A lot of it will come from being able to remove services like food stamps, unemployment benefits, various pension and social security payments etc. The rest will probably have to come from raising taxes. You can structure the UBI and tax rises in such a way that they end up cancelling out for those people who don't 'need' UBI
Housing supply and demand isn't static. With UBI the need to live close to employment opportunities decreases, opening up more supply in areas that are currently less attractive and decreasing demand in other areas.
Furthermore we still don't know how people will react to UBI once they feel it is universal and permanent. If you're busting your ass to take home $1500 a month today, and then you get $1500 a month UBI, will you keep working just as much and take home $3000 a month, will you cut down on work and aim for $2200 a month, or will you keep living on $1500 a month and just chill all day. Depending on what choices people make, most people might not end up with that much more money.
If you have millions of dollars in the bank, you can invest frugally and get more than UBI off of interest/dividends today. If you're not happy with just that and still working, you won't be happy with just UBI either.
It’s interesting some folks can use them to build functioning systems and others can’t get a PR out of them.
It is 100% a function of what you are trying to build, what language and libraries you are building it in, and how sensitive that thing is to factors like performance and getting the architecture just right. I've experienced building functioning systems with hardly any intervention, and repeatedly failing to get code that even compiles after over an hour of effort. There exists small, but popular, subset of programming tasks where gen AI excels, and a massive tail of tasks where it is much less useful.
On the flip side, I find that often python for example can go too far in the other directions with huge kitchen sink libraries that depend on other huge kitchen sink libraries. To the point where installing the most popular library for calculating the area of a 2D polygon requires installing a fast Fourier transform library. If you want a single quite simple image processing function, you're all of a sudden installing advanced graph algorithm and signal processing libraries.
I think this whole thing is as stupid as the next person, but let's be real about it. This is a small handful of students at a small handful of universities in one country being overly weird. There is no way this is in any way indicative of the vast vast majority of university students in the world. Most of them are just putting their heads down and diligently studying their chosen subject, and will come out smarter and better equipped for working in the real world than when they went in.
Yea. My daughter is 15, and while I don't think she smokes, when we've talked about the dangers of vaping and smoking, she has said that she would never vape, just because it's so lame, but that she finds smoking so much cooler.
For doing 'boring' day to day things in python I find them more or less the same. For doing non-trivial things in Rust, Opus is much better. Sonnet is much more prone to producing garbage that is just completely wrong in those cases. However I find Gemini 2.5 Pro better than both for harder programming problems.
Knitting has the advantage that you can do it anywhere and at any time without 'bothering' anybody else. Sitting on the bus, watching TV, having a conversation. Most people I know who knit use it almost as a 'fidget toy' that they're subconsciously playing with while simultaneously doing something else. Only looking down every few minutes or so to make sure they're on the right track or to make some change
But if you can sell those customers a better product at the same price, then perhaps everybody will be happier. As it is now no one is happy. CS staff are annoyed that the students don't want to learn CS, and the students are annoyed since most of the CS they are forced to learning isn't relevant for the web developer job they want to apply after graduation.
If you want to get technical and read the small print, in this study "the underemployment rate is defined as the share of graduates working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree"
Since most people working at Jane Street have a college degree, you would not be considered 'underemployed' in this particular study.
Of course you can teach most concepts in most languages, but when it comes to understanding concepts like stack vs heap, pointers to a value vs the value itself, move vs copy semantics, pass by reference vs pass by value, explicit vs implicit memory allocation and deallocation, and so on, I found C++ pretty useful.
Why teach it when it seems like less than 10% of postings are looking for it?
And we're back to the discussion of what is the point of a University CS education. I would argue that learning something like C++ is important for the same reason something like Lisp or Haskell is important. Not because it will necessarily help you get a job, but because it introduces you to new concepts and a new way of thinking about programming and computation that will be useful no matter what language you end up programming in for a living.
I think CS departments are at least partially responsible for this development. They know that most of the students applying care nothing about Computer Science, have no interest in Computer Science and will never learn Computer Science, yet they keep accepting (and graduating) them. If CS departments actually wanted to teach CS, then they would advocate for setting up a new series of departments/degrees with names like Software Development and Engineering or Application Design and UX, and send most of the students there. Then those who want to learn/teach Computer Science can learn/teach Computer Science without having to deal with a classroom full of people who really don't want to be there.
“Learn to code” ceases to be good advice if too many people do.
Completely disagree. No matter what job you end up with, you will almost certainly be able to do it a bit better if you know how to code. Knowing how to code is basically always a plus when applying for a job. However "just learn to code a little bit, and nothing else" is probably bad advice.
If it's a maths problem you just leave it as symbols. If it's a science or engineering problem you expand it to a decimal approximation with the precision needed for the specific problem you are dealing with.
The intersection between people who are both confused by this and are comfortable working with Cauchy sequences, Maclaurin series and equivalence classes, is probably pretty small.
We are talking about class, and if we should be making distinctions between groups of people who work for a living based on their wealth, income, and economic stability. I believe there is a fundamental class difference between people who work, but are rich enough to stop working whenever they want, those who can't quite stop working but are comfortable enough to easily go 6 month without a pay check, and people who are only a couple of missed pay checks away from literal homelessness.
Either work, but homeless is more absolute. For some downsizing means moving into their car and for others it means moving into a 3000 sq ft house, with a smaller pool, in the third nicest neighbourhood in town. But yea, losing your house and being forced to drastically downsize against your will is no doubt traumatic in both cases.
So someone on the edge of poverty, balancing two or three minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet, should be considered part of the same class as the CEO of Microsoft or Google? Hell most people on the Forbes list 'work' in at least some meaning of the word, even if many of them effectively work for themselves.
What about the trust fund kid working part time at an art gallery just because they like the scene and hanging out with artists? Same class?
And on the flip side, are pensioners, the unemployed, and people on permanent disability part of the same class as the dilettante children of billionaires?
Yea, should have been clearer. Income from work (or unemployment benefits) in this case. Someone who works to essentially supplement their income, but could live off their capital, is in a very different position than someone for whom work is their only source of income or wealth.
Now it comes down to how you define 'for a living'. You still need to differentiate between people who work to survive, people who work to finance their aspirational lifestyle, and people who have all the money they could possibly need and still work because they either see it as a calling or they just seem to like working. Considering all these people in the same 'class' is far too simplistic.
Management will cut down your team’s headcount and outsource even more to India ,Vietnam and Philippines
Management did all that at companies I've worked for for years before 'AI'. The big change is that the teams in India won't 200 developers, but 20 developers handholding an AI.