Don't know what it would be called but a yin and yang mashup of Cities and Skylines and GTA.
You play against your two selves, and flip back and forth between two modes. In "mayor" mode you have the birds-eye view and you are trying to build a functioning and safe city for your citizens.
Then at any time you can flip to "street" view, where you are no longer mayor, but a criminal leader. Here you are trying to expand your criminal network and evade police.
If the "mayor" your reduces crime to near 0 then doing anything as the "mobster" you will be extremely difficult. If the "mobster" you is super successful then the mayor has a very poor rating, and citizens complain of crime. This should also have physical change to the look of the city as well (graffiti, car's on blocks on the streets, cars with smashed windows, stores with smashed windows, or boarded up, parks generally trashed).
Please provide an example of any database that is tamper resistant. As a DevOps engineer I have setup and configured many different databases, I have yet to come across any that someone with admin credentials (which you always need at one least of), didn’t have the ultimate ability to tamper and do anything they will to database.
Wut? I hope you responded with something like "Hell no, but make it 60% and we can talk". Typically when I have jumped ship I got something like 20%-40% more with my new employer.
> Is “means-tested” supposed to be a degrading adjective?
Yes. People who are on means-tested social safety nets are subject to these test which often make you feel degraded. They often make people fear they will lose their benefit. And in many cases they encourage people not to improve their lives (e.g. I better not take that part-time job, because then I will lose unemployment benefits.) It also creates an incentive to falsify information so that you can continue to receive said benefit.
UBI solves all that because it isn't means-tested, you just get it no matter what (Oh you improved your situation? You got a job, got healthy, etc. That's great! You will continue to get UBI.)
Nothing wrong with that. The government is severely bloated. Also nothing wrong with reducing or replacing horrid, administratively wasteful, degrading, stigmatized, means-tested social safety nets with UBI.
> The point of UBI is not to fund people's vanity adventures in education.
That is YOUR OPINION of what UBI should be. It happens to be wrong.
What people do with the money isn't the point of UBI at all. The point is to improve their lives, and boost the economy. Who cares what specific the money is spent on if it is making people healthier, less stressed, and happier?
Not shocking. I never trusted Chrome, and never switched over to it. I never understood that Firefox hate. I never thought it was "slow" like so many complaints I have seen. Apparently Firefox is fast and amazing again, I certainly think it is better than it was a several years ago, but again even several years ago I didn't ever think it was slow.
>Is it even possible to scale a human operation to this level, even with youtube's checkbook?
YT probably doesn't make money. We don't know because Alphabet doesn't put it as a separate line item in their earnings reports. Insiders say it about "breaks even".
> That system is abused by large companies who know how to exploit their algorithms
Not even this, but the algorithms are designed in way that is bias towards the person making the copyright claim. It isn't like neutral algorithm and the companies just figured out how to leverage it better than creators, it is literally built in their favor.
>Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials
Fair, no. Legal? Yes.
> Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share.
OK, and? There is no fundamental right to YouTube monetization.
>Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well.
Ranking is a problem, if you are platform then everyone has equal voice then the ranking system needs to be 100% equal and transparent, which it is current neither.
> What happens to the independent content creators over time?
They find other ways to make $$ or they find another career. Lots of YT's are now pushing things like pateron membership. There is also nothing stopping any YT from going out and securing their own advertisers and doing their own ads in their videos.
>What is the legal remedy for the above scenario?
Legal remedy is simple, YT can't ban/restrict/bury content. YT can decide who, if anyone, they want to monetize.
>How would one even prove this case in court?
It is obvious when a video is taken down, and if the ranking system was 100% transparent it would also be easy to verify if there was tampering ("My video had 1mil views in the first 24 hours, this other video had 200k views the first 24 hours, the other video was trending, mine wasn't.")
Not really. If the discussion was about weather a video should be allowed to exist, or be taken down, then yes it would be publisher vs platform. But this is a case of monetization vs non-monetization. I think YouTube, Twitter, ect. should be treated as "Platforms" and that nothing should ever be deleted/banned/taken down unless it is strictly illegal. That said, monetization is entirely a different beast, YouTube as a business can pick and choose which videos to monetize and which ones not to. Restricting content is a violation of the 1st amendment, refusing to pay creators is a business decision.
You play against your two selves, and flip back and forth between two modes. In "mayor" mode you have the birds-eye view and you are trying to build a functioning and safe city for your citizens.
Then at any time you can flip to "street" view, where you are no longer mayor, but a criminal leader. Here you are trying to expand your criminal network and evade police.
If the "mayor" your reduces crime to near 0 then doing anything as the "mobster" you will be extremely difficult. If the "mobster" you is super successful then the mayor has a very poor rating, and citizens complain of crime. This should also have physical change to the look of the city as well (graffiti, car's on blocks on the streets, cars with smashed windows, stores with smashed windows, or boarded up, parks generally trashed).