skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. Coupled with the dividend, it is no longer regressive.

This page (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/) has a nice chart showing the fees and where they come from for an average household in each income quintile in the USA. The expected fees for each quintile (under a $15/ton carbon fee) are $173, $219, $252, $292, $381. On another page on the same site, you can find that the expected dividend (which just depends on the number of adults/children in the household) is $288.
Ability to pay is not the same thing as willingness to pay. Supply&demand does work.
Edge Cases in Ruby's Syntax
The burden is on answering: why not? What protections are in place now or are being proposed that would prevent such shifts?

People in power, i.e. those with money, don't like giving up money or potential profit. Without protections in place, prices will simply rise or adjust and people will stop worrying about unemployment. In the end, it just puts a different label on things, creating another category for poor people, and I doubt it actually improves anyone's lives. This is because the problems aren't necessarily all at the bottom. The majority of the source of problems are at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.
If people experience coordination problems when reigning in corporations, I'm not sure why they'd do any better when it comes to electing public officials.
You simplistic case is too simplistic. Assumes that advanced tech required for such farming comes from nowhere. Now for farmer to produce so much you need GPS (ability to build and maintain one), oil/energy, millitary power, modified grains, etc. to have this you need some people who spend more on thinking rather than being most of waking day the in field, so you need all the support jobs.

From my POV having job as au pair for example is still better than working hard in the field.

IMO we should focus on reducing much duplication od work, so I am happy that OSS, Wikipedia, SciHub, KhanAcademy, MIT, translations services, open hardware design and similar efforts are in progress.

IMO more focus should be shifted into education. I guess education problem isn't solved in western rich countries only because it's easier to brain drain from less developed ones, so people don't feel the pain.

When this will start I hope they start taxing more at very top and shift economy to more valuable stuff than zero-sum Tinder clones.

BTW in my country(Poland) they introduced small version of UBI (like 500$ per child per month for family). It cost 5% of whole country budget. It's quite controversial but IMO it was good move but we still need to see long term impact.
Next he'll accuse Watson of being a pederast.
But is it mistaken?
I think this is interesting and something I've thought about since the return of football.

Jurgen Klopp was always trying to get the crowd engaged and pumped up because he believes it has a huge effect on how his Liverpool team play. Without the crowd they seem to be missing that extra 1% of intensity that made them incredible pre-lockdown.

Whereas Manchester City probably don't feed off the crowd as much as Liverpool do. Manchester City are all about rehearsed routines so they may even find it easier without a crowd as they'll be able to communicate much easier.
How does UBI differentiate itself from socialism, a welfare state and/or communism? Where is the money for UBI going to come from? What incentive would there be for people to work?
With UBI, the poor will actually be more at the mercy of the rich as they'll depend on some powerful centralized instance providing them money, instead of earning their own via providing goods to the market (e.g. services).

So, to actually solve the issue you're going to need to decentralize and de-automatize. Otherwise lots of people are going to lose their economic and hence existential purpose.
I actually disagree about South Africa. I think the regime itself there would have been toppled eventually but they made an active choice to go peacefully rather than for it to turn into a bloodbath 20 years later. I think this is a very interesting example because most regimes fail at that sort of pragmatism. But that's an aside, we will never know and it's just my opinion! :)

Initially we got into bed with China (I am a brit, so by we I mean Europe as well as the US) to get them out of bed with the Russians because communism. That's why there were no stipulations around democracy etc, the stipulation was basically "fuck the USSR" and they stuck to that. They should have been added when the USSR feel, but most countries were too busy dealing with their internal politics (and cheap Chinese imports supported them there).

The excuse there is that by making them richer (and getting richer ourselves, whoops) we were assisting them towards a bloodless transition. That's clearly not working. Instead, china over the last 5 years at least has regressed politically. I would 100% support action on China (and I am an internationalist and until recently quite pro china). But this is hard, we would need most of the west to work together at exactly the time it's "every man for himself" (brexit, trump).

To be honest, I am actually quite worried right now. The total refusal of countries to work together on this and climate change mean the rest of this century is very uncertain. I am 36, quite old really but I won't be dead before most of the shit has hit the fan. Yet everyone both individually and nationally are basically ignoring the oncoming train to pickup pennies from the tracks...
(I'm not the one who you commented to)

Because we all want to live on this planet for a few hundred years?

I expect a company that produces things to either supply spare parts on demand, or allow a third party to produce them.

Even more so, when the device I bought costs >1000$

Sure, legally they don't have any obligation to do so, but many things are legal but ethically wrong.
Nano has always been my go to editor. It comes natively with most install and is very easy to use. It has all the shortcut listed on page so it is quite user friendly out of the box.

After learning vim for a bit, I find nano quite superior for my use case mainly editing files inside terminal on remote servers.
Land is in fixed supply and everyone needs land to work, sleep, and exist upon.

Neither UBI nor any other policy changes that.

Housing costs in expensive markets are set primarily by land values and not by the value of the capital/building upon the land.

Yes you can make a dent in the problem it by zoning for more units, but you cannot zone more land into existence in high value areas.
This is a good example of where a strong belief in something (in this case Apple greedily taking a huge cut of developer earnings) that something that sounds patently false is believed automatically and instantly.

Happens with people, companies, religion, and politics.

[edit: I believed it too without thinking]
I write documentation for myself, because my brain is broken and I can't remember anything. Also big Polaroid fan.
Because addicts, when given the choice, might choose not to have a roof over their heads and thereby collectively pay landlords less, it would make landlords richer to give them reasonable living conditions standard?

It's not as if the government will rent you a penthouse. If there are no cheap apartments available in a certain place, you just don't get to live there. I've lived in a building with a fair number of government-paid apartments and the people there are very, um, shall we say "poor" in the non-monetary sense (though that too). The rents were low (that's why I was there as a student) and while I'm sure they turned a reasonable profit just like they did from the students renting there, the rents were below those of neighbouring buildings. What's more, in the Netherlands many landlords price their apartments just above the limit for government support so that even if you could easily afford a place €10 cheaper, you now can't because you are losing out on up to 350 euros a month of support. Landlords don't want government-supported renters much of the time. It's not that lucrative.
And for all the perfectionists out there, this perfect manual has a typo in figure 9 at page 2.
I see this line of thinking a lot, but it's a bad one. It's understandable that people think like this in a place like SF where landlords have grabbed up a lot of salary increases, but it really doesn't work that way.

If it was true, rents would keep climbing to 90+% of incomes but they don't. It would also imply that any other income income increases or redistribution (widespread pay rises, social security, etc etc) were pointless, you might as well give up on any kind of redistribution entirely.

Of course, if there was a UBI, there would be increased demand for stuff that low income people need like housing and food. That's the whole point of increasing equality! Shifting consumption from sports cars and chandeliers to food and shelter is the goal. But then supply would shift to compensate.

Another advantage of UBI is that even if you do wrongly assume it doesn't result in any net redistribution, it's still beneficial, because it smoothes income over the lifecycle, and a smoother income is much less stressful and unpleasant than a choppier income.
No, and I’m not a liberal either. I’m more anti-conservative than anything else. Violence is all they understand, so let them have it. More broadly I can see that the divide in this country won’t be healed by anything but violence. It’s not at all clear who wins, but what is clear is we cannot come together until we get this out of our system.

Your point was some set of facts. My rebuttal is: so what?
I rather like the Airtable concept - it feels like a spreadsheet, but the columns are typed, and it can do joins.

It's a shame that it's so limited (50,000 rows in the most expensive plan).
What happens in UBI when people who are still employed leave the state and by virtue of Internet remain employed in their new low tax state? Would UBI again not concentrate wealth outside and remove wealth from the system?
The US funded the Taliban because they opposed the Afghan government, not because they wanted to help Afghanistan. Similarly, they're never going to help Hong Kong, but only specific groups who oppose the government. (The "culturally loosely-related country" supporting the Afghan government at the time was the Soviet Union.)
But it isn't false information! It's part of the licence agreement, that Apple chooses to sometimes enforce, sometimes not.
Concept is very similar to Coil.com s "donation" for web content. But Coil actually does "pay by usage" and should therefore be more fair at distributing the money.
Its hard to define usage for an open source project.
It's the difference between being 'poor' and merely 'broke'.
> Supply&demand does work.

Works for whom?
Is it sufficient to install Windows to a completely separate disk instead of a separate partition to prevent this? I can't imagine Windows starting to overwrite partitions or boot sectors on a drive it is not even installed to
That would cross my mind. Most potential employers I've encountered have usually asked for references from my last two jobs. On another occasion I had to undergo a background check which involved contacting my last 15 years worth of employers. So no matter how much I may have disliked an employer I would be unwilling to burn bridges until I knew I would never need to rely on them again.
>More than 1000 upvotes on a piece of false information

Not only upvoting the story but also downvoting posters to minus-12 who tried to counteract it with correct information:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=hn_check

[ footnote: his profile was -12 at the time I wrote the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hn_check ]

[ another edit:]

Sorry for confusion. I wasn't trying to say that _one_ comment got downvoted to -12. His 2 top-level comments ("and this submission is just farcically wrong" and "This isn't correct at all.") ... were at various levels of grey so those 2 comments contributed -4 or -5 or more to the -12. I do agree his tone (especially the [dead] comments) contributed to negative scores but it can simultaneously be true that downvoters thought he was incorrect.

This was how his downvotes looked early this morning:
https://imgur.com/a/GuTffzP

The top-level comments have since been upvoted so they are no longer greyed out.
My bad for posting the original tweet up without proper fact-checking... I've emailed the mods to ask them to correct or delete the original to avoid confusion in future.

I had heard rumours that Apple did not refund the 30% previously, and seeing a developer of respected apps post it (along with a graph, although actually that didn't prove anything lol) and doing a quick Google (where the top result is "Apple's iPhone App Refund Policies Could Bankrupt Developers"), I thought made it seem legit enough to post, and thought it would get shot down quickly if it was incorrect!

Interesting lesson in the realities of post-truth as you say! Also with all the negative press about App Store policies lately, it didn't seem too far fetched...
My tax burden isn't overwhelming, but I'd sure like to pay less rather than more. UBI would mean I'd have to pay more (no, "we'll just cut the overhead of existing social programs" will neither be enough -not by a long shot-, nor work, as we'll still need some/many of those social programs).

I'd very much prefer others working as well instead of me having to work more to make up for their not-working, ergo I'm not such a big fan of that kind of wealth redistribution. I'd like a wealth redistribution combined with a work-load redistribution though. They work, I work less, I make less money, they make money, the contribute.
To my mind, the essential problem with UBI is finding a just way to fund it. Making people contributing to a capitalist economy support those that aren't, in order to keep them from ever contributing to it, is greatly unjust.

There is no fair way, as far as I can tell, to implement a non-capitalistic program within a capitalistic economy. What the UBI concept might do, rather, is sway the debate towards exploring alternatives to capitalism, instead of reform.
I would like to know how typing biometrics handles injuries that affect my typing pattern such as breaking an arm or a finger.
Apple's opacity leads to this kind of thing. The "rebuttal" doesn't have a citation either. How do we know that it itself is not also fake news? Apple should have a nice clear page we can all link to that explains how this works. But nobody seems to have found one.

Edit: no, really, this is important: we're in the middle of the lesson of "social media can amplify things that aren't true and you should check them". Great. So, how do we verify things? What should we be doing? The counter claim link at the top of this thread is also just a random unsourced tweet!
What’s up, doc? Building Cytora’s Documentation system
Where would the money for UBI come from though?
There's a more general problem. What's the right amount of UBI? Even with the best intentions someone will be unhappy.
In the very same thread there is a quote of devepors agreement with Apple that allows Apple to keep it.
Surely that statement adds another layer of complexity - the aspect of lifestyle and mindset - to the basic definition of simply being low on capital.
Yeah, the gem would depend on sorbet-runtime, and the library author could configure sorbet to not run any checks in production if desired (or to have any errors log instead of throw).

You can configure things like this globally and/or for each method call.

Eg;

# turn off all runtime checks
T::Configuration.default_checked_level = :never

# turn off runtime checks for one method
sig {returns(String).checked(:never)}
def foo; :wont-raise; end

Docs are here: https://sorbet.org/docs/runtime#runtime-checked-sigs

Personally if I were authoring a gem I'd leave the runtime checks on except in hot paths, so my users get quick feedback when they pass the wrong thing.

In any case, the library author can get the benefits of static and runtime typing, and their users will get nice static typing if they use sorbet. Users also get nice runtime typing for the library if the author chooses to leave it on for them. The overhead is usually small.
Well, they _do_ if the tax is not coupled with a dividend.

To a fist approximation, the carbon tax you pay will be a fixed fraction of all the money you spend in daily life.

Poor people spend essentially all their income every month. The better off you are, the lower a fraction of your income you have to spend each month.

So a poor person will pay X% of their income, while a well-paid software professional might pay X% of 25% of her income.

That's regressive.

But a carbon fee & dividend, taken as a whole, is progressive, rather than regressive, because the poor receive a dividend in excess of the fee they pay, while the wealthy pay more fees but receive the same dividend.
Another interesting article here is "MCS locks and qspinlocks": https://lwn.net/Articles/590243/
Familiarity of the stadium also count, I mean you are going to play in an arena 19 times vs once, there will be differences.
Careful there. Any metric used as a proxy to gauge the value of a dependency to the project could result in the system being gamed.
Available everywhere without installing anything, and I don't need to worry about file formats. With Google Drive I also appreciate that I can write custom functions using javascript which I already know, rather than learn some obscure language.

I tried gnumeric just now and the crappy looking toolbar and the poor autocomplete experience for formula functions was enough to put me off.
Why do you think SF housing prices have gone up x% over the last 20 years?

Are the buildings x% better to live in?

Are the landlords providing x% better services?

No. The people who work there are producing x% more capital, therefore landlords take that x% and call it “cost of living.” This is not a new phenomenon in any regard, and UBI proponents must answer for it.

If their solution is rent control, then rent control is a solution even without UBI. Which of course it’s not a real solution, because then you’re distorting the price of housing and not going to get your construction/maintenance needs met.

LVT is a tax scheme that lets the market set prices for what it’s worth to live in an area (land rent/ground rent), then recoups that as a tax upon the people who claim special privilege to decide what to do with that land.
> That's simply something that needs to be banned.

That is banned. I don't know the limit but it's similar to what you describe. Landlords aren't allowed to raise prices by much per year. It still adds up, but by then you know to look for another place and have a year or two to do it.
Usages for Web Scraping Explained
Same, while I understand the comfort and appeal of writing for the latest stack, I can't imagine upgrading to Catalina any time soon. If anything, I find it more likely that I might upgrade to Big Sur once it stabilizes.
Nothing, the idea is that everyone always has the option to move to a cheaper location.
> complacent countries where emission can be whatever you want them to be

and whom you gonna trust for measuring/estimate the carbon produced in the complacent country?

"yes sir we have all these kind of filters and capture schemes"

preemptive reply to "but we're going to check and fine them": Panama Papers happened and nothing was done about them.
I reckon if you fix that, with say the LVT proposed by Henry George in SF during a similar explosion in wealth (and accompanying inequality), you’ll find UBI likely unnecessary. If it is still necessary, you’ll have overflowing public coffers to pay it out with, AND it won’t be eaten by landlords.
I think he can be forgiven for not anticipating the cost of a couple slashes. It's probably not as expensive as the addition of 'null' to ALGOL, and that was actually intended to be very widely adopted!
This is scary. And should scare everyone.

We need to remove downvoting temporarily for next 6 months. See how things pan out.

Cancel culture. Dissent and attack on free speech. Smearing of truth. People are afraid to speak up. Chilling effect.

@dang - this is urgently needed. It’s raising alarm bells like no other to me.
You have domestic experts doing the estimation.
How do you know it's -12, just out of interest?
I agree there's no likely way to make UBI revenue neutral.

That's not what I meant. It costs something. I think it's a cost that is worth it, and I think it's a cost that's feasible. Nothing is free.

If you want to get into the feasibility of a specific plan, take a look at Yang's proposal, or some other proposal that has been subjected to (and adapted by) technical criticism and analysis by multiple parties.

I'm not saying you'll reach the same conclusions as me, but even highly oppositional analysis don't come to vastly different estimates of net cost. $100bn ballpark differences, not a trillion.

Note that yang's proposal is for a 10% VAT. Most wealthy economies that have a vat, have a 15%-25% rate. The plan is pretty conservative on the taxation side. Also note that nearly all the analysis uses "orthodox macroeconomics," the mix of keynesianism and monetarism that seems to be falling apart as a consensus atm. A different take on money creation (almost any competing theory to monetarism) yields much better estimates on cost.

All that said, you have to consider UBI an economically transformative plan. If you don't think it is, then you probably won't conclude that it's worth it. Impossible is not a rational solution, IMO.
I suspect that rents might even go down. One of the reasons that rents are so high is that many people are forced to live in cities (i.e. high rent places) to have a chance at a miserable job. Freeing them from that could also foster more people living in the countryside with much cheaper housing (or gasp! even ownership).
> Some people will mess up. They could spend it all on an addiction or just make a bad investment.

The solution to this is easy... Low friction bankruptcy. If your UBI is paid daily, and one day you mess up and gamble it all away and get big debts, that should not stop you spending tomorrow's UBI on food.

Today, debts chase people for years or decades, and keep the poor poor. The fix is to let bankruptcy be something you can sign up for online in an hour. Then, if a debt shows up, you simply show them the bankruptcy certificate and walk away. The creditor then has to do all the work of finding any assets you owned at the moment you got the bankruptcy certificate and using them to pay off any debts.
> Carbon taxes unquestionably fall hardest on the poor,

Just last week I read an article about the wealthiest 10% causing 50% of the emissions or some similar figure. It's well known that richer countries pollute huge amounts compared to developing ones, but within a country I think it was also shown and seems to make intuitive sense.

> Everything from the products purchased by the poor to their modes of transport are more carbon-intensive than the rich.

Since when are buses and trains more carbon intensive than cars and jets? Or bulk products versus luxury, perhaps even custom ones? Plus that poor people don't have the time to go on holiday in Fiji for two weeks every year (exceptionally so in the USA with no minimum leave).
No, I wouldn't say C is the least terrible option. Languages like Ada/SPARK, C++, D, Rust, and Zig all outclass C in terms of safety and usability without sacrificing performance. And although ATS has many sharp edges, it demonstrates how a functional language can have the exact same profile as a C program.

I think it would be a profound mistake to write a new OS in C. The safety issues are reason enough to abandon the language.
What are their man competitors in this space? And what is the innovative part? Do they just provide a SMS + other messaging platforms gateway for businesses?