I dunno what you are trying to prove. I haven't been rude.
144 karma · joined February 20, 2020
> There are economic models that support a variety of liberal crackpot and old school approaches plus everything in between.
More economic models. That have that never work. When are people going to learn that you cannot make wealth out of thin air?
> There MUST be a better alternative to what we have today.
There is. But what I consider better alternatives are very different from what you would consider better alternatives and you definitely won't like what I would propose.
Doom Eternal while it works pretty well does have significant artifacts in some levels. There is also some weird bugs that don't exist on Windows and significant performance drops (game goes into single digit framerate) which again doesn't happen on Windows 10. Doom Eternal needs a high framerate to be played properly. I have a 1080Ti, I shouldn't have frame drops.
I been playing a lot of Doom Eternal (clocking over 40 hours in game) while in Quarantine and I've played it both on Arch Linux and Windows 10. My rig is pretty good (Ryzen 7 3700X and a 1080Ti).
Also if you have kernel.modeset=1 as a kernal parameter on to get Wayland with Nvidia, proton just doesn't work as it can't load up the vulkan libs (this is me going through the steam logs). I believe Pop_OS! does this, however I switched to Arch Linux now.
So I have to choose playing games with screen tearing while scrolling in Firefox or smooth Firefox with no-games.
In Windows I have none of these problems.
When people like yourself start putting words into my mouth. It is time not to bother conversing any longer. Goodbye.
Yes it is. Because they are taking wealth from people who do work. Everyone sidesteps this and tries to justify it as being virtuous by citing things that are post rationalisations.
It will also make people more dependent on the government which gives more power to politicians (those who will want to be elected will simply promise to increase the UBI) and we go further down the road to tyranny.
We all know that those who work will be taxed more highly as that is the simplest way. It will have to be quickly as it has to be done within a few years (because that is a term limit of most politicians).
> The world today has the wealth to pull this off.
No the world today is very good at printing money, which destroys the middle class (as their savings and investments become increasingly worthless). Without the middle class you typically don't have people with disposable income which is normally used on goods and services, so you end up with less actual wealth in the economy.
> The government (or some other entity) could employ people to generate wealth like traditional corporations do today.
Governments do not generate wealth (it only takes from others and enriches the bureaucracy). Why would another entity freely give away its money?
> So the billions tied up in mega corps could be used for something that actually moves us on as a civilization.
Pure utopianism.
It is simply wrong to take from others who work to those who cannot be bothered to work. Everything you do afterwards is trying rationalise your desire for UBI because you believe it to be virtuous.
Get rid of corporatism as well. Any politicians to be seen to be paid off (and I don't doubt there are quite a few) should be locked up. Corporations can that are inefficient can only survive because there isn't a fair market place and this is facilitated by politicians.
> That money is not only taken from you, it's taken from generations to come through debt. You're the sucker, either way!
At the moment it is getting taken from me. I can see it in my accounting. So don't tell me it isn't when it very clearly is.
> Now, do you want to make things worse to enforce some idea of "fairness"? That's the essence of socialism.
Oh please. This is ridiculous. I am not saying it should be fair, I am saying that in principle it is wrong to allow those that do not want to work to do nothing and be supported by those that do do the work. Doing something on principle isn't fairness. I don't like corporatism and those politicians that sold us down the river should be rotting in a prison cell.
>That's survivorship bias. Depending on the business, it would be unwise to take all the risk, relative to the limited reward. I hope you managed to save enough for your retirement, unlike most small business owners.
Claiming survivorship claim is a bit of a meme on here and your usage is utterly ridiculous, in fact it must be some sort of fallacy to claim this every-time someone simply say "You can do this without the government" they parrot survivorship bias because they read the wikipedia entry the week before.
I am a contractor (and I sub-contract to others). There are plenty of small businesses that do fine and it is trivial to setup a pension and investments through you business (took me an afternoon on the phone). This does however require you to read up on things, and take responsibility and think ahead.
> If you want real capitalism where workers don't have all these rights that prevent an efficient economy, inevitably some workers will be in a dire economic situation and will have to take any job, lest they starve. That's an exploitable situation. I suppose you don't want that.
The reality is that some people will have to work jobs they don't like. I've done it. That still isn't exploitation, it is called life mate. There are some thing that you won't like doing. I don't like working with legacy systems but most of the work involves working with them.
> I'm not arguing for Marxism, I'm arguing to get rid of the entitlements and most of the worker's rights, but in turn give them a simple safety net, a very modest means of living, so that they don't have to take or keep a bad job - especially not those artificial jobs created by corporate welfare.
"I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing for redistributing wealth by taxing the upper-middle class further". The elites never pay these taxes (I wouldn't if I was soo rich I could pay an army of accountants to work out how to move my wealth to a tax haven).
Also when people say "corporate welfare. I am starting to suspect that it means "I don't like my boring job at global-corp, therefore if we had UBI I could read reddit at home instead and post pictures on r/unixporn instead of having to pretend to be working".
> You must understand that keeping people working in uneconomical jobs is more wasteful than just giving them money to do nothing, because on top of it costing taxpayer money, it also costs people's time.
No you must understand we have to end collusion between Government and Business. UBI will make people more dependant on Government. Once that is ended, if the job is uneconomical and there is no corporatism the problem will resolve itself as eventually businesses will have to innovate their processes if they want to stay competitive.
No. I am fed up of this pathological altruism. They should be looking for employment. End of discussion.
I understand these people very well (I grew up with them). I find that those that advocate for these types of programs that you refer to, to be very naive or willingly ignorant.
I don't care if someone or some studies say that it works out cheaper or it maybe nicer. It is simply not ethical. However I am someone that given the choice between Monarchy and Democracy, Monarchy is the better choice.
I agree. But that still doesn't mean you have a right to take from those (through the form of taxes) to give to those that are unwilling to work.
> It's good if people want to work, but if they perform useless work, they're better off receiving money for nothing and maybe educate themselves. That's strictly less wasteful.
I had a job and went to university, I unloaded lorries in a warehouse it was very boring. I still spend a lot of my time outside of work reading, coding etc.
People typically have 4-6 hours plus the weekend so another 32 hours to educate themselves, yet most choose their time watching netflix, playing theirs Playstation etc, going to the bar (nothing wrong with those in themselves btw). Online courses are inexpensive these days and it is literally at your fingertips. Before there were online courses people used to go to night schools to learn. The opportunities are there but people choose not to pursue them, that is up to them.
> If property prices in the UK weren't inflated by debt-financed monetary policy served to protect those who already own them, you could've also bought a property years ago.
There are many reasons why property prices in the UK are ridiculous. However if wasn't taxed to the high heavens I would have been able to afford it sooner regardless of why the prices were high. In any event, it was just an example of how I could have spent my money differently that would have directly benefited me.
> If people know they can fall back to a modest basic income,
I run my own business, I took a risk. I didn't need the government to help me. The willingness to take risks and better yourself doesn't need the government to be involved.
>They will be able to refuse jobs that exploit them.
I hate it when people use this rationale. You get paid for going to work. You have plenty of rights at work. You are not exploited. You sign up willingly to work. It isn't exploitation. I don't buy into this whole "capitalism exploits the workers" marxist thought process.
Having a form of UBI will increase the tax burden on medium to high earners such as myself. I simply don't believe it is ethical to offer UBI i.e. you are taking my earnings to fund those that unwilling to work, even if it is a tiny percentage it is still wrong on principle.
I don't mind my taxes providing a support mechanism for those that are unable to work due to a disability, illness or simply becoming too old to work or have become unemployed for no fault of their own (e.g. business foreclosed).
If you are working remotely they will give you a machine that VPNs into another machine.
http://podsix.org/articles/pimodem/
However that can be replaced with a plipbox (I believe he has open sourced it and you can build your own).
http://lallafa.de/blog/amiga-projects/plipbox/
You can just plug this into the back of your PC. This is a good demonstration of how it all works.
It looks nice and all, but there are plenty of free options available that will do the same.
e.g. This is a fire control mechanism for ships.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4
Very clever stuff indeed.
Discord is a lot easier to use, but in a lot of ways it is really limited compared to the IRC clients.
IRC has a ton of advantages:
1) IRC will run on ancient computers, I was chatting to people on IRC using an Amiga which is 25 years old and will run with virtually no bandwidth. I used to use a 33K modem to speak to my friends after school.
2) Anyone can setup an IRC channel pretty much instantly on a server and you and your friends can start chatting.
3) The message protocol is quite easy to deal with and parse. It also really, really, really fast. Messages are instant, there is zero friction. Slack and Discord are very slow in comparison
4) Building a bots for IRC was super simple. You can be building a bot in minutes in any programming language.
https://pythonspot.com/building-an-irc-bot/
5) IIRC clients allowed you to write scripts to script the client itself.
e.g. MIRC had a scripting language that was just plain text
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRC_scripting_language
6) You could request files from server and bots IIRC. This was used quite a lot for warez back in the day and much faster than bit-torrent at the time.
7) It is pretty much anonymous. Make a nickname and connect to the server.
8) You can run your own IRC server pretty easily. You download the server software, config some XML/INI files and point your domain at the box. You have your own IRC server.
With regards to TDD specifically. It isn't for everyone and many consider it to be a bit of a cult. While I don't consider it a cult, It doesn't work with how I personally solve problems. I normally for example get something extremely rough working and then iterate until I consider it to be perfect and then write my tests to define how it should behave.
Considering the machines are now ancient and people put a lot of effort in to keeping the hardware relevant, I personally don't mind paying the extra.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overview-of-the-f...
(The report itself doesn't do a particular good job either as they use some dubious sources and I don't agree with half of it, but their definitions of the groups are close enough).
I've listened to a lot of Weinstein on various shows he has appeared as a guest on and I haven't heard anything that can be considered far right. One of the first times I seen Weinstein was when he appeared on Dave Rubin who is a gay liberal/libertarian (the last time I watched his show it seemed to change every other week) that lives in California.
> Perhaps you could be excused for believing someone isn't far right when the overton window among english-speaking countries has narrowed so far to the right of center.
This is a complete nonsense. The Anglo-sphere for the most part is pretty much centre, centre-left. Many conservatives and paleo-conservatives complain their conservative parties aren't really conservative (which isn't far-right either btw).
The term far-right in itself is a poor description. A better term is a "reactionary right". But that is a whole other discussion between the "reactionary right" and the "traditional right". Right and Left are really poor descriptions of political positions and that is why many tests online now are multi-dimensional.
> He's clearly very popular with the Breitbart crowd, and about as anti-establishment as any billionaire politician with the backing of a media arm and an attitude of suing everyone who challenges his views. School of Thiel and all.
Actually I do talk to the people you are talking about, and again most of them aren't far right. The actual far-right don't like Weinstein or his brother (they tend to not like Jewish people on the far right).