nnfy

I think dogecoin failed to go anywhere at least partly because it was a literal memecoin.

Certainly made it hard for me to take it seriously as a semi-layman at the time.

I do agree that you describe the crux of the issue, I'm point it out because I believe it is the reason UBI will do more harm than good, until we address the problem of education first.

But, consider this: when we say education in the U.S., we imply westernization. Who are you to decide for someone else that their culture of ignorance is inferior to your own?

Life is complicated. I personally feel that, historically, these kinds of interventions do more harm than good. If you really want to solve a problem, you dont need to add regulations, you need to get more people on the same page, in general.

You cannot pull yourself up by anyones bootstraps if you dont care to, or are so far removed from functional society that you dont know how a job works, and there is no one in your family or circle of acquaintances to teach you to learn because your community is as unortunately poor and ignorant as you are.

UBI is not the answer to the modern ghetto. Regardless of race. We much first address problems with culture and education. Or at the very least do that in conjunction with UBI.

I am not arguing that supply if finite, I am arguing that extraction of supply is finite and if you deincentivise millions of people from working while throwing money at them, you further reduce supply and exacerbate long term economic problems.

>So you're using a stereotype to make your argument? Come on

The argument could have been made without the stereotype, I agree. But it is an open secret in NYC that people, especially in Soviet neighborhoods, abuse the welfare system. I'll drop it though because I only have anecdata.

If you lived in poverty, surely you at least caught glimpses of all the people who were not quite as noble as your friends? I do not deny that there are truly hard working poor who need a little extra to climb out. I merely argue that there is a much higher proportion of poor who dont care to learn or work than you are acknowledging, and those are the people who will ruin any UBI experiment.

The idea that UBI will wipe away the ignorance and cultural dogma that keeps poor people poor is absurd.

How many lottery winners hold on to their winnings?

Let's be realistic. If you give the uneducated poor free money, the only thing that will change is how much money they have to spend on junk food and dated electriconics.

UBI as a policy in a place like the U.S. is hopelessly niave. Our culture of poverty if the typical culture of ignorant poverty. I speak as someone who lived among the poor-hell, in high school I dated two women from the same trailer park, poverty in the U.S. is about getting mine, and often times about getting one over the man.

These aren't temporarily downtrodden future intellectuals. These are people who haven't understood education or work for generations. But, on the other hand, who are we to claim our culture is superior?

Valid points.

>No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Sure, but you have no right to look my way and then complain that I'm forcing you to view something you consider offensive, in case that's what you're insinuating.

I took ~200mg, you can buy 200mg capsules on amazon. I haven't noticed any kind of tolerance, although just in case I no longer take it daily, as I do worry about a possible rebound of anxiety.

I've probably taken as much as 600mg in one sitting to no known ill effects. Wikipedia page similarly seems to confirm no known harmful effects from theanine. Also it is present, albeit in smaller quantities, in green and black tea. And the ratio of theanine to caffeine allegedly increases with longer steeps, although I haven't confirmed by checking, oh, what was it, dissociation constants that determine rate of dissolution?

Anyway, CBD edibles/tinctures work as well, although our friendly neighborhood Dr. DEA has listed CBD as schedule 1 (!) so, you know, use at your own risk. I recommend it though.

I generally agree with what you're saying, and I came here to post my opinion, but then I wondered, is the concept of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" something new or not?

Pre industrial times, I would assume that people were more private in general, and a desire for privacy was more acceptable. But I really don't know...my impression is that this force openness popped up especially around WWII when propaganda and espionage were immediately deadly things.

I dont think you and the other response understand.

Google used to conduct a relatively straightforward string matching search. That means if you used words like "what" you could end up with unrelated matches, or lower quality matches, because they would match with the word "what".

Now, bear with me, these days google seems to use some kind if machine learning to suggest results to you based on what others have searched and chosen.

What does this mean, practically? At least two things: 1.Laymen have to think less critically, less technically when searching. Considering google is, for the average person, basically the window to knowledge, I think this is ultimately a disservice to society.

2. Search quality for technical information seems to be declining, now that laymen and non-laymen alike are searching using the same " extra" words and, I may just be projecting a poor understanding of neural nets here, but our technical results end up getting sort of clustered with everything else.

Am I the only one who has this problem with the decline of google search's technical relevance? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...I still think what google has done to make the internet more accessible may be a net harm to society.

It pains me to see how normal it has become to search using unrelated words, I.e. "what" and "is".

I still can't get over the fact that google removed advanced search syntax.

That's the point, I dont think, in my search example, a full stack developer with an MS and 5 years experience is going to be making ~90-127k 25th-75th percentile. Sounds like he'd be getting ripped off.

The fact that journalists are inherently biased as humans does not imply that we should not strive toward the opposite.

I dont care either way for the author's point of view. I am bothered by the fact that a news source publishes so much in opinion, and that people end up more polarized after the article, not because of its factual content, but because of its vitriol.

I believe it irresponsible to create and publish content like this, because it amounts to propaganda - I dont care side of our false dichotomy you are on, huff post is up there with breibart.

Opinion pieces should not affect our beliefs as much as they do, but let's be real, communities feed off of opinion pieces. We all do, and I come to HN specifically to minimize my exposure to feel good emotional reinforcement that leads to irrational thinking.

Sorry for the rant.

Edit: your choice of quote may be more effective than you realize, I am a big fan of Thompson's persona. Ironic, I know.

It could also be at least partly related to higher selectivity and more financial aid, and/or rich parents, that make school easier.

But I dont actually know what goes on in ivy and off ivy league elite schools.

Also consider that these may just be better run schools which also provide more and more useful assistance to students.

Edit: I would like to add I think this article title is extremely clickbaity, and plays on the recently resurgent class warfare phenomenon. It pains me that articles like this, from sources like this, are becoming normalized and even acceptable on HN. There's no merit to this biased pile of shit. And I'm not an ivy league graduate having a security crisis. Journalism should be objective.

You would lose so much nuance. And I dont think you are in a position to verify anything since you claim not to speak the language.

It sounds like a bad idea all around.

Aren't you worried about your story not quite coming through because you're speaking through someone else?

Kratom is still legal. However, it does interfere with many drugs because of the enzyme it inhibits.

I also suffer from migraines, although not nearly as severe as yours. I strongly recommend you look into kratom for pain management. I generally take a small dose of two grams alongside 200mg ibuprofen and a 10 hour headache will usually disappear within 30-60 minutes. I won't promise that you'll get the same results, but if you're desperate, kratom is relatively benign, cheap, and helps for all kinds of pain.

I may be biased because I have a background in mathematics, but after working with tensorflow for about 6 months now, I dont think you really need to understand linear algebra or multivariate calculus to work with neural nets, unless you're trying to implement your own engine.

Edit: I dont mean to discourage anyone from learning, as an understanding of the relatively simple mathematics behind NNs may afford the user an additional intuition about the behavior of neural nets, but it appears that one can treat neural nets almost like black boxes, given a suitable engine to work with like TF.

As an aside, TF is a pretty magnificent library. It pretty much works out of the box, and in addition to python and CPP bindings, there appears to be an unnoficial port to c#, although I haven't tried it yet. I strongly recommend the tutorials at tensorflow for anyone interested in experimenting.

Again, the problem here is workers voluntarily entering into illegally mislabeled positions. Where do you get the idea that a cafeteria worker or a bus driver can't leave to work for another school? Also, these are extremely low skill positions, there's nothing stopping these people from getting other jobs, why you feel like these workers have "one choice" is beyond me.

I still don't understand what you're getting at. These people are free to work wherever they wish, and you've yet to demonstrate that there's something wrong with contracting in principle, when done legally.

People shouldn't be unionizing, they should be talking to lawyers.

Two points: 1. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that employees do not have freedom to choose work; in fact, contracting by its very nature leaves individuals with more freedom to choose work elsewhere, even concurrently.

2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees.

I dont understand your point.

So then I presume you will agree that there is nothing inherently abusive with contracting, and the problem stems from misclassification, and the behavior is already illegal, right?

If contractors willingly sign on for the micromanagement that you mention, and are free to quit at any time, why exactly is this a problem that needs solving? No one is forcing foreign nationals to work for American companies. Clearly this "abusive" relationship is favorable to both parties, otherwise the outsourced employees would leave.

When someone has freedom of association, and is made aware of working conditions prior to making major life changes to start a new job, or the job is explicitly billed as temporary contract work, who are you to decide on someone's behalf what is and is not abusive, so long as payment is made as agreed?

Why is that abusive? If you want more secure work, don't offer your services as a contractor.

Are you trying to suggest that there is something inherently abusive about contracting? What if I don't want a full time gig?

If economic value were zero sum, then economies would never grow.

>All goods in circulation in the U.S. have a finite value, and it definitely is a zero sum game.

Except I can create new goods, possibly for free (e.g. writing software, growing crops, mining materials) and directly increase the value of the economy. Contrary to zero sum.

>You can add more goods and therefore value, but that can only happen at a certain rate

Unless you want to try to argue that the rate is so low that the economy is *effectively zero sum in the short term, you've just contradicted yourself. If you can add value to the economy, it is fundamentally not zero sum.

You seem to be conflating the finiteness of wealth and value with the inability to create new wealth or value.

Now, that aside, one could argue that currency exchange itself is zero sum on short timeframes when new money is not printed, but market forces dynamically assign value to currency, such that the economy may still grow with a finite supply of money. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that generally when one purchases goods or services, even in the short term the transaction is unlikely to be zero sum, because goods and services can be used immediately to generate more wealth, and therefore are arguably worth more following the exchange.

There are numerous anecdotal reports online of heroin users using kratom to kick the habit. At the very least, one can be functional on kratom, contribute to society, and withdrawal shouldn't be terrible enough to motivate violent crime.

I have been misreading that word for a few months now. I didnt catch that people were using the root pseudonym.

I didnt even know that pseudonymous was a word until today, thank you.

Have a little more faith in the institutions of computer science and cryptography! I'm sure there's a solution, if it becomes a problem. Pow, pos, hybrids, Cryptos are in their infancy, I'm excited to see them supercede fiat currency, if such a thing could happen; long, winding road ahead.

No, by the conventional definitions of anonymous [1], the protocol is fully anonymous. Saying that it is pseudo anonymous is in my opinion misleading. There is a different word to describe the weakness of a deanonymized address. I dont know what that word is, but we will confuse and possibly turn interested parties and laymen away with the misnomer of pseudoanonymity.

I would compate this mislabeling to claiming that btc is insecure because of the mt. Gox hack; the fact that you can steal bitcoin's from people doesn't mean that bitcoins are insecure. Similarly, the fact that I can trace your transaction trail does not mean that your transactions themselves weren't fully anonymous.

1. Dictionary.com/browse/anonymous

For anyone who may be struggling with chronic pain and/or opioid addiction, I implore you to research kratom. As far as anyone can tell, it is safe, minimally addictive, and in my experience it is good for head pain, stomach pain, anxiety, minor depression, not to mention potentiation of all kinds of other drugs.

Of course, use at your own risk. It may interact dangerously with many compounds, because it inhibits the cytochrome p450 enzyme. That said, after a six month up to three times a day habit, I've quit cold turkey twice without too much trouble.

I recommend I highly if you're out of other options.

One last warning, do not buy in person, you will be ripped off. You can get 250g for less than $30 online, and a dose for pain is 1-2 grams. Higher doses are mildly psychoactive, but OD is anecdotally impossible because you quickly become nauseaus and throw the powder up if you take in excess of 8-10+grams.

Unfortunate display of the intrinsic value of bitcoin as an anonymous[1], decentralized store of value.

1. Please don't tell me that btc is not anonymous; the fact that I can trace transaction histories is irrelevant, since I still need to deanonymize the initial address.