mkhoury

joined 2 years ago
[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago

Agreed. It's such a disingenuous argument. It's the usual casting of poor people as lazy, and what they need is a good lashing to get them to work.

Like... No. People want dignity. People want to feel satisfied in their lives. UBI trials have shown that they use that money to get the life/jobs that they want. They're just not gonna be forced into shitty jobs as you said. This last bit is the part not said out loud.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I summarized the two readings of the bill. (Claude AI did, really)

The first speech from the Sponsor (February 8, 2022)

Senator Pate gave a speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a national framework to implement a guaranteed livable basic income program in Canada. She argued that poverty is a major social issue that needs to be urgently addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated income inequality and disproportionately affected marginalized groups. A guaranteed livable income could improve health, social, and economic outcomes for low-income Canadians.

The speech outlined how poverty puts people at greater risk of poor health, food insecurity, and homelessness. COVID-19 has spotlighted these vulnerabilities, as lower-income groups have suffered higher mortality rates. Senator Pate cited research showing guaranteed income pilots reduced hospital visits and improved participants' health. She argued a national program is feasible, building on existing supports like the Canada Child Benefit. Costs could be offset by reducing other programs and realizing savings in areas like healthcare.

There is growing momentum for guaranteed income, with support across party lines. Public opinion also favors it. Senator Pate positioned the bill as responding to decades of calls to action on poverty reduction. She appealed to fellow Senators to stop perpetuating myths about poverty and act boldly to implement this long-overdue policy. The speech was a compelling case for guaranteed income as a powerful tool for promoting equity and dignity.

The Response (April 18, 2023)

Senator MacDonald responded to Senator Pate's speech introducing Bill S-233, which would create a framework for a guaranteed basic income (GBI) program in Canada. He commended Senator Pate's advocacy for the poor, but expressed concerns about the bill's lack of detail and fiscal implications.

Senator MacDonald outlined analyses questioning the affordability and sustainability of a GBI program. He cited research suggesting it could cost hundreds of billions annually, require tax increases, and reduce work incentives. Senator MacDonald also noted provincial studies concluding GBI is too costly and ineffective for poverty reduction compared to targeted measures.

Given Canada's debt and deficits, Senator MacDonald argued the country cannot realistically consider implementing GBI currently. He contended the solution is generating wealth through natural resource development, not expanding welfare states. Senator MacDonald suggested Conservatives could support GBI to replace current programs if fiscal conditions improve under a future Conservative government.

In conclusion, Senator MacDonald maintained Conservatives oppose Bill S-233. While GBI aims are laudable, he believes the bill's lack of detail and Canada's finances make it unrealistic presently. He advocated defeating the bill or sending it to committee for further scrutiny.

Discussion last Tuesday (Oct 17)

I'll put up a summary of the transcript once it becomes available or if I can extract it from the video.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Looks like maybe the note is down? I just get an empty list :(

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 years ago

There's lots of alternate, free and open source syncing solutions. I use syncthing myself.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But the main result is achieved anyway, right? The picture that the system tried to download did not make it into the training set.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

For one thing: when you do it, you're the only one that can express that experience and knowledge. When the AI does it, everyone an express that experience and knowledge. It's kind of like the difference between artisanal and industrial. There's a big difference of scale that has a great impact on the livelihood of the creators.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (18 children)

I don't think that Sarah Silverman and the others are saying that the tech shouldn't exist. They're saying that the input to train them needs to be negotiated as a society. And the businesses also care about the input to train them because it affects the performance of the LLMs. If we do allow licensing, watermarking, data cleanup, synthetic data, etc. in a way that is transparent, I think it's good for the industry and it's good for the people.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago

That's always been the case, though, imo. People had to make time for art. They had to go to galleries, see plays and listen to music. To me it's about the fair promotion of art, and the ability for the art enjoyer to find art that they themselves enjoy rather than what some business model requires of them, and the ability for art creators to find a niche and to be able to work on their art as much as they would want to.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

I don't see anymars wrong with it

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Here are a couple of ideas:

  • Nextcloud to host your files and replace GDocs/Office
  • Home Assistant to control your smart home
  • Plex + Radarr/Sonarr to replace streaming sites
  • RSS Feed Reader to read news and blogs (sorry can't remember the name from my phone)
  • Single user ActivityPub instances
  • Host your own blog site

I'm sure there's more

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't see how one invalidates the other. Amazon's predatory practices have killed off the competition and created a sizable price gap. Not everyone has the luxury of voting with their money.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wow, none of the things you mentioned makes me want to use it.

Thanks for the explanation though!

view more: ‹ prev next ›