This made me put "sign up on gun.io" on my to-do list. Very cool talk, very sympathetic guy (+1 for rapid fire info,+10 for making a stand for hacker aesthetics and fun in hacking)
> Gov't is already so cheap that we (US) have fluoride in our water, that was planned to be cheap dental care =(.
To understand you correctly, do you think the fluoride is a bad thing?
IIRC fluoridated water is amongst the best bang for the buck you can do for healthy teeth, with no downside that I'm aware of (?)
> This concept implies that it's possible to discover all possible scope before starting a project, which is almost always not the case on any project of relevant scale. This is waterfall.
Difference would be that the team defines their own scope. But I see your point
> The notion of "you'll get the rest of the money when the project is done" is toxic and dangerous, and implies that you can know what done means before you even start, and it's an objective and finite finish line you are approaching.
We need to unify this with actually hitting deadlines/making it economically viable, at least until basic income is a working model.
Maybe tie it so that every stage has a payout (20% ln start, 80% on finish or sth like it). First stage ist planning the project, in two stages: first has a fixed compensation based on headcount/"salary". This stage roughly estimates the scope and sets the upper and lower limit of budget. Based on this budget, the second stage does detailed planning, setting out as many sub stages as possible. This second planning stage is added on top of those stages, the total budget is divided between all stages and the first payout is done.
Like this, good planning is rewarded (teams with more stages get more frequent payouts) and there is still some pressure to deliver (payout) but even more to do good work (every stage depends on the previous ones to be doable quickly)
> Flagging this story as the top comment is political. Please discuss the technicalities of this, not the ethics and politics.
This is exactly why I find the idea of enforcing non political discussion unwise. How exactly would you discuss this without touching ethics or politics? You can go into the history of the caesarian (if you have domain knowledge), you can go into the intricacies(if you have domain knowledge) and you can talk about experiences.
But notice how nothing of this is really a discussion, there is no generation of or work towards new truths.
Op hinted at a very real technicality: with modern medicine, we might need to take the role of natural selection of we want to avoid an increase in congenital illnesses. The question of whether we should and to what extent is a philosophical/ethical/political one.
If you ban ethics or politics, the discussion ends here. But the issue remains.
> ... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that.
This is not sufficient to explain to people why there are no rich conspirators hiding wealth. Mind you, I mostly agree with you. But I personally feel we need to have as simple as possible, verifiable, non debated arguments before we are allowed to think of things as silly.
> ... which is, of course, silly. And the author should know that, since I assume he is aware of $clear_refutation
Otherwise we either delude yourselves or dismiss others
You can use the Barcode to tie things together... smart pantries and stock monitoring depends on standardised(ideally free) access to identifiers for the goods
This sentiment is so bizarre from a European perspective. So the only thing that stops people from getting an education willy nilly is student debt? Or American engineers are all better in some respects than German engineers because of their debt?
I grew up with television, books, audio stories=>constant stimulation. I brought books to class to read when it got boring...some teachers let me get away with it(guess who were my favourites).I still crave it and am only slowly learning to relax nowadays. It actually makes interaction with non "hyperstimulated" people hard, because I either steamroll them, interrogate them (because I am interested and give them my full, hungry attention) or zone out because nothing is happening. "Vibing" and hanging out is not easy for me.
I always blamed it on being minimally autistic(not diagnosed and don't want to be insensitive, but some non neuronormative things are there i think)
> It is not unthinkable that the NSA has faked the moon landing and pictures of earth with photoshop / film equipment. You havent been above earth, so how do you know? I think you should be less arrogant at the prospect of somebody having a different opinion than you.
No. Their ignorance is not as important as my knowledge. I didn't go to space, but I can see ships going beyond the horizon and I did do the experiment of two sticks in the ground as a teenager
So how do you ensure that sciencists stay careful and try to be objective, how do you have any objectivity in allocation of funds etc. without some metric? I hate the publish or perish system, but that is due to wrong metrics. If (purely pulling this out of my as, probably a horrible idea) a flimsy study counted negatively to your index and a faulty one outright wrecked it (with complete ruin if you do not redo/retract), that would probably skew the metric optimisation to more carefully thought out, substantial research
> As I pointed out above, the status quo is actually pretty good.
For you. And me. But we are not the majority. The majority does not benefit from automation, globalisation etc. as much as you and me.
And it doesn't matter if in absolute terms we are all better of(for which citation would be needed, specifically for the lowest income bracket), it matters that the benefits of this new age are not spread around to those bearing the costs as efficiently as necessary.
This is why people vote for brexit, trump, afd etc. And no, those don't have the answers either. But they offer convenient scapegoats and changes with "tangible" effect in favour of their voting base.
Politicians on the left and the right are united in their elitism and their own bubbles of what is "important", and they have become disconnected from their populace so much that they can't even coral them effectively any more.
> - homelessness becomes purely choice. Poverty is less of a motive for crime
Unless health insurance is included and we change how we treat mental illnesses, homelessness will still be a problem(albeit smaller)
> - small businesses can hire people who simply want to work there without giving a competitive wage.
But it will be much harder to find cheap labour if the job sucks
> Cons
> - it will be hard to employ for difficult jobs such as mining.
Well, it will be hard to find cheap employees. Force of the market right?
> - the realestate or rental prices can all increase to just below universal income
We don't know this, if you can survive just on the income in some rural areas, whereas the remaining jobs will be left in the cities you will still have different markets, some of which might have above and some of which might have below ui prizes
> - cost of goods can increase knowing people can pay for them
This is a bad thing? There will still be a market for stingy bastards...just like McDonalds has a market with stingy students
> - the cost of US manufactured goods will increase since companies are now competing with the US gov to provide a competitive wage
...good?
> - may lead to a totalitarian gov if too much slowness occurs
As opposed to the current government trend which is the epitome of freedom and privacy
> My argument against communism has always been "who works?". I dont think that more dependence of gov is as important as decentralization. Of goods as many services as possible.
Those who want more money. This is not communism. This is finally decoupling humanistic society("we don't let people starve") from capitalistic free market economy("the government shouldn't control the economy"). An unconditional income means that you no longer need minimum wages, and even a staunch leftist like me would ease up on labour protection laws(where reasonable...health and safety still apply, but e.g. severance pay?gtfo) After all, it will truly be your choice to work there or not.
> If your local community has a local greenhouse or robotics or etc you can take care, you have a job
Unless there is another guy who does that already.
> Making more time for innovation comes from an imbalance of supply/demand for jobs and who controls them. If you can survive and thrive locally, the more centralized entities will be more competitive with their offers. Rents will only increase enough that people wouldnt be willing to move elsewhere. With universal income, all rents would increase and companies arent competing with local work (where an individual can master their skills), they are competing with the US gov over peoples will to be a self starter.
I don't understand this one
> Im not entirely sure the Universal Income is the answer
Not the whole one, and not the last one but I think like our current system it will be good for 50-100ish years I think
> Socialism and Communism has always been led by intellectuals. Marx was hardly a member of the proletariat for example.
It was led, but one of the official foci was "Arbeiter bilde dich", "worker teach yourself". Basically, a goal of the saner strands of the left is to make what we call "intellectual" right now the new baseline. And with good reason. The only way to make a political system like democracy work is to build a good education system to get "mündige bürger", emancipated citizens. And originally workers thought for their education(it is telling that https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeiterbildung exists only in German), recognising it as a tool that the upper classes used as an advantage. But for decades an anti-intellectualism has developed, reinforced by the "get a good career" educational goals(and if you want to be conspiratory, also a shift against critical political education pushed by those in power. I don't believe in that though, I just think in the well meaning pursuit of a "good education to get a job" in what is just too little time and with too little resources luxuries like politics get cut as collateral) . And elitists on the left,center and right, who think they were born smarter than everyone else didn't help either, thinking they need to "lead the masses" or that they can decide acceptable options.
As before, one of the real goals should be to fight together to ensure everyone reaches the level of education that allows them to participate in an informed political process.
Don't know how much that applies here, but there is no inherent moral or egalitarian negative to a "harem" (or "unicorn" arrangements if I remember my polyamory lingo correctly) if everyone involved is actively and consciously consenting. But Gandhi is probably not in that camp
Interesting points, thank you. EEVblog agrees with some of them and did the numbers on others, I might link it if I remember(it's bed time here soon)
One thing where I don't agree:roofs being an unemotional decision. Everything is influenced by emotions. All Solarcity has to do isb make it at least feasible for everyone price wise, then having the combination of the (apparently very fancy) French something style+the feeling you are a part of the solution for the planet+the tesla allure will do the rest for a suitable percentage of the market. That is iff the numbers work out enough to not make it an unreasonable choice.
The iphone would have failed at 1500 say. But 500 was barely cheap enough for what people got and felt they got to be worth it.