No, because the 10K could be funded by things such as flattening the tax rates, which means more people just pay a set percentage of their income, which brings in more revenue, but also saves a ton on processing millions of tax returns.
Most people won't see a big change in their actual income from that, but the benefit is that if you lose your job, you have a safety net built-in rather than having to go through tons of paperwork and get shunted into a separate "unemployed" system. It's having a separate system for working vs non-working people that creates a big part of the welfare trap: often, actions designed to pull yourself out of the welfare trap end with them suddenly cancelling your full benefits for even trying to earn a *few* dollars more, so the carrot of greater earnings is outweighed by the stick of them cutting off the money you're getting that you need to make rent.
So, abolish progressive income tax while also bringing in UBI to replace the tax credits we're already paying out. It will mean more social mobility from the non-working to working world, and also give existing workers greater bargaining power. If you know that you can still make rent even if the boss sacks you, you have more power to stand up to abusive bosses. It's all inter-related.
One of those support programs however is tax-exemptions for low income workers. For example, instead of tax brackets you could have UBI plus a flat rate of 20% on all money earned up to 50K or something like that. Set it up so most people never have to submit a tax return and you get many more administration savings.
* I'll go a step further and say that angrily demanding that people who merely advocate for changes through legal avenues should be put in prison is getting dangerously totalitarian in outlook, no matter how "morally right" your cause is. Demanding prison for people who don't respect the *idea* of gay rights is fundamentally no different to a theocracy that imprisons people for being heretics.... We become the thing we most hate.
I'm having a hard time parsing exactly what you want here. You're angry at Mozilla not doing more to the guy.
Ballot initiatives are legal, that's democracy at work. Sometimes people promote ideas that you won't like. Sometimes you promote ideas that *they* won't like. We can't just "sue" people for promoting different ideas through the ballot initiative system, *even if* they're ballot initiatives which promote things which are illegal. e.g.: that's the entire point of ballot initiatives, to change the laws, so *every* ballot initiative is promoting something that's currently not legal. That's the point of allowing them. Mozilla firefox is a private company, they can *fire* the guy, and that's the harshest legal action they can in fact take. They can't "sue" him because they have no grounds to sue: he supported something in his private life. They can't "arrest" him because he committed no crime.
No, the harshest *legal* action they can take is to fire him. It just sounds like you were looking for any excuse to blame Firefox no matter how it ended up.
Because they haven't revealed *which* of the listed proposals will be implemented yet. That estimate is vague because the proposal is vague.
We only know that if it's implemented it will cost consumers somewhere between "lots" and "a hell of a lot". Forcing people to buy products they didn't want causes prices to go up.
ridiculous, Tommy broadcast about ongoing court proceedings. He filmed defendents entering court, livestreamed it and talked about the case. That's just contempt of court, and "perverting the course of justice" and is equivalent to things like jury tampering in seriousness. It's not valid "journalism" because doing stuff like that undermines the fairness of trials. He got what was coming to him.
The judge blocked people talking about Tommy's case, but only because reporting on that would further jeopardize the original case that Tommy was in trouble for broadcasting details of. e.g. they were trying to avoid causing a mistrial which would mean the entire case that Tommy was talking about would have to be thrown out of court. pulling the sort of BS that Tommy did is what causes guilty people to walk free because of a mistrial. so, no, no sympathy for the asshat, he got what he deserved and the courts were only doing damage control to limit the effects of the BS he caused in the first place.
It would not be cheap, bitcoin has a limited blocksize, e.g. a finite number of transactions per block / unit time, so you need to bid a "tip" to the transactor (miner) to get your transaction included in the next block. That can be next to nothing if there's little competition for transactions, but if the rate of transactions goes up, the average tip needed also increases.
There are alternatives to the materials however. They're not banning forks, they're just banning forks made from a particular material. The market will still create disposable forks, because there's demand for the *forks*.
e.g. in nations which don't provide many social avenues or financial support, such as *Algeria* you have near-equality in STEM graduates (41% female). That drops off a lot in nations with good social welfare systems. *Because* women have more choice. More women doing STEM classes isn't necessarily a sign that the society is providing well for women in general. Mainly because things like Engineering and Computer Science aren't just a course you do, they're a lifelong commitment to keeping your skills up to date. e.g. a Comp Sci person is going to be dedicating unpaid hours FOR LIFE to keep up. Women generally want more work/life balance than that allows. e.g. doing a job where you can't "clock out" and have to keep studying after-hours for your whole life, just to tread water, isn't a great idea if you plan to start a family later. Computer Science is the kind of thing that completely dominates your life if you choose it as a career path, you have to be 100% focused on that or you fall behind. e.g. you have to be near-autistic about it to even think about starting. Women are just more *balanced* than men and less of them are one-track obsessive idiots, so less women go into obsessive niche careers. That's not a "problem" for women.
*Nothing* happened in 1968. That's when they started keeping detailed records of the population growth rate. Things were a mess in the post war years, so it took them a while to get back on track.
Also, any time gender in video games comes up they are keen to remind us that women are 50% of game players. But then they fall back on the same "male lazy gamer" trope when it suits the narrative. You can't win.
Also a large amount of research suggests that porn availability etc is negatively correlated with sexual assault, and this includes child sexual assault. I'd imagine that if porn is negatively correlated with rape than sex robots will be as well. It is no less than sexual supply and demand. Of couse not all porn viewers are would-be rapists, but *some are* and by denying porn to everyone, yo'du get more unhappy people and a *few* who turn to rape. (In the same way that if the supply of a product drops, prices rise and *some* people turn to stealing to get it, yet, this doesn't imply that all users of the product are would-be thieves).
Banning unpleasant depictions runs the real proven risk of backfiring and having people live out those fantasies in real life instead. It's the general outcome of prohibition laws, or outlawing prostitution for example. It gives a nice polite facade to the issue that the problem is "gone" but it in fact drves it underground. "Think of the children" arguments are really about protecting the sensibilities of the speaker, and they general reject actual evidence as to whether children will in fact be harmed more by the policy than otherwise.
Also, increasing the wage drives out the worst employees before the better ones. If you're belt-tightening then people start putting more effort in to be the ones that are not cut. Then the shittiest employees get exposed. An increase in the wage attracts or keeps only the better class of employee. So... productivity will increase because of a rise in the wage purely due to the fact that productivity is a bell curve distribution. You don't sack those at the top of the curve when the labor price increases.
Not really. Many coal plants are OLD and near the end of their lifetimes. If demand drops, they'll start closing older plants instead of replacing them. That will dial down the costs.
It's a fairly well known story, but The Monkey Island series was itself inspired by a Lucasarts game designer's trip to Disneyland and experience of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" exhibit. The twist here is that a film adaptation of Monkey Island was in development, but the project fell through. The original scriptwriting team then ended up pitching the basic plot/premise as the Pirates of the Caribbean film adaptation. And this included incorporating many, many elements and plot devices that were original to Monkey Island into the Pirates of the Caribbean universe.
“I asked CBO to run the model going out and they told me that their **computer simulation crashes** in 2037 because CBO can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens,” said Ryan."
So the CBO's forecase software could get *up* to 2037, but not past it, i.e. it couldn't compute figures for 2038. What's the more logical explanation, a "does not compute" error, or that they were using Unix 32 bit time?
> it's actually likely to go down as players get bored and move on to something else.
You're right, but you're not factoring in GTA VI into that. They want to stomp the modding community before they start hyping what's new in GTA VI, otherwise those features will be reverse-engineered.
They recently displayed a GTA VI demo at E3. Up until now, modders were great for sales and retention. But now they have a sequel and they have to hype how much better the sequel is going to be than the last one.
Think about it this way: any new feature announced for GTA VI will see GTA V modders seeing if they can't just mod that into GTA V. Which would take a dump on their marketing. GTA V is the old stuff, GTA VI is where their profit is. Modding isn't for your benefit, it's because it extends the lifetime, community and sales of the product. But now, they don't want that. They want to create a clear distinction by which GTA VI is "better" than GTA V. How better to do that than crushing the mod scene?
... yes. See the data types directly hardware-supported on the 80386 for example, it supported 64 bit numbers in hardware, and your compiler can emulate that in software if the hardware doesn't directly support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's extremely common for CPUs to support a word size double their "bits", e.g. 8 bit machines generally had a 16-bit integer type, used for addressing 64K of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the 10K could be funded by things such as flattening the tax rates, which means more people just pay a set percentage of their income, which brings in more revenue, but also saves a ton on processing millions of tax returns.
Most people won't see a big change in their actual income from that, but the benefit is that if you lose your job, you have a safety net built-in rather than having to go through tons of paperwork and get shunted into a separate "unemployed" system. It's having a separate system for working vs non-working people that creates a big part of the welfare trap: often, actions designed to pull yourself out of the welfare trap end with them suddenly cancelling your full benefits for even trying to earn a *few* dollars more, so the carrot of greater earnings is outweighed by the stick of them cutting off the money you're getting that you need to make rent.
So, abolish progressive income tax while also bringing in UBI to replace the tax credits we're already paying out. It will mean more social mobility from the non-working to working world, and also give existing workers greater bargaining power. If you know that you can still make rent even if the boss sacks you, you have more power to stand up to abusive bosses. It's all inter-related.
One of those support programs however is tax-exemptions for low income workers. For example, instead of tax brackets you could have UBI plus a flat rate of 20% on all money earned up to 50K or something like that. Set it up so most people never have to submit a tax return and you get many more administration savings.
* I'll go a step further and say that angrily demanding that people who merely advocate for changes through legal avenues should be put in prison is getting dangerously totalitarian in outlook, no matter how "morally right" your cause is. Demanding prison for people who don't respect the *idea* of gay rights is fundamentally no different to a theocracy that imprisons people for being heretics. ... We become the thing we most hate.
I'm having a hard time parsing exactly what you want here. You're angry at Mozilla not doing more to the guy.
Ballot initiatives are legal, that's democracy at work. Sometimes people promote ideas that you won't like. Sometimes you promote ideas that *they* won't like. We can't just "sue" people for promoting different ideas through the ballot initiative system, *even if* they're ballot initiatives which promote things which are illegal. e.g.: that's the entire point of ballot initiatives, to change the laws, so *every* ballot initiative is promoting something that's currently not legal. That's the point of allowing them. Mozilla firefox is a private company, they can *fire* the guy, and that's the harshest legal action they can in fact take. They can't "sue" him because they have no grounds to sue: he supported something in his private life. They can't "arrest" him because he committed no crime.
No, the harshest *legal* action they can take is to fire him. It just sounds like you were looking for any excuse to blame Firefox no matter how it ended up.
Does Discord have any sort of relationship with Google? Because that sounds awfully like the kind of shit Microsoft was pulling back in the day.
Because they haven't revealed *which* of the listed proposals will be implemented yet. That estimate is vague because the proposal is vague.
We only know that if it's implemented it will cost consumers somewhere between "lots" and "a hell of a lot". Forcing people to buy products they didn't want causes prices to go up.
ridiculous, Tommy broadcast about ongoing court proceedings. He filmed defendents entering court, livestreamed it and talked about the case. That's just contempt of court, and "perverting the course of justice" and is equivalent to things like jury tampering in seriousness. It's not valid "journalism" because doing stuff like that undermines the fairness of trials. He got what was coming to him.
The judge blocked people talking about Tommy's case, but only because reporting on that would further jeopardize the original case that Tommy was in trouble for broadcasting details of. e.g. they were trying to avoid causing a mistrial which would mean the entire case that Tommy was talking about would have to be thrown out of court. pulling the sort of BS that Tommy did is what causes guilty people to walk free because of a mistrial. so, no, no sympathy for the asshat, he got what he deserved and the courts were only doing damage control to limit the effects of the BS he caused in the first place.
It would not be cheap, bitcoin has a limited blocksize, e.g. a finite number of transactions per block / unit time, so you need to bid a "tip" to the transactor (miner) to get your transaction included in the next block. That can be next to nothing if there's little competition for transactions, but if the rate of transactions goes up, the average tip needed also increases.
There are alternatives to the materials however. They're not banning forks, they're just banning forks made from a particular material. The market will still create disposable forks, because there's demand for the *forks*.
Actually Gender equal nations see bigger STEM gender gaps than sexist hellholes do.
e.g. in nations which don't provide many social avenues or financial support, such as *Algeria* you have near-equality in STEM graduates (41% female). That drops off a lot in nations with good social welfare systems. *Because* women have more choice. More women doing STEM classes isn't necessarily a sign that the society is providing well for women in general. Mainly because things like Engineering and Computer Science aren't just a course you do, they're a lifelong commitment to keeping your skills up to date. e.g. a Comp Sci person is going to be dedicating unpaid hours FOR LIFE to keep up. Women generally want more work/life balance than that allows. e.g. doing a job where you can't "clock out" and have to keep studying after-hours for your whole life, just to tread water, isn't a great idea if you plan to start a family later. Computer Science is the kind of thing that completely dominates your life if you choose it as a career path, you have to be 100% focused on that or you fall behind. e.g. you have to be near-autistic about it to even think about starting. Women are just more *balanced* than men and less of them are one-track obsessive idiots, so less women go into obsessive niche careers. That's not a "problem" for women.
*Nothing* happened in 1968. That's when they started keeping detailed records of the population growth rate. Things were a mess in the post war years, so it took them a while to get back on track.
Sorry to blow your mind, but the USA is BEHIND Japan on penis size:
https://www.pri.org/stories/20...
Also, any time gender in video games comes up they are keen to remind us that women are 50% of game players. But then they fall back on the same "male lazy gamer" trope when it suits the narrative. You can't win.
... unitl they can take a shower by themselves. Having to clean your sexbot would be the worst part.
Also a large amount of research suggests that porn availability etc is negatively correlated with sexual assault, and this includes child sexual assault. I'd imagine that if porn is negatively correlated with rape than sex robots will be as well. It is no less than sexual supply and demand. Of couse not all porn viewers are would-be rapists, but *some are* and by denying porn to everyone, yo'du get more unhappy people and a *few* who turn to rape. (In the same way that if the supply of a product drops, prices rise and *some* people turn to stealing to get it, yet, this doesn't imply that all users of the product are would-be thieves).
Banning unpleasant depictions runs the real proven risk of backfiring and having people live out those fantasies in real life instead. It's the general outcome of prohibition laws, or outlawing prostitution for example. It gives a nice polite facade to the issue that the problem is "gone" but it in fact drves it underground. "Think of the children" arguments are really about protecting the sensibilities of the speaker, and they general reject actual evidence as to whether children will in fact be harmed more by the policy than otherwise.
Women work part time jobs: blame the system! Men work part time jobs: lazy men!
Double standard bite both ways.
Also, increasing the wage drives out the worst employees before the better ones. If you're belt-tightening then people start putting more effort in to be the ones that are not cut. Then the shittiest employees get exposed. An increase in the wage attracts or keeps only the better class of employee. So ... productivity will increase because of a rise in the wage purely due to the fact that productivity is a bell curve distribution. You don't sack those at the top of the curve when the labor price increases.
Not really. Many coal plants are OLD and near the end of their lifetimes. If demand drops, they'll start closing older plants instead of replacing them. That will dial down the costs.
It's a fairly well known story, but The Monkey Island series was itself inspired by a Lucasarts game designer's trip to Disneyland and experience of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" exhibit. The twist here is that a film adaptation of Monkey Island was in development, but the project fell through. The original scriptwriting team then ended up pitching the basic plot/premise as the Pirates of the Caribbean film adaptation. And this included incorporating many, many elements and plot devices that were original to Monkey Island into the Pirates of the Caribbean universe.
Y2K38 bug already leaked over into politics:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
“I asked CBO to run the model going out and they told me that their **computer simulation crashes** in 2037 because CBO can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens,” said Ryan."
So the CBO's forecase software could get *up* to 2037, but not past it, i.e. it couldn't compute figures for 2038. What's the more logical explanation, a "does not compute" error, or that they were using Unix 32 bit time?
> it's actually likely to go down as players get bored and move on to something else.
You're right, but you're not factoring in GTA VI into that. They want to stomp the modding community before they start hyping what's new in GTA VI, otherwise those features will be reverse-engineered.
They recently displayed a GTA VI demo at E3. Up until now, modders were great for sales and retention. But now they have a sequel and they have to hype how much better the sequel is going to be than the last one.
Think about it this way: any new feature announced for GTA VI will see GTA V modders seeing if they can't just mod that into GTA V. Which would take a dump on their marketing. GTA V is the old stuff, GTA VI is where their profit is. Modding isn't for your benefit, it's because it extends the lifetime, community and sales of the product. But now, they don't want that. They want to create a clear distinction by which GTA VI is "better" than GTA V. How better to do that than crushing the mod scene?
"oft enough" is an actual phrase however. There is not grammar or spelling mistake here, only a missing space.
... yes. See the data types directly hardware-supported on the 80386 for example, it supported 64 bit numbers in hardware, and your compiler can emulate that in software if the hardware doesn't directly support it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's extremely common for CPUs to support a word size double their "bits", e.g. 8 bit machines generally had a 16-bit integer type, used for addressing 64K of memory.
The Yugo was a government product without any competition. Betamax survived in a free market for that long. Completely different kettle of fish.