skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the only thing that matters is GDP growth (as the article tells pretty openly) and if UBI really only has the purpose to keep lower classes in the consumption loop (not because they need anything but so companies can keep selling stuff, so their revenue will grow, so the GDP will grow), couldn't this all be structured a lot more efficiently by automating consumption?

You could imagine an army of robot consumers who are each allotted some amount of monthly UBI and who are programmed to automatically buy products chosen by certain criteria (or at random).

Then you can combine this with fully automated production and you finally have a fully automated economy where the GDP growth rate is just a line in a config file...
That's a downside if you're on it.

For everyone else who is working to pay for it, that's a rather big and fundamental upside.

UBI proponents have an unfortunate habit of engaging in a form of sophistry: by saying everyone gets UBI, they try to pretend the policy has no losers. They forget about the feelings and needs of the huge numbers of people who would be paying for UBI instead of receiving it, regardless of how the government chose to manipulatively print the numbers on your final paperwork. Almost all people, almost all of the time, will just be paying more in tax in order to make the UBI work, so it'll all cancel out for them. Money will come in via UBI and immediately go out again in the form of higher taxes. It must be so because the resources to pay for UBI don't come from nowhere. They come from people.

The reason welfare is means tested is because it's corrosive to society for workers to feel like they're being punished for working. People must work. That is fundamental. UBI makes the fraudulent claim that in theory nobody has to work, because everyone will receive UBI no matter what. This is obviously untrue and would be obviously untrue even to small children. What happens if everyone decides UBI is enough for them and just check out? Who works in the fields? Who builds the buildings? UBI has no answer for this. The dishonesty it would require from government and society would corrode away the pillars on which it sits.
I just want to point out that in Europe we have 0-fee SEPA transfers that also work for regular payments.

I'm not sure why nobody makes use of that more really. There are simple-as-paypal solutions for it, and given the amount that CC processing costs I'd have expected it to be picked up more. Maybe someone here has practical experience to share on why it's not that easy?
The future of skyscrapers: a mile high, slimmer than ever and made from wood
I think not being heckled, abused, or harassed will have a positive impact on most players. Though not all.

For some (and I mean in no uncertain terms, for black players and those from other minorities), it's probably a godsend, and that sense of 'relief' probably does have a measurable outcome (i.e. some players raising their standards, and others doing likewise to follow them).

OPTA and their like measure a lot of data points. So this hypothesis could probably be proved. Passing percentages, XG and assist rates for example, but I'd reckon individual running distances will be a particularly interesting metric to explore.

Any of those stats could go up or down for all players, but I do suspect there will be observable changes, because of these new playing conditions.
Can somebody explain this word juggling for a non-native speaker? Wikipedia in my mother tongue explains "firm" coming from "solid/tight/strong" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmware).
You’re a lunatic. You should be on antipsychotics as well.
Nice writing includes cultural elements.
> Who knows how much all those private jets burn

A B737 burns about 750 gallons an hour for 200 passengers.

A Lear Jet 45 burns around 165 gallons an hour for upto 8 passengers.

If both planes are full the Lear Jet uses about 6 times as much fuel per person.

If the Lear Jet has 1 passenger and the 737 has 4, the Lear Jet is better.

A Lear Jet gets about 3mpg, with 8 passengers that's 24mpg, a similar fuel efficency to a Ford F150 with a single passenger.

> You could probably sell it just by noting that Larry Ellison burns 50x as much carbon as one of the Mexican laborers who trims the lawn and rides back home on his bike.

A big issue with CO2 per capita is that imports of CO2 emissions often don't count. If China uses 10 tons of CO2 to produce a dohicky which is then sold to a German consumer, that goes down as a China emission rather than a U.S emission.
Sometimes it is because the quality of discussion deteriorated
Please take a huge dose of hydroxy and remove yourself from the gene pool.
Another favourite of mine is when sites ask your date of birth as a security question. Y'know, that top secret piece of info known only to; yourself, your family, most of your friends, anyone you've ever worked for, anyone you've ever filled in a form for... etc.

Which is why, when sites require me to setup answers for these dumb security questions, I always invent ridiculous ones and then save those along with the password in my password manager.

It did partially backfire one time though when my insurance co. had to ring me and asked me to confirm my mother's maiden name. I don't think they believed me when I replied it was "Hitler".
Infatica SDK – App Monetization (Chrome, Windows, Desktop, Android)
Someone tried to implement it?
https://infatica.io/sdk-monetization/
Summary: UBI should be introduced to grow the GDP as the poorest 78% in the USA live paycheque to paycheque thus can't spend more. The wealthiest companies spend on ads which is a zero-sum game, not growing the GDP.

This argument is incredibly flawed. Who will fund the UBI? The poorest 78% can't, so it will be the wealthiest companies. But for every $1 dollar they spend on UBI, they can only get back less. (Taxes, payment & postage fees, cost of production, cost of ads, etc.) Then they are better off simply giving away their products for free.

UBI may have interesting upsides - this is not one of them.

EDIT: replace "TL;DR" with "Summary"
Does this include programs and settings? Windows lets you reinstall with data as well, but installing every single program and getting it set up all over again takes forever, that's my main problem with the Windows recovery process.

The install over the internet is a nice touch, though I don't expect that feature to ever make it into normal computers because it would probably force manufacturers to put a minimal Windows installer in their UEFI.
> 3. Charity - let's say we actually give every person enough money for food, housing, and utilities. Some people will mess up.

This is why it should be a regular and frequent income, rather than giving people a lifetime's worth of money when they turn 18. As it is a regular income that resets every week/month/whatever, it's harder to mess up to that extent. Addiction or unwise Hire Purchase agreements might do it, but with the latter, lenders are likely to be even more aware of affordability than they currently are.

That aside, I would imagine that UBI could make people more charitable towards those who are thoroughly down on their luck. Partly because if someone is destitute under that system, something must be really wrong in their lives.

One problem with poverty at the moment is that it is so big. When problems are really big (see also climate change), people feel that effects of their own efforts would be trivial, and so are dissuaded from doing anything at all. If fewer people would be made destitute by bad decisions made out of desperation, donors might feel they can actually do something about it.

Another problem with poverty now is that there are so many diverse causes that it is much easier to aim relief efforts at the symptoms - e.g. shelters for the homeless, food for the hungry etc. If UBI covers that for most people, then we can put more effort into fixing the causes - abuse/addiction/mental illness/predatory lenders/discrimination etc. Thereby removing the need for charity.
The crimping technique and the size of the conductors
So you're not talking about a response to the pandemic here. You want this reform independent of that.
You can sort that out easily by doing something like:

module T
module Sig
def sig *args
end
end
# You'd need to stub out a few more things here.
end

begin
require 'sorbet-runtime'
rescue LoadError
end

Basically as far as what I can tell from just having briefly looked at Sorbet, you could quite easily stub out the bare minimum to allow people to choose whether to pull in the full thing or not. It'd be nice if they provided a gem that did that.
Can your mom without you helping her?

You can't even go to a store and ask them for help to have a custom rom installed. Plus you don't know what's inside that ROM.
According to [1], one of the requirements for statutory damages is negligence. (The other two are very narrow definitions of private data and that it must be nonencrypted and nonredacted)

> “a result of the business’s violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information.”

[1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/data-breaches-and-damag...
> Were that the case, and not prohibition being the limiting factor, you'd expect child labor to exist where minimum wage is inapplicable, but not where it is, even independent of whether it is allowed.

Banning and prohibition are just ways of increasing the cost of hiring children: they now have to pay the wage + fine. And it only works if that is too expensive compared with the alternatives.
UBI increases aggregate demand, so as you point out it increases inflation. However, it doesnt increase individual demand equally. Rich people’s demand will increase fractionally less than poor people’s. This means consumption inequality will decrease. So the choice of how much UBI to give is a balance between the good of decreasing consumption inequality (us has too much) and the bad of inflation.
you may be correct - however, a lot of voter suppression is comparatively soft. more along the lines of discouragement. remove polling places, cause long lines, that gets on the news, people don’t bother to go after they get off work.

this could be similar, but for mail-in voting.
> "We've just made an offer to a new writer", [Chris Espinosa] told [me (Andy Hertzfeld)], "someone who I think will do a much better job on the technical side of things, since she used to be a programmer. Her name is Caroline Rose. I'm going to assign her to the window manager documentation and see what you think."

> The next week I sat down to meet with Caroline for the first time, and she couldn't have been more different than the previous writer. As soon as I began to explain the first routine, she started bombarding me with questions. She didn't mind admitting it when she didn't understand something, and she wouldn't stop badgering me until she comprehended every nuance. She began to ask me questions that I didn't know the answers to, like what happened when certain parameters were invalid. I had to keep the source code open on the screen of my Lisa when I met with her, so I could figure out the answers to her questions while she was there.

> Pretty soon, I figured out that if Caroline had trouble understanding something, it probably meant that the design was flawed. On a number of occasions, I told her to come back tomorrow after she asked a penetrating question, and revised the API to fix the flaw that she had pointed out. I began to imagine her questions when I was coding something new, which made me work harder to get things clearer before I went over them with her.

https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Inside_Macintosh...
I worked on a prototype board that was getting a little older (I did not wrap the original), apparently the tension of the wrapping tool was off or something else did not go according to plan during the original build because quite a few of the connections were flakey and had to be redone. This can be pretty tricky if there are sometimes 6 wires running to one pin and the whole thing is a rats nest of identically colored wires.

I did get it all sorted out and working again but that wasn't my idea of having fun. Fortunately I got into software from hardware or I would have likely given up. You know you have a nasty problem when tapping the board can make it crash. Shades of Gollum and Coke.
This is a false choice. We could both protect life here and still seek out new life at the same time.
It's a small town, relatively speaking. Only a few hundred thousand people in the area. Someone has a low power license, but they needed volunteers and equipment. The FCC apparently expects FM license holders to broadcast something. So that's what they did while they got organized. Now they are up and running with volunteer DJs who get to play whatever they want.
> Carbon taxes unquestionably fall hardest on the poor

what? how? if we're talking about the real poor, they typically don't even have a car, take public transportation, or even walk.

meanwhile the very wealthy have private jets or yachts and would be paying a significant carbon tax when using those. so I'm genuinely curious how you got to

> Everything from the products purchased by the poor to their modes of transport are more carbon-intensive than the rich.
Making empty houses more expensive through property taxes is absolutely an option. I think it's totally fair to reimburse the community for taking land away from the community to put an empty house on it.

My point is: there needs to be competition on the supply side in the housing market, to keep prices somewhat related to the real cost of the house. If this isn't possible, the government needs to step in. I hope to avoid that where possible, though it's certainly necessary to prevent landlords from raising the rent on people after they settled in a home.
I will admit that I don't have enough understanding about macro-economics to know how everything will be affected. But inflation on low-price housing does make sense, but I will admit I don't know enough about the field to understand to what degree. So at this point I just wanted to state the points I've heard other people make related to UBI. (basically that is also comes with increased taxes).

My own opinion is that I don't know the correct way to do economics in the future. But I do think that we at some point should think very different. I don't think the current system works out for most people in the future. And UBI looks more like a band-aid than an actual fix.
It was such superior experience. If the user has it on his box the map link can simply point at the google earth client.

Take route planning for example. It use to be that you could fly the route in google earth. A line on a paper like map with a bunch of dots is useful for finding a shorter or more preferable route but after you've made up your mind flying over the road from A to B allows you to drive or cycle without any map.

If the application is installed the search results can include tours. (people made countless illustrated tours that kept breaking with each api update until there were no tours left)

Google could probably embed google earth into web pages if the will was there.

We will see where https://earth.google.com/web/ ends up. For now it loads as if booting an OS but its quite smooth after that.
Last I heard (several years ago), Snowden's position is that he'd be happy to stand trial in the US, as long as the proceedings were public. Is that still the case?
I still cannot wrap my head around why so many folks want to use such applications in a web browser.

For me, web browser applications never reach the responsiveness and ease of use of well crafted desktop applications written in any decent systems programming language or even interpreted languages (not speaking of Javascript). Maybe I am getting old, but having the browser as a platform for programs is huge setback for many criteria that I personally value.

For example, as a free Excel alternative, I fall back to Gnumeric (http://www.gnumeric.org/) from time to time.
I totally take your second point. But for the niche of apps that is developed for tech folks (think sth like ripgrep) this seems pretty viable.

For user-facing apps, it should always be the platform(s) distributing it that should have a pool mechanism.
So google for android apps, Apple for iOS. Yeah, I know, that'll be a cold day in hell...

PC software is a tough one there since there's no one app store. Which is the PC platform's strength, but yeah, that makes a pool difficult. As you said, Liberapay tried something like this. Would be cool if something like this could become big enough to justify the legal legwork necessary for this.
Not an Apple user nor developer, but damn, 30% seems above reasonable ...
The ones I have do have the VBR, so they are legit 010.

Of course, buying from China is what it is.

They are however 8/10MHz. Likely pulled from boards. 14MHz DIP are supposed to exist, but unobtanium.
That's a very neat tool! I'm kind of turned away by this though:
> Warning: Your kernel and initramfs must reside on a file system that rEFInd can read.

Can it boot fully-encrypted disks (by chainloading GRUB, for example)?
Same, my old home team used to have a pitch on the smaller end of the spectrum and you could really see the impact it had on teams who were used to having space to build up plays.

The home fans were also much more in their faces (though it never helped seemingly when we fell off a cliff at the 80 minute mark to throw it all away...)
GPT-3 computer-generated text is ready for SEO testing
> by automating consumption

It's called the subscription economy for a reason. Automated consumption exists and is constantly growing. The money spent on subscriptions grew in the US by >50% from 2010 to 2015.
Assuming the watch was Job’s last project, it seems like no significant products have been designed by Apple after he died.
Spoiler: they don’t.

But as far as I can see the reasoning is the following:

Because of competition in the global economy. There is a huge demand for skilled software engineers in the world, and that’s expected to continue to grow in the future. If you want to be able to compete with other countries then you want to have trained workers. Here the bet is that having an increase in software engineers would result in higher productivity, and generate value over time.

It’s also an easy sell to parents and people in general given that you can make really good money by writing software without killing yourself to the job.
Albert Einstein constructed a theoretical description of the Universe which made testable predictions, continuously validated in years to come by experimentation. The world applauded and immediately implemented the ideas where possible.

Karl Marx did the same, yet here we are, discussing, in analogy, the implications of flat-Earth theory on General Relativity. Wealth inequality and poverty are the causes of most of the world's woes, e.g. crime [1]. The sociological research could not be clearer. So why do we build computers with stringent use of the scientific method, yet run society without any regard to what the research says?

[1] Kelly, Morgan. "Inequality and crime." Review of economics and Statistics 82.4 (2000): 530-539.
The problems I see with UBI are:
* It won't take into account the differences in the cost of living for different cities.
* If it is paid based on the household size there'll be an incentive for lower income families have more kids in order to cash larger UBI checks.
Perhaps it's harder to justify internally if the only people watching know exactly what you just did? I've always been surprised by the shamelessness of soccer dives, I definitely don't understand it.
The ability to re-sell games that you played is totally undervalued.
You're right. I'm just imagining a world where there is sufficient supply of houses, and property owners will need the income that renting it out provides. It should never be profitable for them to sit on empty houses. Too often it still is.
But not the outdoor games they play in football stadiums.

Went to one. Was way Wilder than a typical hockey game
It's also the fact that you're in a new sleeping enviroment. People tend not to sleep well in novel environments, called the 'first night effect', until they become comfortable to their new surroundings. So even if the athletes did custom-tailor their sleeping situation to be just like at home, ti still probably won't be good enough to give them a home-field level of sleep quality.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)...
Interesting idea with an browser based open source spreadsheet.
If you express conservative viewpoints then people will physically assault you. Andy Ngo has been physically assaulted multiple times and recently was brazenly lased in the eyes. Liberal activists have taken to lasing the eyes of their political opponents as well as federal officers standing in front of a federal courthouse. These lasers will cause eye damage simply by looking at their spot on a wall. The fact that people in general are not upset by this baffles me.

Personally, after the lasing started, I totally lost any desire to publicly convey any kind of even positive sentiment for conservative or even moderate ideas. That’s how toxic it has become: moderates are now villainized by at least a large chunk of the left.
How is this working out in America today? Is there any reason it will ever work for half the nation?
Saving on bureaucracy is a frequently made argument that I have never seen supported by a quantitative analysis. Do they exist? Such a claim seems untrue on its face.

You can't eliminate the welfare bureaucracy with UBI because:

- You won't want to be giving free money to literally everyone, only people within your jurisdiction. So you still need to figure out who those people are and whether they're authorised to receive UBI.

- It will act as even more of a magnet for illegal immigration, so you'd still need to spend on border reinforcements. Same problem as they have now in Germany and Sweden: lots of people turned up who can't work and sit on welfare forever. If you don't stop this it's in reality a policy of giving out enough free money to live by western standards to the entire world, which isn't how it's being advertised.

- You still need to deduplicate everyone and ensure people can't register for UBI over and over.

- You need to stop people creating fake identities to receive UBI for people who don't exist.

- You still need to ensure UBI stops being paid when someone dies, even though families and friends have strong incentives to stop the state finding out about a death.

- You still need to decide how much the UBI is, how much it should change, and whether the amount should vary by location. What's plenty for someone in the countryside may be considered insufficient in the city.

- You still need to track where people live, the moment you give way on the amount being adjusted regionally, which you will because the sort of people who most enthusiastically support UBI are all-in on the type of "fairness" that invariably means not treating people the same. Or are they going to advocate for a single income tax rate across all earning bands as well?

- You will need a huge rise in taxes to pay for this, meaning tax evasion and avoidance will also go up quite dramatically. You'll need to bulk up the tax bureaucracies to handle this.

UBI is just a modern rebranding of what in the 20th century was called the socialist utopia. People tried it, it doesn't work. That was Russia at the start of the 1900s. UBI advocates today seem to have forgotten about all that, but they're re-treading intellectually dead ground.