I think good goal posts are even further away.. If you complete 100% of calculus I and then delete all access to it instead of solidifying it by going to calculus II, you will need to learn calc I again within months and the cognitive dissonance that creates will cause most people never to learn calculus.
If you are betting something will tank then you don't time the market to get to put at the best price. Buying these puts either pays out a lot if there is a giant dive before they expire or is a cost to cover that time period.
I still don't get why large holders aren't getting hit? If you were to file takedowns on Disney's misuse of mythology, or whatever, wouldn't you get 30 days of their income while letting their rebuttal expire?
Disney, other film studios, large record labels and distributers, etc, have the ability to place their content directly into YouTube's ContentID system so a copyright claim will generally be denied immediately by one of youtube's bots.
From their numbers it seems like the 20% of Israelis who are neither children nor vaccinated represent about 0 delta cases?
To be able to do such a rounding error in an article implies to me that delta is roughly as infectious in the vaccinated as vanilla was in the unvaccinated.
That's probably not a cause for concern for the vaccinated, as it won't even rarely kill them, but that does mean the herd immunity eventually will not be protecting the unvaccinated from a variant.
The best way to do taxes' progressive support in reverse is to give everyone basic income, food stamps, and insurance and then offset that in the progressive tax rate.
Aside from removing stigma from using the universal minimums it solves the problem of losing 3X your income when combining separate state food program, city housing, and medical programs. That remains a problem even when individual programs move away from thresholds.
The government is only able to provide a total of around 54 crore person days of employment through this scheme. That is less than half crore people in a country of 130 crore people availing this "guarantee" of at least 100 days of work a year.
I think there's something like an inverse relationship between how many jobs are available and how much people need support. The US is actually among the top manufacturers still, but very little of it is still done by humans, so it doesn't create enough jobs. Even the jobs that remain for most people (retail/service) will eventually be automated away. There is plenty of money for UBI if the people who've benefited pay their fair share back into the systems that enabled those lopsided gains.
Some kind of support is needed in this case because none of the gains from all that efficiency are going to people who need money just to survive. It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
Please spend some time in a city in a third world country. I can't imagine a better way to cure for that level of inaccuracy of worldview.
I suggest Kolkata. The sight of frail old ladies barely covered by a single tattered sheet of cloth living on the footpath and begging for your alms has a way of communicating the reality of the world that nothing I can write could ever possibly match.
The minimum wage in the USA is $7 an hour. In India, 10% of people live below $2 a day. In the state where I come from (population >100 million), that number is over 33%.
Even if you find yourself less fortunate compared to other people in your country, please have some empathy for the scale of problems in other, less developed countries.
You're reading too much into what I said. Nothing in it suggests a lack of empathy. I made no qualitative statements beyond the bit about rich people needing to pay back into the system that made their wealth possible. There is absolutely no judgement of any people in developing countries.
> It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
Can you clarify what you meant by this? To me it seemed that you are implying that somehow the poor in third world countries are better off than the poor in first world countries because they still have their 2$ a day jobs.
Nope. Not saying anything of the sort. Your read is qualitative.
My comment was quantitative, strongly implied by the math. If I were going to make a qualitative statement, I would say life sucks for almost everyone on this godawful planet in different ways. You're trying to parse out a judgement of those relative conditions in me saying UBI might not be a universal solution to the hell-sphere theory of life on Earth. I don't know why.
Like I said, my objection was based on the way you had phrased that last sentence in your comment.
> It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
The reason universal basic income does not work in India is not because people here still have their $3/day jobs. It doesn't work because there is simply not enough wealth here to restribute, so the problem here is still one of creation of wealth.
Maybe basic income only applies to "first world countries". Maybe there is a notion of plenty that only applies to modern industrial societies with high resource/population ratios. Maybe India just isnt ready?
Of course that is what I believe. Should have been clear from the way I phrased the question.
There was nothing in the context that suggested that this this discussion was only about the poor in developed countries. After all, most of the world's poor actually live (unsurprisingly) in poor to low-medium income countries. Perhaps this is something that I should be mindful of in the future?
As someone born in a "third world country" I am obviously very interested personally in these problems. In the state I was born in, one out of three people is still below the poverty line (which is like 2 USD a day). To me it seems that for us it is much more practical to learn from whatever the fuck China is doing rather than a method whose primary appeal is ideological.
People would prefer to choose how to allocate their income rather than forcing them to allocate a certain percentage to food via food stamps.
Also, in the same way that a universal basic income removes a layer of bureaucratic overhead, having universal healthcare also removes the burden of middlepeople handling insurance claims.
I think the OP is right about the economic effect. Companies selling their most powerful machine with limiters you must pay to remove dropped the overall benefits of computers to society, but society paid those companies more money for less total benefit as a result of users with higher need for it having to pay more than users with barely a need.
Similarly in software, you can't buy an OS on a per system basis for anywhere near the portion of its cost to produce and keep competitive. The large number of jobs customizing free software exist but they would also exist in a world where there were many competitive profitable stacks bellow them, and they would be buying or creating more expensive middleware instead of expecting anything not specific to their niche to come for free in the next OS release.
Basically, they seem to have 42% of websites with ads. The target audience of this article is advertisers and Google's own brand is based in part on their ability to enforce a lot of standards that brands like, so brands expect them to have little presence on porn sites, hate sites, sites with malicious content, etc.
As someone who worked on kernel/OS code in C for many years, I'm very happy to see any language that doesn't sacrifice it's fit for embedded systems try to enter this space.
I think it was a shame that go didn't prioritize the lower-level use cases like its ancestors and I think not falling into a NIH syndrome is wise and mature of Google.
People will drop out because of change, and others will join or comeback. Life goes on.
