First, I want to improve our elections integrity. I'm trying to raise funds for that. Internet voting is a different concern and not a short-term target; I intend to design an Internet voting system for government elections specifically to market it to independent parliamentary groups, as I don't want to design a system without considering the needs of a sovereign electorate.
People are up in arms about the Electoral College and will eventually want to replace it with something. Could you imagine if the Constitution specified a plurality popular vote? The outcomes would be horrible. The election would be easily manipulated by clone candidates and momentary media propaganda campaigns, first selecting a candidate in a primary and then exciting the voting base for that candidate's party and leaning the swing voters in that direction. A tiny oligarchy could carefully select the President every term--the will of the elite.
Well we'll put a stop that bullshit right now.
Too many candidates. Voter fatigue. Need primaries. Okay, you get a proportional primary: each party nominates two via single transferable vote, so the party's current lean picks candidate #1 and the remaining sentiment picks candidate #2. STV essentially buys candidates with votes: if a candidate barely wins the first seat, the voters who helped elect that candidate lose their votes in trade for that candidate; if the candidate wins by a landslide, those voters lose part of their vote and keep the rest (hey if twice as many people voted for someone as were necessary to elect them, why should any of those people not be allowed to allocate the other half of their vote to some other candidate?).
Now you have a span of ideals. The extreme, the moderate. You give that to the American people and use a Smith-efficient method like Tideman's Alternative Smith (which resists both tactical nomination and strategic voting). You get a consensus candidate: someone mutually agreeable to the majority gets elected, instead of whomever gets to tip the vote a bit in their direction.
Let's illustrate.
Imagine if 53% of the country voted Trump and 47% voted Bernie in a General Presidential election by popular plurality vote. Obviously, Trump wins.
Now imagine if the choices were Bernie, Hillary, Rubio, Trump.
Some of those Trump voters are Republicans, but not so extreme. Ten percent of them vote Rubio-Trump.
Some of these voters are independent swing voters. Five percent vote Rubio-Trump, ten percent vote Rubio-Hillary, ten percent vote Hillary-Rubio.
The same goes for Bernie voters, some of whom vote Hillary-Bernie and some who were not-Trump voters who go Hillary-Rubio.
You're down to around 20% of people voting Trump first, with many voting Rubio-Trump, Trump-Rubio, or Hillary-Rubio. Many vote Hillary-Bernie, and some stay Bernie-Hillary.
Guess what? You might get Hillary Clinton.
You know what else might happen? You might get a Conservative swing this election, with 25% of voters voting Rubio over Trump, and 20% voting Trump over Rubio. It's not as farfetched as you'd think: Trump got 45% of the Republican primary votes; Cruz got 25%; Rubio and Kaisch got 25% together. We're assuming Rubio got the nomination and is effectively a Kaisch clone.
We're also assuming swing-vote independents didn't vote in the Republican primaries--because they can't.
That means Rubio has the Democrat-leaning independents (Hillary-Rubio), the Republican-leaning independents (Rubio-Hillary), the moderate Republicans (Rubio-Trump), and the never-Trump Republicans (Rubio-Hillary).
So Trump is beaten by Rubio and Hillary. Trump beats Bernie. Hillary beats Bernie, so Bernie is out. Rubio beats Hillary. Rubio thus beats Hillary, Trump, and Bernie, and is the Condorcet winner.
"Named voting," conversely, puts the voter at risk but does a lot to secure the process.
Not really. A voter can always lie about the ballot not reflecting their vote. In theory, we all have random spot checks to show integrity because the 1% of folks who look will see the deviation; but can we believe them? What if only 1% of votes changed and swung the entire election?
Seems like paper ballots + presenting gov't issued photo ID to receive said ballot is a much better process in both ways.
All non-present voting has problems with integrity, as the public cannot observe the voting process. Paper mail-in ballots don't help this, and Internet voting can achieve greater security for complex reasons (it's not much: you can avoid coercion and vote buying through technical means, which you can't achieve with paper mail-in ballots).
All central voting can enjoy strong integrity guarantees, even with electronic voting machines. This requires strict handling procedures; everyone in this field is screwing it up.
At polling centers, the public can observe voting from beginning to end. They can observe an empty ballot box and a guaranteed untampered electronic voting machine. They can observe the count of ballots cast, and the tally of votes at the end. They can verify these votes from published figures later, and recount the election independently. All election integrity begins and ends at the ballot box.
Polling centers approach voter identity by restricting a voter to a particular polling center near their neighborhood. When you show up, they call your name loudly; if anyone around recognizes the name but not the person (neighbors), they're expected to raise issue. Polling centers notate who has come to vote as they come.
We've kept a lot of legacy before photo IDs were a thing. Today's photo IDs are still readily forged, and election staff are volunteers. We don't have professionals trained in spotting fake ID.
To put numbers to this: you have to be a registered voter before you can vote--we track your voter ID with votes, so we know who you are and for whom you voted (I have huge spreadsheets with hundreds of thousands of names, addresses, and elections because I was in a political campaign and pulled voter history from my state). A Kansas gubernatorial candidate was going on today about how they found 8,500 double-voters in a 21-state area in the United States, and 127 non-citizens in the state of Kansas who tried to register to vote (successfully or not, and most of whom didn't actually vote) in the past several years.
That's around 15,000 non-citizens potentially trying to register in the entire United States, projecting by population and adding a little plump (25%); and possibly 25,000 legal voters double-voting (a more reliable number than projecting from just Kansas). That's non-partisan: some voted Democrat, some voted Republican; some voted for the winner and some for the runner-up in their elections, which is more the point, as the overlap cancels itself out and leaves you with the smaller net effect.
I think we're doing rather well. Mind you, one of our local races here in the state of Maryland ended in a nine-vote victory, and recounted to a twenty-seven vote victory margin; I am not unsympathetic about the prospect of tilting a very slim race. 25,000 votes in a 2,000,000-vote margin is obviously not a problem, but what if you won a Presidency by 30,000 votes? Could you really say there aren't actually 40,000 false votes out there? (Of course that assumes a popular vote, not the EC). All of these concerns, while valid, do not change the fact that we've got an impressively-low fraud rate and low marginal impact of fraud, given the difficulty of the problem.
The trade-off is disenfranchisement. We accept these levels of fraud because not only will photo IDs only marginally reduce the problem, but because we would absolutely tamper with the v
I ran for Congress recently. I bought lists of voter names, addresses, the past ten elections in which they voted, and for whom they voted.
The State knows whose ballot is whose. The rest of us don't. I'm not currently engaged in a political campaign, so I don't either (although I can page through those lists when I'm canvassing for other candidates, since the law says I can only use them for campaign and election purposes).
Not really. Popularity and utility are different things. Score voting advocates try to use that argument because they think voting is about marginal utility (finding the candidate most-useful to the electorate), rather than social choice (finding the greatest consensus among the greatest mutual majority).
Think about it. People actually use FreeBSD as an everyday desktop, yet Linux is the most popular. Why does anyone use FreeBSD? For that matter, why don't BSD users switch to Dragonfly BSD? Why aren't versioning filesystems all the rage today? If journaling was so good, why was it only in a few filesystems for about a decade? It's in everything now.
Argumentum ad populum.
Besides that, L4/Minix would be better from a microkernel design standpoint, due to the performance of L4 and its capability-based permissions model. Minix's servers could adjust to run on L4's IPC, which gains you Minix resurrection (driver crashes are a performance issue, but don't break your system). A new kernel built from scratch around L4/Minix lessons might actually be warranted at this point: we've designed completely-different major approaches to operating systems and could implement full preemptability, checkpointing, and kernel replacement (hot patching) from the ground up. This isn't just a refactor; it's complete rearchitecting, and pretending we're "improving" an existing code base is a waste of time.
Fun considerations, but people just use Windows 95.
Segregating complexity reduces complexity. The monolith vs microkernel argument is a familiar model for this: a monolith can connect any part of its code to any other part, as any operation can affect any internal state for any other operation; whereas a microkernel has defined communication channels and segregates blocks of code so they can only affect their own state and the state of information sent to them.
In object-oriented programming, objects abstract and encapsulate state. Polymorphism provides interesting opportunities for robust and flexible programming; yet as complex as this seems, polymorphism, requiring encapsulation, essentially isolates state and reduces complexity. Each part of the program achieves results by interacting with objects which are both self-contained state and the code which manages that state, reducing the amount of state in the global context. While the program still has as much (if not more) state, the code bodies affected by such state are smaller and do not interact with each others's state.
Imagine trying to introduce bugs into that. Your bugs won't be subtle. They'll be hard to hide, too. That, of course, relies on programmers adhering to those principles, and deviating in carefully-considered circumstance--meaning those windows of opportunity to introduce complex bugs get extra attention. Bugs that do appear are thus hard to spot.
Honeypots alert you to activity. A network scan hits them. There is nothing useful on this web server, yet someone tried to browse it. Someone tried to connect to the server's file share. You're able to identify malicious traffic and hosts.
Software bugs don't tell people anything. You put it on a non-networked machine, you probe at it, you take it apart, you crash it, you tell no one.
Ah, right. The battery uses three cells at 3.7V each in series to give 11.1V. The energy storage is indeed higher than the phone's. I'm so used to those devices running on 3.5V that I forgot you need a stronger driver to run a screen and didn't think about it.
That's an extra pound of batteries, unless you're going with lower capacity cells to add the 12V screen driver and not power the phone itself.
You probably would need the extra battery, although I can't imagine this adding much weight: the Asus R11 Chromebook uses a 3490mAh lithium ion battery, while the OnePlus Six uses a 3,300mAh lithium ion battery. Seriously. The same battery in your phone runs the Chromebook for 10 hours. That's an 11 inch screen, not a 13 inch screen.
We live in a strange world. If you actually understood how computers work, you wouldn't believe it. It's like someone trying to convince people Harry Potter is real.
Asus R11 Chromebook weighs under 3 pounds. You'd pack the board and components into the phone; the chromebook is a lightweight aluminum shell with a display and, possibly, a battery. Desktop docking station can connect you to multiple monitors, a surround sound speaker system, wired Ethernet, and so forth, and isn't meant to move around.
You can always carry the laptop case the way you normally would, and keep your phone in your pocket. When you'd normally pull out your laptop, you pull out both and mate one to the other. It's just a processing core.
In Apple's market, it's basically whether your brand can attract loyal, rich customers.
In the Android market, you have more price competition. Actual manufacture and operating cost comes into play more, with slimmer net operating profits. Prices will go up as people demand those high-end $200 SOCs instead of the basic $40 VIA SOC: they want an 8-core heterogenous processor with long battery life and a 256MB SSD on-board, not a 512MB Raspberry Pi with a 1GHz CPU and a slot for a 2GB SD card.
I would like to see something like a Minix-core hypervisor with a virtualized file system, whereby something like ZFS or EXT4 (doesn't matter what) is mounted by a Control OS (analogous to Xen Dom0 or a VM Host OS, but sort of to the side rather than underneath) and its file system interface exposed to the various OSes running on the hypervisor. That is to say: rather than the kernel routing syscalls through the VFS layer to a driver which handles the physical disk, the driver routes those calls to the hypervisor which makes them through a VFS layer that uses an entire operating system as its "driver". The Control OS essentially makes a call to the hypervisor that says, "I am accepting file system commands; here is an ID and a call table".
"Look at me: I'm the driver now." --Linux kernel
Then your cell phone can have an armhf OS (e.g. Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Haiku, ReactOS, Windows 10 ARM) running, with/home mounted from that exposed virtual file system. Conceivably, your phone could run ChromeOS, Android, and some kind of full desktop OS, with ChromeOS exposing the Google drive users and such, so/home/user/Google_Drive is mounted from ChromeOS:/Drive/user/ in Ubuntu or whatever.
Drop into a dock and you have HDMI output. You can pick an OS and load it up. Your cell phone is now your laptop. You can shutdown your full desktop OS when not in use; you can pull up ChromeOS when you don't want to run a full desktop OS (e.g. for better security, which is a huge trade-off in ChromeOS since you're restricted from doing anything).
At that point, it suddenly makes a lot of sense to have a thin phone that costs $1,000. It might make sense to have a sort of Chromebook that's just a case with a screen and USB port headers, designed to fit a standard-sized phone, with each cell phone slipping into whatever carriage made to dock it with such a contraption.
It wasn't paywalled when I went there from Google. The paywall goes away if I delete cookies related to the site and then visit it from Google, but not in an incognito tab using a copy-and-paste of the URL. That's a violation of Google's policies.
Humans have emotional reactions to coffee cups with faces painted on them. This is no different than the emotional reaction you have to a crying child; your rational human brain only reasons, strongly, that the coffee cup isn't really alive. It still bugs you to smash the damned thing; it just happens to be non-trivial to reason to yourself that a crying child isn't real and can be beaten to death with a club to silence it.
by the way, in my opinion, instant run off voting is pathologically bad way to handle ranked preference because anytime there are 3 equal strength parties it tends to not elect the centrist party prefered by condorcet.
A lot of far-left progressives viciously hate centrists, so consider this a feature. I say we need stability; if you want to shift the country left, then do so--the nation is its people; shift them.
1) in multi-precinct voting reporting results is complex since you can't actually determine the outcome at the precint. Now in the information age this isn't that big a hassle since you can report the entire ballot card not just the outcome.
That's the summability problem, also the Condorcet paradox (which is really just Simpson's Paradox). Someone can win the Condorcet vote at every precinct, yet summing them together gets you a different Condorcet winner--unless they won Condorcet by winning the simple majority vote at every precinct.
Generally, you can compute who is in the Smith set by total central computation and keep track of that to watch the horse race.
2) however that reporting has two downsides. First if it becomes neccessary to do a hand recount of ballots it's logistically hard to do this unaided by a machine. and it also has a mildly higher risk to exposing the secret ballot certain voters might be isolated by their unique ranking patterns (see for example, the articles titled "the trouble with triples". )
Yep. I specify that election integrity begins and ends at the ballot box: a hand recount is infeasible and is only theater. Hand recounts always show some error (you get different counts every time). Instead, you use electronic voting machines and produce a count at each EVM and polling place total (totaled on an EVM, which should be demonstrably untampered) of the pairwise results, which should be unique to an equivalent set of ballots. Publish the ballot batches per-machine and per-polling-place for independent verification.
Unique ranking patterns become a problem because a voter can be coerced to rank an exact ballot. You can verify that the voter has ranked that exact ballot if and only if no other voter has ranked that exact ballot. With the integrity mechanism above, it comes down to if anyone ranked that exact ballot at that machine--which means you may want to not publish per-EVM totals and instead only demonstrate the polling center's total. Of course each EVM must assign a random ballot ID to each race as well, and provide a list to connect ballot IDs to voters, and put those ballots in order by ballot ID, thus ensuring that we can't tie whole ballots together and can't tie votes cast to the time and machine at which they are cast.
Keeping ballots secret can be hard when you have small ballot pools. Condorcet systems have all kinds of odd behavior that prevents ballot canceling, so you can't solve this with the (not-really-secure) Threeballot method, either.
3) on hand marked ballots, there's a frequent potential to spoil a ballot with disallowed oval making patterns in ranked preference 4) on paper ballots the physical size of the ballot grows very large to support the varied columns of ovals, and the ballot may well extend to multiple pages if many races are handled that way.
Both solved by EVMs, if you can provide proper election integrity. Today's elections are run by people with no sense of security who lean a lot on theater.
There are real integrity protections in paper ballot voting, such as showing the empty ballot box and tracking how many ballots were given to voters. In EVMs, they put anti-virus software on the damned things. They show up pre-programmed with non-public software images and don't even all have the same software (technicians troubleshoot individual machines right up
Range voting is nice if there was an honest way for people to emit some single valued utility but there isn't so it fails.
In decision-making methods, committees define features of alternatives, weight them, identify the best alternative for each feature and rank that as '10', then scale the others relatively (Kepner-Tregoe method). They add scores to find the best alternative overall. The committee debates the necessary features, their weights, and how well each alternative satisfies these needs.
In range voting, the motives of individual voters are not consensus. A voter may rank a candidate as 1.0, and another as 0.5; the next voter may rank a candidate as 1.0, and another as 0.7. We don't know if these '1.0' rankings are of equal importance, and somehow assume that 0.7 is more important than 0.5 and so deserves more weight when scoring. This is obviously broken, and you can see how this differs greatly from collective decision making in a committee where each component of the ultimate score relies upon consensus.
Interestingly if you take the opposite view and assume every one will game the system to their own advantage (game theory) then the limit case is where range voting devolves to voting either a 1 or a 0 with no intermediate values
Yes, because voting Hillary then Bernie or Bernie then Hillary in a ranked system lets you vote fully for whomever gets the most earlier-ranked votes; whereas voting Bernie but you think Hillary will win requires either voting essentially only for Hillary (vote both as 1.0, but you think Hillary will get more votes overall anyway and you're not narrowing the gap between Bernie and Hillary) or cutting down Hillary (vote Hillary as 0 so she doesn't overtake Bernie).
It then comes down to whether you think Hillary or Bernie will defeat Rubio and Trump. If you've got 1.0 0.5 votes and 0.5 1.0 votes, your winner is going to be in the 0.5-1.0 range average score; yet if there is unity behind an opponent, that opponent's score ranges a 1.0 average. That means more voters can choose Hillary and Bernie--essentially ranked #1 and #2 by way of scoring higher than all other candidates--yet the minority rallies behind one candidate and wins.
You might recognize this. It's called vote splitting, and it happens in our current plurality system where two candidates can get under 2/3 the vote and one candidate can then win with just over 1/3 the vote. In the example above, if your candidates get an average 0.75 score (0.5 and 1.0 evenly split) from 50% of the voters, that's a score of 0.375. The opponent only needs to unify 3/8 or 37.5% of the voters behind their candidate to win. Within that 50%, you can win by scoring your second-rank lower, if the other bunch doesn't do that; that eventually gets you down to a score of 0.25 on an even split.
So you're going with a single-vote pathology, or a vote-for-the-popular-candidate pathology; and if you have two popular candidates, you better orchestrate a tie between them. Voters must consider how everyone else votes. Welcome to Range voting! It looks just like plurality.
A very simple, compact and easily implemented system.
In Tidemann's Alternative Smith, you simply elect the Condorcet winner. If there is no Condorcet winner, you eliminate all candidates not in the Smith set, and then eliminate the plurality loser (IRV). You then re-apply the vote rule.
Tidemann's Alternative Smith is Smith-efficient, independent of Smith-dominated alternatives, clone-resistant, Condorcet, and extremely resistant to tactical nomination and tactical voting.
I have suggested that Smith-efficient and ISDA systems have a sort of Local Participation, in the same way they have Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: while a voter casting a ballot ranking X over Y may cause candidate Y to win where candidate X would have won had that voter not voted at al
Your memory is faulty. It's harder to remember things that activate fewer neurons, and easier to remember those which activate many. More associations means better memory. Indexing increases the number of neurons activated, thus mnemonic recall. Storage is effective, but finding the data later is difficult.
I know these things for two reasons. First, of course, is because I've studied human memory from a neurological standpoint when trying to improve my own. That's the kind of thing you come across in everyday mnemonists who compete in international forums to memorize decks of cards.
The second reason is simple: your memory is a hopfield. That's a specific type of neural network, and one frequently used in artificial neural networks.
Your brain has a lot of inputs and separate organs devoted to particular tasks. It's a collection of neural networks, and designing something similar in capability but with a silicon substrate is a reasonable task.
You're just another machine. We concern ourselves with these things because we have an experience as such machines; people are simply bad at distinguishing a mimicry from a consciousness.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where adults didn't have sentimentality or empathy.
Some of us operate on numerical logic all the time. There are numerous thought experiments where you propose inaction will lead to the death of several innocents, while action will divert the crisis to a single bystander. The correct answer is always action: the numerical calculus is between several innocent lives or one, and abstinence is a choice.
People withdraw from many situations to keep their hands clean. They take actions to divert people and blame them for the suffering they face, reasoning that the people who are hurt should have known better. Some folks have suggested we put land mines on the border, and the Mexican families fleeing into our country who get blown up aren't our fault because they should know better than to cross an active minefield--as if you didn't force them to choose between whatever has driven them to flee their lives and the risk of horrible death. Those who stay behind are persecuted or murdered by drug lords; those who cross...well, more of them die by your devices. You disclaim responsibility.
Well the numerical calculus shows the death toll among innocents increases, the suffering of innocents increases, and your own high ideals do not protect a greater number of innocents. You are guilty of murder.
People don't think in this way. They think in terms of their fears, their sympathies, and their illusions. If you want to murder a thousand starving children, introduce a sick child to a politician and convince them the steps necessary to save those many children would harm this one child. Their conscience will lead them to sacrifice the many for the few.
It doesn't work on me. I always consider how much blood I'm going to get on my hands. It might hurt, but I can still look you in the eye while admitting I can't help you.
It's not crazy, just complex and new. We have things like unemployment insurance and disability pensions already; the policy I designed is basically a social insurance. Overall, it's a logistically-purified form of what the Nordic nations do, allowing us to manage means-tested welfares while also taking advantage of an egalitarian social insurance.
The Nordic nations make their basic social insurances more-egalitarian--unemployment insurance, for example, pays quite a bit and you can be on it for something like 7 years(!), while many services simply pay to anyone regardless of income. This is a kind of roundabout way to redistribute a portion of incomes to poverty areas, essentially making all your social insurances and welfare services leak by paying to people who don't really need it because the economy needs it. We can, instead, simply distribute a portion of incomes, and then not worry about the impacts on that when we adjust welfare services (separate the two functions).
Unless you just want to provide full food stamps and HUD housing assistance to everyone making under $40k, and phase it out until about $80k.
All the odd things that pop out are a consequence of improving economic marginal efficiencies. Imagine if your nation implemented an economic policy of raising unemployment and then imprisoning the poor. You raise taxes on the middle-class so they can buy less (fewer jobs), lock people up in prisons, and use the tax money to feed and manage them. Over time, your labor force adjusts (fewer immigrant laborers and babies born), and unemployment comes down from 10% to 5%.
Now: imagine if you elected someone who said, "What the hell are we all doing?!" and then got those people out of prison, provided them welfare, moved them into jobs so they're making an income that can be taxed, and reduced taxes. There's now more income, people can buy more than what they were being supplied in prison, and the prison economy integrates into the regular economy. Those prison people are still consumers of what they were in prison, but also now are consumers of things they didn't produce in prison. They make hardly a dent in unemployment themselves--about 0.2%--but you suddenly need 10% more labor to keep up with the purchasing power of your population, and you don't have it.
That's basically what the Dividend is: it resolves localized recessions and enables greater productivity; the shock is kind of ludicrous. You handle the shock by balancing it against a cut in productivity--doable by reducing working hours and retaining the same minimum annual wages.
No, salaried workers actually don't receive overtime pay at all right now for excess hours. Hourly workers are supposed to receive 1.5x their compensation--meaning if your employer pays you $30k ($15/hr) and spends $9k on healthcare and $1k on disability insurance, you need time-and-a-half based on $40k ($20/hr). They owe you $30/hr, not $22.50/hr. If you got a bonus, you also get time-and-half on that.
Many employers get this wrong. Enforcement is practically nonexistent.
clovis apparently had to be a functional member of society who could physically travel to other states, take days off work, spend hundreds of dollars, and get lawyers involved. What about the poors who are barely able to make rent?
You can for example, as Nestle, publish the blockchain and then all sorts of consumers and agencies can "join" this blockchain and as long as no single party owns a majority of the nodes
I've thought of using my access to several billion IP addresses to join bitcoin as the majority shareholder and manipulate the network, just to make it go away when people realize you can do that. There's a legal problem: I can't figure out who "owns" bitcoin, and it is impossible to commit a Federal crime against a computer service with no owner.
There are two big advantages of a block chain vs a traditional database here. That's a lot of different companies involved, in including a few trucking companies. They don't all use the same Oracle database, especially not the local farmer. Block chain is designed for many different people to be able to use it, adding entries, without conflicting with other in any way.
There are 14 standards. We've made a standard to unite them all.
See the problem?
Let me spell it out for you: They don't all use the same Oracle database, so you stood up another Oracle database so they can all use that.
You should see the argument I have with score voting proponents. The biggest one--and the most ludicrous--has "Blockchain" in his name. He insists that elections aren't about electing the candidate the voters most agree upon, but rather on electing the "best" candidate with the most "marginal utility" based on how many points voters give candidates--and that this is totally-immune to tactical voting because the best strategy is to vote honestly.
It's like arguing with a flat earther, or a UBI automation luddite (I support a universal dividend, but not for any imaginary "all jobs are going away" bullshit reason), or a blockchain enthusiast.
A variable-rate flat tax is the tax system many imagine our progressive tax system is: rather than taxing income in a bracket at a rate (as our tax system does now), it taxes all income at the bracket rate.
The tax rate for the Dividend is fixed--it's a 12.5% FICA, technically a social insurance premium (like the OASDI tax that feeds Social Security's retirement and disability benefits). It never changes year-to-year or per-person. There is also a progressive tax system (not variable-rate flat tax) next to this to feed the general fund.
The difference from a UBI is there's no calculation that determines how much benefit you should receive: you aren't entitled to an income sufficient for your basic needs, or anything else. There is so much money (income), and you're entitled to a piece of it. That makes it a form of demogrant, although it still falls outside what many people envision as a UBI today.
UBI is often defined simply as a demogrant (money given to everyone), which means UBI can mean literally anything involving giving everyone money. When the Federal government gave everyone $300 that one year, that was an unconditional demogrant; if they did that every year, that would be a universal basic income. $300/year isn't what anyone would really call a "Universal Basic Income".
The Dividend is a descendant from the common idea of a UBI by being a universal grant of a piece of all income, but not a grant of some specific buying power. It's not assistance to cover housing, food, or anything else. If the economy experiences a recession and GNI-per-Capita drops by 20% somehow (how is your economy not dead?), the Dividend likewise drops 20%--there shall be no intervention; deal with it.
My observation is that the Dividend strongly impacts localized recession (concentrated poverty) and rebuilds the economy around those in need, allowing welfare to keep them afloat while we bring them jobs and the general means of survival. It's not designed to hold you up on its own, nor to be the only social insurance in town. It is therefor enough for it to be what it is, and the humans can tinker with the other social welfares when necessary.
tl;dr: it's technically a social insurance, like unemployment or Social Security Disability benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I want to improve our elections integrity. I'm trying to raise funds for that. Internet voting is a different concern and not a short-term target; I intend to design an Internet voting system for government elections specifically to market it to independent parliamentary groups, as I don't want to design a system without considering the needs of a sovereign electorate.
People are up in arms about the Electoral College and will eventually want to replace it with something. Could you imagine if the Constitution specified a plurality popular vote? The outcomes would be horrible. The election would be easily manipulated by clone candidates and momentary media propaganda campaigns, first selecting a candidate in a primary and then exciting the voting base for that candidate's party and leaning the swing voters in that direction. A tiny oligarchy could carefully select the President every term--the will of the elite.
Well we'll put a stop that bullshit right now.
Too many candidates. Voter fatigue. Need primaries. Okay, you get a proportional primary: each party nominates two via single transferable vote, so the party's current lean picks candidate #1 and the remaining sentiment picks candidate #2. STV essentially buys candidates with votes: if a candidate barely wins the first seat, the voters who helped elect that candidate lose their votes in trade for that candidate; if the candidate wins by a landslide, those voters lose part of their vote and keep the rest (hey if twice as many people voted for someone as were necessary to elect them, why should any of those people not be allowed to allocate the other half of their vote to some other candidate?).
Now you have a span of ideals. The extreme, the moderate. You give that to the American people and use a Smith-efficient method like Tideman's Alternative Smith (which resists both tactical nomination and strategic voting). You get a consensus candidate: someone mutually agreeable to the majority gets elected, instead of whomever gets to tip the vote a bit in their direction.
Let's illustrate.
Imagine if 53% of the country voted Trump and 47% voted Bernie in a General Presidential election by popular plurality vote. Obviously, Trump wins.
Now imagine if the choices were Bernie, Hillary, Rubio, Trump.
Some of those Trump voters are Republicans, but not so extreme. Ten percent of them vote Rubio-Trump.
Some of these voters are independent swing voters. Five percent vote Rubio-Trump, ten percent vote Rubio-Hillary, ten percent vote Hillary-Rubio.
The same goes for Bernie voters, some of whom vote Hillary-Bernie and some who were not-Trump voters who go Hillary-Rubio.
You're down to around 20% of people voting Trump first, with many voting Rubio-Trump, Trump-Rubio, or Hillary-Rubio. Many vote Hillary-Bernie, and some stay Bernie-Hillary.
Guess what? You might get Hillary Clinton.
You know what else might happen? You might get a Conservative swing this election, with 25% of voters voting Rubio over Trump, and 20% voting Trump over Rubio. It's not as farfetched as you'd think: Trump got 45% of the Republican primary votes; Cruz got 25%; Rubio and Kaisch got 25% together. We're assuming Rubio got the nomination and is effectively a Kaisch clone.
We're also assuming swing-vote independents didn't vote in the Republican primaries--because they can't.
That means Rubio has the Democrat-leaning independents (Hillary-Rubio), the Republican-leaning independents (Rubio-Hillary), the moderate Republicans (Rubio-Trump), and the never-Trump Republicans (Rubio-Hillary).
So Trump is beaten by Rubio and Hillary. Trump beats Bernie. Hillary beats Bernie, so Bernie is out. Rubio beats Hillary. Rubio thus beats Hillary, Trump, and Bernie, and is the Condorcet winner.
"Named voting," conversely, puts the voter at risk but does a lot to secure the process.
Not really. A voter can always lie about the ballot not reflecting their vote. In theory, we all have random spot checks to show integrity because the 1% of folks who look will see the deviation; but can we believe them? What if only 1% of votes changed and swung the entire election?
Seems like paper ballots + presenting gov't issued photo ID to receive said ballot is a much better process in both ways.
All non-present voting has problems with integrity, as the public cannot observe the voting process. Paper mail-in ballots don't help this, and Internet voting can achieve greater security for complex reasons (it's not much: you can avoid coercion and vote buying through technical means, which you can't achieve with paper mail-in ballots).
All central voting can enjoy strong integrity guarantees, even with electronic voting machines. This requires strict handling procedures; everyone in this field is screwing it up.
At polling centers, the public can observe voting from beginning to end. They can observe an empty ballot box and a guaranteed untampered electronic voting machine. They can observe the count of ballots cast, and the tally of votes at the end. They can verify these votes from published figures later, and recount the election independently. All election integrity begins and ends at the ballot box.
Polling centers approach voter identity by restricting a voter to a particular polling center near their neighborhood. When you show up, they call your name loudly; if anyone around recognizes the name but not the person (neighbors), they're expected to raise issue. Polling centers notate who has come to vote as they come.
We've kept a lot of legacy before photo IDs were a thing. Today's photo IDs are still readily forged, and election staff are volunteers. We don't have professionals trained in spotting fake ID.
To put numbers to this: you have to be a registered voter before you can vote--we track your voter ID with votes, so we know who you are and for whom you voted (I have huge spreadsheets with hundreds of thousands of names, addresses, and elections because I was in a political campaign and pulled voter history from my state). A Kansas gubernatorial candidate was going on today about how they found 8,500 double-voters in a 21-state area in the United States, and 127 non-citizens in the state of Kansas who tried to register to vote (successfully or not, and most of whom didn't actually vote) in the past several years.
That's around 15,000 non-citizens potentially trying to register in the entire United States, projecting by population and adding a little plump (25%); and possibly 25,000 legal voters double-voting (a more reliable number than projecting from just Kansas). That's non-partisan: some voted Democrat, some voted Republican; some voted for the winner and some for the runner-up in their elections, which is more the point, as the overlap cancels itself out and leaves you with the smaller net effect.
I think we're doing rather well. Mind you, one of our local races here in the state of Maryland ended in a nine-vote victory, and recounted to a twenty-seven vote victory margin; I am not unsympathetic about the prospect of tilting a very slim race. 25,000 votes in a 2,000,000-vote margin is obviously not a problem, but what if you won a Presidency by 30,000 votes? Could you really say there aren't actually 40,000 false votes out there? (Of course that assumes a popular vote, not the EC). All of these concerns, while valid, do not change the fact that we've got an impressively-low fraud rate and low marginal impact of fraud, given the difficulty of the problem.
The trade-off is disenfranchisement. We accept these levels of fraud because not only will photo IDs only marginally reduce the problem, but because we would absolutely tamper with the v
I ran for Congress recently. I bought lists of voter names, addresses, the past ten elections in which they voted, and for whom they voted.
The State knows whose ballot is whose. The rest of us don't. I'm not currently engaged in a political campaign, so I don't either (although I can page through those lists when I'm canvassing for other candidates, since the law says I can only use them for campaign and election purposes).
Not really. Popularity and utility are different things. Score voting advocates try to use that argument because they think voting is about marginal utility (finding the candidate most-useful to the electorate), rather than social choice (finding the greatest consensus among the greatest mutual majority).
Think about it. People actually use FreeBSD as an everyday desktop, yet Linux is the most popular. Why does anyone use FreeBSD? For that matter, why don't BSD users switch to Dragonfly BSD? Why aren't versioning filesystems all the rage today? If journaling was so good, why was it only in a few filesystems for about a decade? It's in everything now.
Argumentum ad populum.
Besides that, L4/Minix would be better from a microkernel design standpoint, due to the performance of L4 and its capability-based permissions model. Minix's servers could adjust to run on L4's IPC, which gains you Minix resurrection (driver crashes are a performance issue, but don't break your system). A new kernel built from scratch around L4/Minix lessons might actually be warranted at this point: we've designed completely-different major approaches to operating systems and could implement full preemptability, checkpointing, and kernel replacement (hot patching) from the ground up. This isn't just a refactor; it's complete rearchitecting, and pretending we're "improving" an existing code base is a waste of time.
Fun considerations, but people just use Windows 95.
Segregating complexity reduces complexity. The monolith vs microkernel argument is a familiar model for this: a monolith can connect any part of its code to any other part, as any operation can affect any internal state for any other operation; whereas a microkernel has defined communication channels and segregates blocks of code so they can only affect their own state and the state of information sent to them.
In object-oriented programming, objects abstract and encapsulate state. Polymorphism provides interesting opportunities for robust and flexible programming; yet as complex as this seems, polymorphism, requiring encapsulation, essentially isolates state and reduces complexity. Each part of the program achieves results by interacting with objects which are both self-contained state and the code which manages that state, reducing the amount of state in the global context. While the program still has as much (if not more) state, the code bodies affected by such state are smaller and do not interact with each others's state.
Imagine trying to introduce bugs into that. Your bugs won't be subtle. They'll be hard to hide, too. That, of course, relies on programmers adhering to those principles, and deviating in carefully-considered circumstance--meaning those windows of opportunity to introduce complex bugs get extra attention. Bugs that do appear are thus hard to spot.
Honeypots alert you to activity. A network scan hits them. There is nothing useful on this web server, yet someone tried to browse it. Someone tried to connect to the server's file share. You're able to identify malicious traffic and hosts.
Software bugs don't tell people anything. You put it on a non-networked machine, you probe at it, you take it apart, you crash it, you tell no one.
Ah, right. The battery uses three cells at 3.7V each in series to give 11.1V. The energy storage is indeed higher than the phone's. I'm so used to those devices running on 3.5V that I forgot you need a stronger driver to run a screen and didn't think about it.
That's an extra pound of batteries, unless you're going with lower capacity cells to add the 12V screen driver and not power the phone itself.
Many Android phones had three little metal dots on the side. Those output HDMI. Likewise, many phones now have USB Type-C, which can carry audio, HDMI, and wired Ethernet (the specification allows particular pins to carry things not encapsulated by USB protocol--it even provides straight four-pin analogue stereo audio with microphone in both Nokia and Standard pin-outs).
You probably would need the extra battery, although I can't imagine this adding much weight: the Asus R11 Chromebook uses a 3490mAh lithium ion battery, while the OnePlus Six uses a 3,300mAh lithium ion battery. Seriously. The same battery in your phone runs the Chromebook for 10 hours. That's an 11 inch screen, not a 13 inch screen.
We live in a strange world. If you actually understood how computers work, you wouldn't believe it. It's like someone trying to convince people Harry Potter is real.
Asus R11 Chromebook weighs under 3 pounds. You'd pack the board and components into the phone; the chromebook is a lightweight aluminum shell with a display and, possibly, a battery. Desktop docking station can connect you to multiple monitors, a surround sound speaker system, wired Ethernet, and so forth, and isn't meant to move around.
You can always carry the laptop case the way you normally would, and keep your phone in your pocket. When you'd normally pull out your laptop, you pull out both and mate one to the other. It's just a processing core.
In Apple's market, it's basically whether your brand can attract loyal, rich customers.
In the Android market, you have more price competition. Actual manufacture and operating cost comes into play more, with slimmer net operating profits. Prices will go up as people demand those high-end $200 SOCs instead of the basic $40 VIA SOC: they want an 8-core heterogenous processor with long battery life and a 256MB SSD on-board, not a 512MB Raspberry Pi with a 1GHz CPU and a slot for a 2GB SD card.
I would like to see something like a Minix-core hypervisor with a virtualized file system, whereby something like ZFS or EXT4 (doesn't matter what) is mounted by a Control OS (analogous to Xen Dom0 or a VM Host OS, but sort of to the side rather than underneath) and its file system interface exposed to the various OSes running on the hypervisor. That is to say: rather than the kernel routing syscalls through the VFS layer to a driver which handles the physical disk, the driver routes those calls to the hypervisor which makes them through a VFS layer that uses an entire operating system as its "driver". The Control OS essentially makes a call to the hypervisor that says, "I am accepting file system commands; here is an ID and a call table".
"Look at me: I'm the driver now." --Linux kernel
Then your cell phone can have an armhf OS (e.g. Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Haiku, ReactOS, Windows 10 ARM) running, with /home mounted from that exposed virtual file system. Conceivably, your phone could run ChromeOS, Android, and some kind of full desktop OS, with ChromeOS exposing the Google drive users and such, so /home/user/Google_Drive is mounted from ChromeOS:/Drive/user/ in Ubuntu or whatever.
Drop into a dock and you have HDMI output. You can pick an OS and load it up. Your cell phone is now your laptop. You can shutdown your full desktop OS when not in use; you can pull up ChromeOS when you don't want to run a full desktop OS (e.g. for better security, which is a huge trade-off in ChromeOS since you're restricted from doing anything).
At that point, it suddenly makes a lot of sense to have a thin phone that costs $1,000. It might make sense to have a sort of Chromebook that's just a case with a screen and USB port headers, designed to fit a standard-sized phone, with each cell phone slipping into whatever carriage made to dock it with such a contraption.
Convergence.
It wasn't paywalled when I went there from Google. The paywall goes away if I delete cookies related to the site and then visit it from Google, but not in an incognito tab using a copy-and-paste of the URL. That's a violation of Google's policies.
Humans have emotional reactions to coffee cups with faces painted on them. This is no different than the emotional reaction you have to a crying child; your rational human brain only reasons, strongly, that the coffee cup isn't really alive. It still bugs you to smash the damned thing; it just happens to be non-trivial to reason to yourself that a crying child isn't real and can be beaten to death with a club to silence it.
by the way, in my opinion, instant run off voting is pathologically bad way to handle ranked preference because anytime there are 3 equal strength parties it tends to not elect the centrist party prefered by condorcet.
A lot of far-left progressives viciously hate centrists, so consider this a feature. I say we need stability; if you want to shift the country left, then do so--the nation is its people; shift them.
1) in multi-precinct voting reporting results is complex since you can't actually determine the outcome at the precint. Now in the information age this isn't that big a hassle since you can report the entire ballot card not just the outcome.
That's the summability problem, also the Condorcet paradox (which is really just Simpson's Paradox). Someone can win the Condorcet vote at every precinct, yet summing them together gets you a different Condorcet winner--unless they won Condorcet by winning the simple majority vote at every precinct.
Generally, you can compute who is in the Smith set by total central computation and keep track of that to watch the horse race.
2) however that reporting has two downsides. First if it becomes neccessary to do a hand recount of ballots it's logistically hard to do this unaided by a machine. and it also has a mildly higher risk to exposing the secret ballot certain voters might be isolated by their unique ranking patterns (see for example, the articles titled "the trouble with triples". )
Yep. I specify that election integrity begins and ends at the ballot box: a hand recount is infeasible and is only theater. Hand recounts always show some error (you get different counts every time). Instead, you use electronic voting machines and produce a count at each EVM and polling place total (totaled on an EVM, which should be demonstrably untampered) of the pairwise results, which should be unique to an equivalent set of ballots. Publish the ballot batches per-machine and per-polling-place for independent verification.
Unique ranking patterns become a problem because a voter can be coerced to rank an exact ballot. You can verify that the voter has ranked that exact ballot if and only if no other voter has ranked that exact ballot. With the integrity mechanism above, it comes down to if anyone ranked that exact ballot at that machine--which means you may want to not publish per-EVM totals and instead only demonstrate the polling center's total. Of course each EVM must assign a random ballot ID to each race as well, and provide a list to connect ballot IDs to voters, and put those ballots in order by ballot ID, thus ensuring that we can't tie whole ballots together and can't tie votes cast to the time and machine at which they are cast.
Keeping ballots secret can be hard when you have small ballot pools. Condorcet systems have all kinds of odd behavior that prevents ballot canceling, so you can't solve this with the (not-really-secure) Threeballot method, either.
3) on hand marked ballots, there's a frequent potential to spoil a ballot with disallowed oval making patterns in ranked preference 4) on paper ballots the physical size of the ballot grows very large to support the varied columns of ovals, and the ballot may well extend to multiple pages if many races are handled that way.
Both solved by EVMs, if you can provide proper election integrity. Today's elections are run by people with no sense of security who lean a lot on theater.
There are real integrity protections in paper ballot voting, such as showing the empty ballot box and tracking how many ballots were given to voters. In EVMs, they put anti-virus software on the damned things. They show up pre-programmed with non-public software images and don't even all have the same software (technicians troubleshoot individual machines right up
Range voting is nice if there was an honest way for people to emit some single valued utility but there isn't so it fails.
In decision-making methods, committees define features of alternatives, weight them, identify the best alternative for each feature and rank that as '10', then scale the others relatively (Kepner-Tregoe method). They add scores to find the best alternative overall. The committee debates the necessary features, their weights, and how well each alternative satisfies these needs.
In range voting, the motives of individual voters are not consensus. A voter may rank a candidate as 1.0, and another as 0.5; the next voter may rank a candidate as 1.0, and another as 0.7. We don't know if these '1.0' rankings are of equal importance, and somehow assume that 0.7 is more important than 0.5 and so deserves more weight when scoring. This is obviously broken, and you can see how this differs greatly from collective decision making in a committee where each component of the ultimate score relies upon consensus.
Interestingly if you take the opposite view and assume every one will game the system to their own advantage (game theory) then the limit case is where range voting devolves to voting either a 1 or a 0 with no intermediate values
Yes, because voting Hillary then Bernie or Bernie then Hillary in a ranked system lets you vote fully for whomever gets the most earlier-ranked votes; whereas voting Bernie but you think Hillary will win requires either voting essentially only for Hillary (vote both as 1.0, but you think Hillary will get more votes overall anyway and you're not narrowing the gap between Bernie and Hillary) or cutting down Hillary (vote Hillary as 0 so she doesn't overtake Bernie).
It then comes down to whether you think Hillary or Bernie will defeat Rubio and Trump. If you've got 1.0 0.5 votes and 0.5 1.0 votes, your winner is going to be in the 0.5-1.0 range average score; yet if there is unity behind an opponent, that opponent's score ranges a 1.0 average. That means more voters can choose Hillary and Bernie--essentially ranked #1 and #2 by way of scoring higher than all other candidates--yet the minority rallies behind one candidate and wins.
You might recognize this. It's called vote splitting, and it happens in our current plurality system where two candidates can get under 2/3 the vote and one candidate can then win with just over 1/3 the vote. In the example above, if your candidates get an average 0.75 score (0.5 and 1.0 evenly split) from 50% of the voters, that's a score of 0.375. The opponent only needs to unify 3/8 or 37.5% of the voters behind their candidate to win. Within that 50%, you can win by scoring your second-rank lower, if the other bunch doesn't do that; that eventually gets you down to a score of 0.25 on an even split.
So you're going with a single-vote pathology, or a vote-for-the-popular-candidate pathology; and if you have two popular candidates, you better orchestrate a tie between them. Voters must consider how everyone else votes. Welcome to Range voting! It looks just like plurality.
A very simple, compact and easily implemented system.
In Tidemann's Alternative Smith, you simply elect the Condorcet winner. If there is no Condorcet winner, you eliminate all candidates not in the Smith set, and then eliminate the plurality loser (IRV). You then re-apply the vote rule.
Tidemann's Alternative Smith is Smith-efficient, independent of Smith-dominated alternatives, clone-resistant, Condorcet, and extremely resistant to tactical nomination and tactical voting.
I have suggested that Smith-efficient and ISDA systems have a sort of Local Participation, in the same way they have Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: while a voter casting a ballot ranking X over Y may cause candidate Y to win where candidate X would have won had that voter not voted at al
Your memory is faulty. It's harder to remember things that activate fewer neurons, and easier to remember those which activate many. More associations means better memory. Indexing increases the number of neurons activated, thus mnemonic recall. Storage is effective, but finding the data later is difficult.
I know these things for two reasons. First, of course, is because I've studied human memory from a neurological standpoint when trying to improve my own. That's the kind of thing you come across in everyday mnemonists who compete in international forums to memorize decks of cards.
The second reason is simple: your memory is a hopfield. That's a specific type of neural network, and one frequently used in artificial neural networks.
Your brain has a lot of inputs and separate organs devoted to particular tasks. It's a collection of neural networks, and designing something similar in capability but with a silicon substrate is a reasonable task.
You're just another machine. We concern ourselves with these things because we have an experience as such machines; people are simply bad at distinguishing a mimicry from a consciousness.
If I were presented with such a robot, it would be switched off sooner and probably smashed for being so annoying.
Emotional immaturity and anti-social personality disorder. Your response to sympathy is to attack and destroy the thing that makes you feel that way.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where adults didn't have sentimentality or empathy.
Some of us operate on numerical logic all the time. There are numerous thought experiments where you propose inaction will lead to the death of several innocents, while action will divert the crisis to a single bystander. The correct answer is always action: the numerical calculus is between several innocent lives or one, and abstinence is a choice.
People withdraw from many situations to keep their hands clean. They take actions to divert people and blame them for the suffering they face, reasoning that the people who are hurt should have known better. Some folks have suggested we put land mines on the border, and the Mexican families fleeing into our country who get blown up aren't our fault because they should know better than to cross an active minefield--as if you didn't force them to choose between whatever has driven them to flee their lives and the risk of horrible death. Those who stay behind are persecuted or murdered by drug lords; those who cross...well, more of them die by your devices. You disclaim responsibility.
Well the numerical calculus shows the death toll among innocents increases, the suffering of innocents increases, and your own high ideals do not protect a greater number of innocents. You are guilty of murder.
People don't think in this way. They think in terms of their fears, their sympathies, and their illusions. If you want to murder a thousand starving children, introduce a sick child to a politician and convince them the steps necessary to save those many children would harm this one child. Their conscience will lead them to sacrifice the many for the few.
It doesn't work on me. I always consider how much blood I'm going to get on my hands. It might hurt, but I can still look you in the eye while admitting I can't help you.
I live next to a neighborhood called Hoes Heights.
It's not crazy, just complex and new. We have things like unemployment insurance and disability pensions already; the policy I designed is basically a social insurance. Overall, it's a logistically-purified form of what the Nordic nations do, allowing us to manage means-tested welfares while also taking advantage of an egalitarian social insurance.
The Nordic nations make their basic social insurances more-egalitarian--unemployment insurance, for example, pays quite a bit and you can be on it for something like 7 years(!), while many services simply pay to anyone regardless of income. This is a kind of roundabout way to redistribute a portion of incomes to poverty areas, essentially making all your social insurances and welfare services leak by paying to people who don't really need it because the economy needs it. We can, instead, simply distribute a portion of incomes, and then not worry about the impacts on that when we adjust welfare services (separate the two functions).
Unless you just want to provide full food stamps and HUD housing assistance to everyone making under $40k, and phase it out until about $80k.
All the odd things that pop out are a consequence of improving economic marginal efficiencies. Imagine if your nation implemented an economic policy of raising unemployment and then imprisoning the poor. You raise taxes on the middle-class so they can buy less (fewer jobs), lock people up in prisons, and use the tax money to feed and manage them. Over time, your labor force adjusts (fewer immigrant laborers and babies born), and unemployment comes down from 10% to 5%.
Now: imagine if you elected someone who said, "What the hell are we all doing?!" and then got those people out of prison, provided them welfare, moved them into jobs so they're making an income that can be taxed, and reduced taxes. There's now more income, people can buy more than what they were being supplied in prison, and the prison economy integrates into the regular economy. Those prison people are still consumers of what they were in prison, but also now are consumers of things they didn't produce in prison. They make hardly a dent in unemployment themselves--about 0.2%--but you suddenly need 10% more labor to keep up with the purchasing power of your population, and you don't have it.
That's basically what the Dividend is: it resolves localized recessions and enables greater productivity; the shock is kind of ludicrous. You handle the shock by balancing it against a cut in productivity--doable by reducing working hours and retaining the same minimum annual wages.
No, salaried workers actually don't receive overtime pay at all right now for excess hours. Hourly workers are supposed to receive 1.5x their compensation--meaning if your employer pays you $30k ($15/hr) and spends $9k on healthcare and $1k on disability insurance, you need time-and-a-half based on $40k ($20/hr). They owe you $30/hr, not $22.50/hr. If you got a bonus, you also get time-and-half on that.
Many employers get this wrong. Enforcement is practically nonexistent.
clovis apparently had to be a functional member of society who could physically travel to other states, take days off work, spend hundreds of dollars, and get lawyers involved. What about the poors who are barely able to make rent?
You can for example, as Nestle, publish the blockchain and then all sorts of consumers and agencies can "join" this blockchain and as long as no single party owns a majority of the nodes
I've thought of using my access to several billion IP addresses to join bitcoin as the majority shareholder and manipulate the network, just to make it go away when people realize you can do that. There's a legal problem: I can't figure out who "owns" bitcoin, and it is impossible to commit a Federal crime against a computer service with no owner.
There are two big advantages of a block chain vs a traditional database here. That's a lot of different companies involved, in including a few trucking companies. They don't all use the same Oracle database, especially not the local farmer. Block chain is designed for many different people to be able to use it, adding entries, without conflicting with other in any way.
There are 14 standards. We've made a standard to unite them all.
See the problem?
Let me spell it out for you: They don't all use the same Oracle database, so you stood up another Oracle database so they can all use that.
You should see the argument I have with score voting proponents. The biggest one--and the most ludicrous--has "Blockchain" in his name. He insists that elections aren't about electing the candidate the voters most agree upon, but rather on electing the "best" candidate with the most "marginal utility" based on how many points voters give candidates--and that this is totally-immune to tactical voting because the best strategy is to vote honestly.
It's like arguing with a flat earther, or a UBI automation luddite (I support a universal dividend, but not for any imaginary "all jobs are going away" bullshit reason), or a blockchain enthusiast.
A variable-rate flat tax is the tax system many imagine our progressive tax system is: rather than taxing income in a bracket at a rate (as our tax system does now), it taxes all income at the bracket rate.
The tax rate for the Dividend is fixed--it's a 12.5% FICA, technically a social insurance premium (like the OASDI tax that feeds Social Security's retirement and disability benefits). It never changes year-to-year or per-person. There is also a progressive tax system (not variable-rate flat tax) next to this to feed the general fund.
The difference from a UBI is there's no calculation that determines how much benefit you should receive: you aren't entitled to an income sufficient for your basic needs, or anything else. There is so much money (income), and you're entitled to a piece of it. That makes it a form of demogrant, although it still falls outside what many people envision as a UBI today.
UBI is often defined simply as a demogrant (money given to everyone), which means UBI can mean literally anything involving giving everyone money. When the Federal government gave everyone $300 that one year, that was an unconditional demogrant; if they did that every year, that would be a universal basic income. $300/year isn't what anyone would really call a "Universal Basic Income".
The Dividend is a descendant from the common idea of a UBI by being a universal grant of a piece of all income, but not a grant of some specific buying power. It's not assistance to cover housing, food, or anything else. If the economy experiences a recession and GNI-per-Capita drops by 20% somehow (how is your economy not dead?), the Dividend likewise drops 20%--there shall be no intervention; deal with it.
My observation is that the Dividend strongly impacts localized recession (concentrated poverty) and rebuilds the economy around those in need, allowing welfare to keep them afloat while we bring them jobs and the general means of survival. It's not designed to hold you up on its own, nor to be the only social insurance in town. It is therefor enough for it to be what it is, and the humans can tinker with the other social welfares when necessary.
tl;dr: it's technically a social insurance, like unemployment or Social Security Disability benefits.