This is a great article, and I've never seen the problem explained better. The solution doesn't make sense, though, and this is almost but not quite obvious in the article by virtue of how well it has stated the problem. The problem with basic income is that it provides people with cash but does not change the underlying supply-demand system. To get the lokal (the room) to work you needed more than cash: you needed a desire for teens to be happy and engaged, the will to help them get there, a sense of what might help them, leadership to set it up, attract them, and keep it going, and then, yes, money to pay rent. If all you provide is the money, you will get people spending more money on the usual things the economy "sees": phones, video games, amusing t-shirts. What you have around the lokal in the story is actually not merely basic income fed into the existing economy: you actually have a separate economy. The separate economy works differently because it sees differently, it has different demands, different desires. The society as a whole (as embodied here by the government, thankfully—though not all governments are predictably good-willed in this way) wants the teens to thrive, to provide for them, to pay for them, to guide them with modest leadership. Though individuals, and the regular markets, cannot think about the teenagers—they don't have the bandwidth, they don't have the time, they have diffusion of responsibility, etc—the society can pool its interests and act upon its collective interest through the market. This may not be the only way to "cut across" the market, to do collectively what no set of individuals will do, but it's one way. So we definitely want to solve the problem: we want to organize, lead, preserve, and fund things that are of collective value but that the market cannot see. Giving individuals a basic income, however, doesn't accomplish that. I wish it did, but it doesn't. It puts the money into the usual demand centers—individuals needing to pay rent and transportation costs and go on dates and so forth—that live within the "blind" economy.
One of the "smells" that gives away a quacky ranter is they speak in impassioned, "Why doesn't everyone understand this?" tones, but in fact their argument just doesn't flow. If Zitron's argument were as solid as he keeps saying it is, you would read it and understand it and see that it is solid. He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. But no. He jumps. He leaps. He circles back. If the situation were really "Gosh why can't you see it?!"-clear, his explanation of the situation would be clear. It isn't, because it isn't.
This is a super-useful article, and there are many cases where the cost of buying, owning, and selling a home is higher than that of renting. But sometimes ownership costs less than renting, and often—generally when you stay long enough—it can cost a lot less. One place in this article that hints why is when he says that in 2011 his mortgage was $2,329.92, whereas now 15 years later it's $2,440.48. That is a tiny crawl upward, nowhere near the rate of inflation. If he'd been paying $2,329.92 monthly in rent in 2011, he'd now be paying about $4,100. Inflation hits renters much harder than homeowners. Appreciation (a form of inflation) tends to help homeowners more than hurt them. Nerdwallet's rent vs buy calculator is quite sophisticated and can help you reason about your own situation. https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/calculators/rent-vs-buy...
You know, anyone can say things. Rants are cheap. What we need, though, is critical thinking. Not just, “Look, three stars are in alignment; it’s the constellation Triangulum.” This article expresses many opinions. It draws lines between stars. But many other lines could be drawn. Maybe we should believe this analysis because it sounds passionate? “He uses cuss words! He must be invested! He talks about CEOs! He must be an insider!” No. Anyone can point out obvious, insignificant data and rant about it. We need facts and logical arguments, not rants. Less of this.
The moves from “the subscription model for AI isn’t working given these parameters” to “a subscription model for AI can never work” to “the model was deliberately deceptive” to “it’s a fucking ripoff” is not logical. AI companies are feeling the need to get hold of spiraling costs by increasing prices and limitations. Inference hasn’t gotten cheap enough fast enough, and for some reason they feel they can’t wait longer. That doesn’t mean a subscription service can’t work: only that it will be expensive, maybe vastly so, and will need tiers based on usage with some fluidity for users to move between tiers in a given month. The model is something like HP’s “instant ink” service. Sure, there’s a question whether the moves companies are making now are worth the cost in the eyes of customers. But that’s a question of economics and timing, not a fundamental blow to monthly subscriptions as a model. The article doesn’t deal with these considerations fairly. It’s too much in the direction of a rant, with conspiracy theories thrown in.
Thank you. But the Y test still seems sufficient. Every criterion will have false positives and negatives. With the Y test the false negative (you present as a woman but have a Y chromosome) is rare and the vast majority of cases are handled well. If you have this condition you must compete against men (given the Y chromosome test rule) or not compete. If you’re dying to be in the Olympics as a woman but have the Y chromosome, you’re just out of luck. Not everyone can be a concert pianist either. No rule makes things wonderful for 100% of humans. The Y test gets very close.
What's the story with the Avro C102 (per law 20)? What's the connection with "A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually. A good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately"? I'm intrigued.
This is an area that could really use good research, but this study looks badly designed and completely dismissible. I hope it’s true that video game playing has some mental health benefits, and I wouldn’t be surprised. You’re not going to determine whether it does by asking a bunch of people how they feel about Mario and Yoshi.
A vibecoded (but programmer-supervised and not sloppy) retirement savings forecaster similar to what you see financial advisors using, but you're in control. Could be useful? Feedback please.
No. This perspective is wrong in both directions: (1) it is bad medicine and, (2) the medicine doesn't treat the disease. If we could successfully ban bad ideas (assuming that "we" could agree on what they are) then perhaps we should. If the damage incurred by the banning of ideas were sufficiently small, perhaps we should. But both of these are false. Banning does not work. And it brings harm. Note that the keepers of "correct speech" doing the banning today (eg in Biden's day) can quickly become the ones being banned another day (eg Trump's). It's true that drowning the truth through volume is a severe problem, especially in a populace that doesn't care to seek out truth, to find needles in haystacks. But again, banning doesn't resolve this problem. The real solution is develop a populace that cares about, seeks out, and with some skill identifies the truth. That may not be an achievable solution, and in the best case it's not going to happen quickly. But it is the only solution. All of the supply-based solutions (controlling speech itself, rather than training good listeners) run afoul of this same problem, that you cannot really limit the supply, and to the extent you can, so can your opponents.
You may have given up too early. For me the key part of this story is that she made a personal connection willing to guide her through and to overlook technicalities (like not having enough experience). The fact that she then reached a different person who was a jerk is a matter of chance. I’d you find a way to keep making these personal connections, she’ll get a job eventually. Also: it sounds like you’re very supportive and invested: good on you. She’s not alone.
This is very well said. It's horrifying, but very well said and very true. Sometimes the situation is just plain bleak. I have been unemployed for more than a year twice; I've been unemployed or underemployed for about 5 years in total. This despite accomplishing great things while employed and being well-regarded at past jobs. For me, each time the cloud has eventually passed and new work has come along, but that doesn't help until it actually happens.
@phoenixhaber, you're in a very dark place, no doubt about it, and it sounds like you've been there a long time. I've been in that dark place and I feel for you. Let me just assure you that dark times do give way, eventually, to light. If you need a rational basis for that claim, think of it as regression toward the mean: extremes, good or bad, move toward the non-extreme. Things will get better.
In the meantime, your task is to separate from the darkness and let it be on the outside, not the inside. It's bad enough when it's on the outside: that is, in the world around you or even in your own body. When it's on the inside—not just the body but the mind—then it destroys. Push the darkness out of the mind and into the outside world. That's pretty abstract advice but it's the best I know, and if it makes sense to you, I hope it helps.
I'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. Evidence?