They were actually paying out to everyone revenue from carbon taxes, and people really still voted to get rid of them?
chicken
joined 2 years ago
I feel like if there was a carbon tax that was directly putting extra money in everyone's bank account on a regular basis, and it actually got to the point where that was happening, at that stage nobody would fail to understand the math.
I'm assuming a form of UBI that is actually "universal" and not means tested, so the majority of working people would be getting more than they pay towards the program in taxes, and thus personally benefit.
like corporations raising prices constantly to meet the new extra money supply.
People always bring up this point but the idea that prices are an arbitrary number selected by sellers isn't actually how the economy works. Wealth confers actual agency and leverage. If you have a UBI which functions somehow as redistribution of wealth (ie. funded by taxes on the rich or collective ownership of natural resources rather than by printing more dollars), that is an actual increase in people's negotiating power on the market, companies can't just unilaterally undo it or make buyer's choices for them.
state run essentials given out for free
While this would be much better than nothing and is the better option in specific cases like healthcare where markets are non-functional, something like state housing for the poor is more subject to political backlash. Someone who isn't in state housing and doesn't want to be will likely see it as a drain on their resources going to the "other" and seek to chip away or put degrading restrictions on it, while with a UBI a majority of people would be directly made more financially secure in a more efficient and flexible way, so ongoing political support for it could come from all of them.
It honestly sounds like the person tweeting doesn't even know how the database got deleted. Maybe it was commands they entered themselves without knowing what they do. Then got the AI to admit responsibility and be apologetic.
What's wrong about it? It seems like the obvious assumption that running into intelligent alien civilizations, them figuring out that we exist, would be extremely dangerous.
What are the criticisms? Genuinely curious, have no idea what problems anyone might have with it, other than some quotes from the Ubisoft exec trying to act like implementing user run servers is borderline impossible
Wasn't "delay deny defend" written on the bullet casings? The healthcare CEO was seemingly killed for how his company does business, a business that plays a central role in the lives of Americans and affects millions, the story here is not just about his bank account. You can argue that company affects people negatively. You could argue that politically motivated assassination in this case was good or justified. But I don't think it's a good argument to try to say that there is no reason to give such assassinations special attention, because there obviously is; preventing vigilante acts of assassination from being the determining factor in how the country is run.
Asked students what we wanted to spend our time in his class doing, actually followed through, and was then fired.
“We sort of figured out the whole picture a bit later,” Matt Stone said in response, “but that’s totally what happened.”
Wonder if this was at all awkward after the way they killed off the character with maximum disrespect
I don't buy that, why would they have to care what these people think? Credit card companies have a history of being hostile to adult content, I think it's because the people who own them have an interest in controlling others.