control unit is a computer or a human is irrelevant to whether the thing itself is a robot. It's a tele-presence robot.
If you read to the bottom of the current article, and cross-reference with other articles, you can see the point is that some people who have defaulted on their taxes or other debts can be barred by a court-order from buying first-class train tickets or booking flights. They're still able to travel economy-class. This is a power wielded by lower-level local courts and doesn't actually have much if any actual connection with the *social* credit system or score whatsoever. TL;DR: the level of reporting on this matter is below terrible, creating a massive confusion about what is and isn't even the social-credit system. There is no social-credit scoring used in these current decision *whatsoever*, merely that you've been declared in default of your existing financial obligations by a court.
To be honest, raw numbers are probably more meaningful there than a percentage. A movie could have a total of 3 votes to see it, and 1 vote not to see it, and be shown as "75% want to see it". However, displaying that as "3 people want to see it" would give you a more meaningful estimate of popularity.
Additionally, if 1 million people want to see something, that's what really affects it's profitability, not how many additional people DON'T plan to see it.
The percentage is less meaningful. The only reason people *would* be positive-bombing the score is in response to the negative-bombing that already occurred. For future movies, removing the entire percentage system would eliminate that dynamic.
IDK how many of those misogynists there really are. They certainly didn't hit Wonder Woman or Alita: Battle Angel, for example.
I'm not saying there are *none*, but explaining-away all criticism as "misogynists don't want to see a thing with a female lead" is a bit simplistic, and we have plenty counter-examples of female-lead action movies that are widely loved (e.g. Alita Battle Angel) by for example the *exact same* Youtube reviewers who dislike things like The Last Jedi and the latest season of Doctor Who. those supposed misogynists seem to get behind female-lead things pretty strongly if they *good*. What people actually object to is the injection of divisive politics into things. For example one anti-Alita review article said Alita sucks because a "man" made it, and it would have been better if Alita had been made by a feminist woman and had overtly fought against "toxic masculinity" in the movie. However, if they did that most people would have HATED the movie. And not because there's a "female lead". most people against cramming politics into everything are also atheists, and we'd get offended if someone crammed Christian messaging into the same movie. It's nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with the fact that it's offensive for people to hijack entertainment to preach at you.
That's really elitist. It's just a tautology that for most people, if 90% of actual people who watched a film enjoyed it, then they'll probably enjoy it too. There's certainly better odds of that than if 90% of "film critics" enjoyed something yet only 40% of normal people did.
Film critics are using a different metric than "is the film actually any good to go see" which is what matters to most people.
> HIgh critic, low->middle audience: Cerebral film, probably will enjoy it if I go in with my thinking cap on
This one was traditionally true, however it's not really anymore. Case in point: Ghostbusters 2016 has 74% positive critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It's certainly not lauded for it's "cerebral" points, but for some presumed socio-political point.
There's nothing weird or Japanese-culture-specific in this story however.
The videos popped up in Japanese Youtube's recommendations due to an automartic algorithm. As more people watched it - purely because of the recommendations system - positive feedback exposed it to more and more people via the algorithm, driving views, but also *autoplay* views. Next, another algorithm counted those views and added them to the music charts rating for that song.
Maybe the reason is that these algorithms were design for international English-speaking Youtube, but they've applied verbatim them to the much smaller segment of Japanese-speaking Youtube, meaning small fluctuations have an oversized effect. The only news is that Youtube and the song-rating people need to calibrate things better for the Japanese market to prevent silly things happening.
... And even then, western teenagers were barely aware of Dragonball until 1996 or so. Probably a number approximating 0% of 1990s teens knew about Alita.
I'm not so sure about the health of Japan's live action film industry as you seem to be. Anime is doing great in both sub and dub, with Japanese live action not doing anywhere near as well.
As for Japanese live-action adaptations of anime and manga, well... there aren't really any of them that seem to be praised, except for ones based on real-life romantic comedy stuff.
> But why not then have a system based on the location of the sun across the globe.
Uh, we have that. it's called timezones. The *local time* has all the contextual information contained in it, and it actually makes it easier to relocate around, since no matter where you are "9 to 5" is normal operations hours.
To get rid of timezones, and make a system where you have to memorize the unique specifics "sun offset" of every possible place, or google when things are open in the town you're visiting, is just re-inventing the wheel, except as a hexagon rather than a circle.
Gunnm is actually one of my favorite mangas of all time (Yokohama Kadaisho Kikou being the other one). I'm going to see Alita in about and hours time at the local cinema, and apparently they have Masaaki Yuasa's 2018 movie playing too so I guess I'll see that tomorrow too.
I kinda need to see it, just hope that they didn't mess it up too bad. Also, it's promising that they changed the English title around from "Battle Angel Alita" to "Alita: Battle Angel". This implies they're leaving things open for sequels and they're not going to try and cram all 9 books (of the original story run) into a 2-hour runtime or anything dumb like that.
Slashdot Mirror
But ... that's already taken into account when they've calculated the fiscal multipliers. The delta-value of GDP for a dollar added in one place or taken away in another place is what is worked out by economists. With that correct information, you can make the decision where to extract or add dollars to increase GDP growth. This is *evidence based* reasoning.
Bye bye anonymous, you'll be "missed".
Can you not even read the summary?
Fuck these readers.
Maybe you didn't read the whole summary. The headline is explained.
There's also the fact that low-income people spend almost every cent they receive. In terms of GDP growth, that's a good job-creator. A dollar isn't just a dollar: every time that dollar is spent that's GDP that's created. Google "fiscal multipliers". $1 in food stamps was found to create about $1.75 in extra GDP. That's because if you give $1 to a poor person who wouldn't have had that money otherwise, then they spend all of it, and it creates jobs as it's spent and passed around. It makes the most economic sense to increase taxes in areas with a LOW fiscal multiplier and spend them on areas with a HIGH fiscal multiplier. It just happens that money earned by the ultra-rich has a very low fiscal multiplier and giving money to the ultra-poor has a very high fiscal multiplier. So, you can justify taking money out at the top of the wealth pyramid and injecting it at the bottom on a purely rational self-interest basis for the working and middle-class, without even appealing to any ethical or emotional sentiment. If you told a computer "maximize GDP" it would increased taxes on the rich and give the money to those who otherwise wouldn't have money to spend.
If you don't support people with basic food you'll end up paying even more taxes to support sticking way more people in prison. USA has 2 million inmates, who cost between $30000 - $60000 each to house per year depending on what state you live on.
If you let people starve to save money, some of them will turn to crime to survive. You'll end up paying a lot more in increased taxes for prisons, police etc. Your community becomes more militarized, and you end up with beggars everywhere, street crime etc. So you end up having to pay more in both taxes, and have to spend more on personal security that you would other wise.
TL;DR: starving the poor is a foolish way of "saving money".
Your argument isn't evidence-based. The counter-evidence to your point is presented in the article summary: recipients of the UBI were no less likely to work than those on unemployment benefits with a you-must-look-for-work component. Your point: already debunked by the study in question. Go get better evidence if you think you know better. If you think this study is wrong, all the more reason to have more studies to prove that. So far, no UBI study backs up your point.
The main thing here is that giving UBI is significantly less-expensive than hiring the army of petty bureaucrats needed to police the poor to make sure they're looking for work. Making them jump through hoops doesn't in fact make them more likely to get a job, so that component is actually a waste of time and taxpayers money (paying a basic allowance isn't a waste of taxpayers money BTW because the alternative is to house much of the poor in prison, which costs about 10 times as much as just giving people basic food and housing and letting them take care of themselves).
Yeah, not quite. Power is always relative, not absolute. Money is the ultimate power, and USA GDP is currently 24% of world GDP. That sounds like a lot, however GW Bush inherited a USA with over 30% of world GDP. USA isn't growing as fast as the rest of the world, and this is making the USA much less relevant on the world stage. We've really moved on from a bi-polar world to a tri-polar world: USA, Europe and China are the three big players. And when it goes from 2 to 3 players it's much easier to exclude any one player from any one game, such as how USA failed to stop Europe from working with China in this case. The fact is, EU+China can do their own deals now and ignore America. That's why going from 35+% of world GDP down to under 25% of world GDP is in fact a game-changer for the USA. People are more free to ignore you.
Seriously, can you ACs stop spamming about Kendall. I see 20 times the amount of these comments than any actual comment from the person you're talking about. Please stop the gossip and talk about the story, or this is just completely hypocritical. Or at least have the balls to post this with your user name.
A large sample size won't winnow-out and differences, because that assumes that the variables are independently varying, which they are not.
If "bacon and eggs" is a common meal, then just taking a bigger sample size won't winnow-out the effect of bacon vs the effect of eggs. This is because the consumption of bacon and the consumption of eggs are interlinked, they're not independently varying. They'd need to do a study on eggs which adjusted for other lifestyle factors and see what incremental difference each egg makes for someone who otherwise eats and exercises the same amount. This study doesn't seem to make any adjustment for that.
The contents might be owned by a different company for the bad-singing version. For example, the tune and lyrics are owned by the writer of the song, not the record company.
Additionally, any interpretation remains the property of the creator. In this case, the bad-singing version is owned by the bad-singer.
Dude, he said upload. He's streaming.
Not quite, robots can be internally or externally controlled from a control unit. whether that control unit is a computer or a human is irrelevant to whether the thing itself is a robot. It's a tele-presence robot.
An actual article with some proper research:
https://www.wired.co.uk/articl...
If you read to the bottom of the current article, and cross-reference with other articles, you can see the point is that some people who have defaulted on their taxes or other debts can be barred by a court-order from buying first-class train tickets or booking flights. They're still able to travel economy-class. This is a power wielded by lower-level local courts and doesn't actually have much if any actual connection with the *social* credit system or score whatsoever. TL;DR: the level of reporting on this matter is below terrible, creating a massive confusion about what is and isn't even the social-credit system. There is no social-credit scoring used in these current decision *whatsoever*, merely that you've been declared in default of your existing financial obligations by a court.
To be honest, raw numbers are probably more meaningful there than a percentage. A movie could have a total of 3 votes to see it, and 1 vote not to see it, and be shown as "75% want to see it". However, displaying that as "3 people want to see it" would give you a more meaningful estimate of popularity.
Additionally, if 1 million people want to see something, that's what really affects it's profitability, not how many additional people DON'T plan to see it.
The percentage is less meaningful. The only reason people *would* be positive-bombing the score is in response to the negative-bombing that already occurred. For future movies, removing the entire percentage system would eliminate that dynamic.
IDK how many of those misogynists there really are. They certainly didn't hit Wonder Woman or Alita: Battle Angel, for example.
I'm not saying there are *none*, but explaining-away all criticism as "misogynists don't want to see a thing with a female lead" is a bit simplistic, and we have plenty counter-examples of female-lead action movies that are widely loved (e.g. Alita Battle Angel) by for example the *exact same* Youtube reviewers who dislike things like The Last Jedi and the latest season of Doctor Who. those supposed misogynists seem to get behind female-lead things pretty strongly if they *good*. What people actually object to is the injection of divisive politics into things. For example one anti-Alita review article said Alita sucks because a "man" made it, and it would have been better if Alita had been made by a feminist woman and had overtly fought against "toxic masculinity" in the movie. However, if they did that most people would have HATED the movie. And not because there's a "female lead". most people against cramming politics into everything are also atheists, and we'd get offended if someone crammed Christian messaging into the same movie. It's nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with the fact that it's offensive for people to hijack entertainment to preach at you.
That's really elitist. It's just a tautology that for most people, if 90% of actual people who watched a film enjoyed it, then they'll probably enjoy it too. There's certainly better odds of that than if 90% of "film critics" enjoyed something yet only 40% of normal people did.
Film critics are using a different metric than "is the film actually any good to go see" which is what matters to most people.
> HIgh critic, low->middle audience: Cerebral film, probably will enjoy it if I go in with my thinking cap on
This one was traditionally true, however it's not really anymore. Case in point: Ghostbusters 2016 has 74% positive critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It's certainly not lauded for it's "cerebral" points, but for some presumed socio-political point.
There's nothing weird or Japanese-culture-specific in this story however.
The videos popped up in Japanese Youtube's recommendations due to an automartic algorithm. As more people watched it - purely because of the recommendations system - positive feedback exposed it to more and more people via the algorithm, driving views, but also *autoplay* views. Next, another algorithm counted those views and added them to the music charts rating for that song.
Maybe the reason is that these algorithms were design for international English-speaking Youtube, but they've applied verbatim them to the much smaller segment of Japanese-speaking Youtube, meaning small fluctuations have an oversized effect. The only news is that Youtube and the song-rating people need to calibrate things better for the Japanese market to prevent silly things happening.
... And even then, western teenagers were barely aware of Dragonball until 1996 or so. Probably a number approximating 0% of 1990s teens knew about Alita.
"teenage"? The manga came out in 1990. no teenager is even aware of it's existence. Troll failed.
I'm not so sure about the health of Japan's live action film industry as you seem to be. Anime is doing great in both sub and dub, with Japanese live action not doing anywhere near as well.
As for Japanese live-action adaptations of anime and manga, well ... there aren't really any of them that seem to be praised, except for ones based on real-life romantic comedy stuff.
Blade Runner, perhaps? There are probably more novel-based examples than anything that can be seen as successful film adaptations.
> But why not then have a system based on the location of the sun across the globe.
Uh, we have that. it's called timezones. The *local time* has all the contextual information contained in it, and it actually makes it easier to relocate around, since no matter where you are "9 to 5" is normal operations hours.
To get rid of timezones, and make a system where you have to memorize the unique specifics "sun offset" of every possible place, or google when things are open in the town you're visiting, is just re-inventing the wheel, except as a hexagon rather than a circle.
Gunnm is actually one of my favorite mangas of all time (Yokohama Kadaisho Kikou being the other one). I'm going to see Alita in about and hours time at the local cinema, and apparently they have Masaaki Yuasa's 2018 movie playing too so I guess I'll see that tomorrow too.
I kinda need to see it, just hope that they didn't mess it up too bad. Also, it's promising that they changed the English title around from "Battle Angel Alita" to "Alita: Battle Angel". This implies they're leaving things open for sequels and they're not going to try and cram all 9 books (of the original story run) into a 2-hour runtime or anything dumb like that.