skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I do think people radically underestimate the unforeseen consequences of a free guaranteed income, even if it was low. I’d be willing to live as a poor person if that meant not having to work. Actually, where I live now I live comfortably on $1200 a month. I definitely would choose not to work or work less if that money came free from government. If I got free money I wouldn’t increase spending, I would reduce work.

this is not an unforeseen circumstance, but a desired outcome
Great idea, someone should do this for FB too.
Seems to be about 1w/m2 at the best at Pluto. It’s over 1000 times higher out here. 1/1600 th the power available at earth. Doesn’t seem enough.
That... wouldn't work.

Users can set each device to automatically download and install newly-purchased apps.

Imagine the case where there is a device you have misplaced (or given to a relative, or had stolen, or ___). You must find every device with auto-download and purge the app from each one before requesting a refund.

So you create a situation where it is possible that the user quite literally can't comply with the terms of the refund.

Perhaps a compromise would be to

1. Delete from the current device; and
2. To verify the status of each app during OTA updates (which, by definition, have connectivity to Apple's servers). Any refunded apps would be greyed-out or something.
I don't think the reaction of anybody on that short of a time scale tells us anything. And that's not even accounting for the inherent weirdness of this time in particular.

Of course most people, presented with the opportunity to do nothing for the first time in their adult life will take it for a while. Especially people who know that they will not have the opportunity again in the future.
Taxes on casinos incentivizes gambling?
The problem is the protesters were waving UK flags.

Can you imagine if the protesters in Kashmir were waving UK flags?
Cool article there. Examples are helpful enough to show me how to use 2 other parameters.

I think the Mozilla doc also has good example usage:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
Walter You can go on and on, but you're talking about an illusion. You are literally working more and getting paid less than previous generations. It's objective data. People had cars and televisions. Your cellphone doesn't cost the lifetime of productivity gains that are being stolen from you.
You are correct. Perhaps it is more widely used across their research and other divisions. They just went on a game dev studio buying spree though, and I thought there was a correlation.
Mira to unveil MiraRx – a tool to compare drug prices nearby
Don't collect any sales data?

That would mean no reviews or Q/A section because engagement there is a good proxy for sales. Search would also be completely broken because Amazon wouldn't know what products were good.

Not to mention payment processing. How is Amazon going to pay sellers their money if Amazon has no data on what is bought and sold? Dealing with payments cannot be stateless for a number of technical and legal reasons (audits, chargebacks, accounting, etc).

Amazon collecting this data is completely legitimate. Are you concerned that Best Buy knows how many third party HDMI cables they sell while also selling their own?
...And get outcompeted by the next country over
> How can you prove a negative?

Answering “no” while under oath would be a good start.
The mean income has no relevance on how much UBI can be issued.
What makes you think we are limited to just this planet?
serious question... if we give everyone some money evenly, would we see inflation relative to that new money?
Yes, that work has to be done. I'd just rather we find a way to do it that does not involve a system of glorified slavery where we force people to do it for survival.
Do they not already have to report emissions?
Not if you make it revenue neutral – HR763 is basically a mini-UBI funded by carbon taxes: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbo...
If you're willing to move away from your proposed GitHub route, you could try implementing it on something like Gitcoin. The "wallet" you mentioned in the article could be a smart-contract that by the end of each month (or any desired period) would automatically make the donations directly to the crypto wallets of the projects that you chose to include in your sponsor pool.

That way, you jump over some of the implementational and regulatory hurdles. There would be no intermediary, such as GitHub, paying for the transaction fees. The transaction fees necessary for using the smart-contract on a given blockchain would be paid directly by the person making the donations.
People need jobs though. Otherwise you get riots.
The issue is that Amazon can leverage that data, and no one else can. That is anti-competitive.

A grocer can get away with whitelabeling, because the manufacturer of the product is bought from as a supplier. Therefore every brand/product in the store, regardless of the manufacturer or "brand" is essentially the grocer's product. In that sense what grocer's are doing is more inventory management. None of their suppliers are "harmed" by that in house data processing.

Amazon, on the other hand, is fundamentally harming the members of it's marketplace because they never make a purchase to prop up other members of the marketplace. Instead, they use those marketplace actors in order to target high return corners of the market in which to compete without taking any of the risk; and crucially, without also making aggregate data available to all sellers.

In effect, every Amazon seller is a risk sink. Everyone else suffers the downsides of poor market fit, but if there's a sector with good profitability, you can bet that Amazon is on it as soon as possible with a brand new Amazon Basics offering. Essentially leveraging their scale to extract as much retail volume out of the market for themselves at everyone else's expense.

Dismissing this looking at seller data due to it being aggregated is like marketing one's tobacco as toasted. You're drawing attention to something irrelevant in the hopes that no one keeps going down the path that leads them to realize you're abusing your advantaged position to the detriment of everyone else involved.
It's more than instruction decoding, though admittedly that's a big part. There's also memory ordering (tho it's debatable whether that's problematic), the number of logical registers (particularly important for JITs) and messy dependencies like partial flag updates.
I get your point but I think sending the right signals to the market about carbon use is more important.

If we need to tax the rich more we tax the rich more. If we can’t control global warming poor people have much worse things than taxes coming to ruin their lives.
Per year?
> [ ] You have reinvented welfare coupons but worse

> [ ] You have reinvented welfare coupons better, but that's still no justification
Shadow currencies never work. If doesn’t work for food stamps and it doesn’t work for WoW gold.

There’s no reason to tell people what to spend their money on. Generally, folks are better at determining how to spend money for themselves.
That's not strictly true. There are dozens of real-time sleep-based locking protocols that support bounds on worst-case blocking time. Now, even if you have a suitable protocol available to you, your deadlines may be so tight that you can't afford the overhead of context switching. Then yes, you may need a lock-free or wait-free synchronization mechanism.
Rich people may not eat more food, but they may eat food that is shipped in from all over the world. They don't drive dozens of cars at once, but they do have lots of things delivered, and tend not to take public transport as much. They also tend to fly a lot more (which is a big source of emissions), and live in big houses with lots of lights and area to heat and cool.

I agree with your point that a carbon tax would not serve the purpose of a UBI. Now I'm gonna go off topic a bit and focus on carbon taxes.

I volunteer with Citizens Climate Lobby. The bill we're trying to get through the House of Representatives, H.R. 763 aka the Energy Innovation Act, is a carbon tax, but it's not like you imagine, I think. It taxes fossil fuels at the point of production, and therefore allows normal market mechanisms to adjust the prices of everything. No change to individual tax bills. Some things would get more expensive, but we would all get a check in the mail to offset. If you pollute more than average, the check wouldn't make up for the increased prices, but if you pollute less, you'd benefit. The change in prices will shift consumption away from the emissions-intensive goods and services, toward those that are greener.

The poor would disproportionately benefit from this. Not just financially -- carbon emissions and pollution that affects health are of course closely linked, and it's poor people who suffer the most from pollution, because they can't afford to move somewhere else to escape it.

It's not just about individual behavior -- companies would feel the same shift in incentives. Another way to think of the tax, from an economist's point of view, is that it's just correctly pricing a market externality.

The weird thing about a carbon tax like this is that a majority of Americans support it, but most of us don't think that it's a majority! It's already popular, we just have to convince Congress.
Ruby is human-friendly at the expense of a machine-friendly syntax. Writing a machine parser for Ruby is awful.

I guess a language on the opposite side of the spectrum would be Lisp-likes, which are brain-dead simple to come up with a generative grammar for, but a little hard on the eyes.
That depends on the competition. If the market rate doesn't go up, you might have trouble filling vacancies.

It seems that rents are going down a bit in San Francisco because some people who can suddenly work remotely are moving out (among other reasons). UBI is an income that you can take with you wherever you go, much like social security, so it's likely to make living in cheaper places more attractive.
What UBI enables, I believe (and same with universal healthcare and other social safety nets) is lowest barriers to entry. I have no doubt that some will not do anything productive with the moneys it’s pretty much beside the point.

The point is to have a guaranteed floor for all in society, much like the idea of bankruptcy (before the conservative demonization of the idea particularly in the 1990s and Bush era, in the USA) it’s a way to ensure people can start over or continue to build momentum without fear of being homeless, starving and/or being unable to provide the basics for their family or themselves

This lowers the barrier of entry for people to free themselves of being shackled to giant corporations or dead end jobs just for “security”
From what I heard, they intend to win the way France (de Gaulle really) won the World War II – by losing on the ground but siding with the victorious.

Many of the secessionists hope for or expect an immediate collapse of the Chinese central government, either due to internal economic, political, or ethnic problems, or to external pressures applied especially by US, at which point, with support from the Anglosphere, they could obtain and sustain sovereignty.
Everybody should pick garbage on 'rotational' basis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus

And UBI should lead everybody to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
The current benefit requires the person to be unemployed. UBI does not. That’s a huge difference in incentives.
Because of equality. Giving everyone a cut makes sure everyone is participated in the program.
Huh? Both C and C++ only added support for atomics and double-checked locking in the same year: 2011 (C11 for C and C++11 for C++). How did C support double checked locking before C++ when the standards were released contemporaneously?
Everyone gets back the same amount. You can't even know how much carbon tax you paid, because it's levied at the source. It's a redistribution scheme at the expense of polluters.
Your assumption is that Amazon, the middleman, must exist.

If Best Buy, a brick and mortar, were anything like Amazon, they would be under investigation as well. Nonsense comparison.
Britain should have just accepted them back in 1997. Instead they tried to stop Portugal from giving the people of Macau citizenship because they were afraid the people of Hong Kong would ask for citizenship too.
yeah, if only more folks realized how well the system was working for the people closer to the top, they'd happily just march to their death instead of mildly requesting improved circumstances
Seems like solution to a problem that does not exist, there are many motivations for open source projects and not all of them have generating income purpose. Furthermore, generating income via dual licensing is fairly straight forward way, assuming you have solution that is in demand and works.
And also fund a lot of evangelists that don't code at all but spend their time playing open source cops on mailing lists, forums and tech conventions.
CPU Historical Binning Statistics – The Silicon Lottery
> You would somehow have to be able to assess the carbon emissions of every company

And then map that to every stock, bond, loan and asset.
I'm inclined to agree with you, that this sounds very much like a presentation of Dissociative Identity Disorder, with the reservation that I don't know the situation or the individuals beyond these simple reports.

It sounds like you've done quite a bit of reading on this and are consulting with a mental health professional towards a diagnosis. While this might not be relevant to you, if you haven't already, you may want to also explore and discuss together the schizophrenia spectrum. It's also much broader than many people realize and has significant overlap with the dissociative spectrum. It doesn't have to involve the kinds of extreme hallucination or delusion stereotypically associated with schizophrenia itself.

For instance someone with Schizoid PD might experience a sense of switching between personas when they are exhibiting covert characteristics. Or a person with Schizotypal PD might experience shifts in identity as a result of sub-psychotic disturbances, or might turn their suspicion inward to ruminate on the nature of their own identity.

You likely have a stronger sense of established alters since you specifically mention OSDD-1b, but for folks experiencing symptoms of depersonalization/derealization, you might be interested in looking into and talking with a mental health professional about the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the cluster A disorders to see if any of them resonate with you.

At any rate, bboy13, wishing you the best of luck exploring your mental health.
Google is also useless for overly common queries.

I've been doing a lot of cooking. Trying to find anything you've found searching for recipes is just wading through a swamp of blogs, spam, and impractical nonsense. If you find anything you want to try, you'll never find it again.

On the other hand, if I tag all the stuff I might consider in pinboard with my own descriptions, I'm starting with a subset that's just the 4-5 pages I was looking at before.
People have been brainwashed all their lives to think that getting a check every two/four weeks is the only way to contribute to society.
This is why I strongly prefer "Universal Basic Housing" over (or in addition to) UBI. Landlords must be forced to provide a useful service for a good price instead of just freeloading off of the risk of homelessness.
This is going to explode in our faces.

Why would the rest of the world finance us (the citizens of the United States) to sit around and watch Netflix all day? Put another way, someone has to buy the debt we are issuing. Today our debt is sold to savers in China, and to other hard working individuals across the world. We have no means of paying back the debt we are issuing, so we are monetizing the debt through a mechanism known as QE, otherwise known as a printing press.

If we are debasing the savings of hard working people, why would they want to continue to lend to us? We could raise interest rates, but with the levels of our national debt, servicing the debt would become impossible. So that isn't an option. If trust is lost in the dollar as a reserve currency, we will become very poor very very fast.

It won't matter if we print more money, or if UBI is 1,000 or 1,000,000 per month. The dollar will have less value.

It's better to focus on improving productivity and making stuff. There can't be consumption without production.

There is no free lunch.
I just tried to install but it requires Catalina. As someone who is planning on staying on Mojave indefinitely to avoid the Catalina dumpster fire, would love MeetingBar to work with Mojave if it can be easily updated to do so!
That's a good idea. would it be a bad idea to reach out to my email with some names of companies in this space? I just wouldn't know where to start, it send that what you know would be very helpful. cris@dosycorp.com
There’s no difference in the money supply here. There’s no inflationary pressure.
This is completely anecdotal but in my experience this is because wealthy people have high paying jobs and don't really see the value in starting a business unless they just want to be entrepreneur. I've lived below the poverty line and everyone I've met in those circles had a side hustle, business or second job. You gotta grind 10x as hard to get out of those circumstances.
Why charge for public transport at all? Issuing everyone credits they can use to buy rides seems like a way to funnel money to big consultancies.

Similarly for housing; offering very basic housing to anyone who wants to live in it solves 80% of homelessness (the last 20% is harder than you would think).

Food is harder, but something akin to a soup kitchen can still help a lot.
Do you think most wealth is from land? Is that who the UBI taxes would come from? Would it be funded by a property tax?
But in society as it exists today, money is essentially equivalent to all of those things. UBI can ameliorate all three of those issues while helping to avoid the issues that crop up when trying to provide those necessities to people directly.

The article attempts to argue for UBI from the stance of being pro-capitalist and working within the existing capitalist framework, and I think the author would answer your criticism with something like "By providing money to people, they can allocate those resources wherever is most efficient for them- to buy the food and housing they need if they need it, or other things if not. The person receiving the money is the one with the most information about where money needs to go in their life."
> The system isn't broken.

One can repeat this until they’re blue in the face, the data says otherwise.

https://theconversation.com/is-america-a-failing-state-how-a...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/underly...

https://www.epi.org/publication/failure-by-design/
> Giving everyone a cut makes sure everyone is participated in the program

This also applies to the negative income tax.
"But for every you, there's a me"

Everyone agrees that there will be people who will want to work, and people who won't. The question is what is the ratio, and is it enough. No one can predict this with a high level of certainty. We all just have "a feeling", which coincidentally happens to align perfectly with whether or not we believe in UBI.
Rebranding is a dastardly bad way to make a decent argument.
People need food, clothing, shelter, access to healthcare, education and communication, and jobs only because employment provides the income necessary to purchase those actual necessities. No one riots for jobs simply to have a job to do.
OTP as the Core of Your Application Part 2
The difference between a peasant and a king in the middle ages, and a peasant (e.g., a worker today) and a king (e.g., Bezos, or the Saudi king) is night and day.

A middle ages peasant has access to a tiny sliver of the goods and services available to the king. A modern day peasant has access to pretty much all of the goods and services available to Bezos today. It's not like the food Bezos eats is any better than any body else's. The clothes he wears is not much better than anybody else's. The computer he uses is not much faster than anybody else's.

So the gap in availability and access of goods and services between the rich and poor is lower today than it was in the past.
I agree with the notion of not waiting for a perfect plan, and for moving forward to improve the current situation. I consider myself "progressive" in that way.

But if I was writing some code and there was a problem in my algorithm where some people had nothing and some people had too much, I would just take some from the top and give it to the bottom. The UBI seems like a re-writing from scratch.
I'm not convinced that UBI doesn't just continue funneling money from the hands of working class people to the existing billionaire class. UBI doesn't guarantee housing, UBI doesn't guarantee healthcare, UBI doesn't guarantee college.

Even with UBI, the existing 1% would continue to sit on more wealth than the entire working class combined.
Ooo! Thank you for pointing it out. I've always wondered what tool bloggers used to make their neat diagrams. I feel like doing some graph theory stuff now for kicks, or just general illustrations.
It’s an uncomfortable truth, so they would rather downvote and not allow others to see.
(IOW, their idea of supporting the abstract idea of open source software. Although I'm not sure who you're talking about: Stallman I guess fits the description now but wrote his fair share of code in his day.)
I have seen the same firsthand. The idea that there is a latent poet or artist inside everybody and UBI would unlock that is highly dubious. If implemented people would be lamenting how rent plus utilities are now $1000 per month higher. The handouts and demands for ever more will not end.
Yes, if you take credit cards, you'll have loads of issues. But for example supporting the eurozone (most of the EU) is both easier and better accomplished by only taking SEPA push transfers. While there is fraud risk, it's significantly less and shouldn't cost you as the processor. Worst case, I think, it'd be the cents you have to pay to send the money back.

And regarding the issue with being a trust: sure that's a thing, but contract terms should be able to fix the problem by making you send it back (minus nominal fees?) if the designated recipient's registered IBAN refuses your payout. And just don't offer to collect money for anyone who didn't register.
Amazes me that American Presidential candidates are in their 70s and people and parties just go with it. I was shocked reading the news that Wilbur Ross was hospitalised - he has a major work role and is 82 years old. Age of retirement in Australia for that age group is 65. I understand some people just don't know how to stop or what else to do with their time, but I feel like pinning too much hope on retirement is misguided. Far better surely to be doing more living while in your prime. More likely to be physically able to enjoy it, for one thing.
Solar was 2 orders of magnitude out of the running around 1975 -- and now it's at grid parity. So maybe fusion is 45 years away? :P

You're right that the cost is going to have to come down, and the power density up, before fusion can compete. High-field superconductors are one obvious route, and using plasma configurations that make better use of the magnetic fields are another. Either one of those approaches could deliver about two orders of magnitude in power density -- and they could be combined.

>The only reason we're working on it is because we had been.

I think there's been an element of that in the way the federal program has been run, but claiming it's the only reason to pursue fusion is not defensible.
Doesn't that statistic imply that working more correlates with higher earnings?
> Why give free money to everyone?

For administrative simplicity.