> As marriage becomes less popular among younger generations, Seattle men have hit a milestone of singledom: For the first time, half of the men living in the city have never been married.
How can this logical fallacy pass through editorialising? As marriage becomes less popular, for the same number of couples, you will have fewer marriages but not more singles.
"Single" for the purposes of this just means "not married". They don't care if the man has a girlfriend, situationship or polycule. If a person isn't married, they're single for the sake of taxes, census data, etc.
Can you explain the fallacy in more detail? It doesn't seem like a leap that if marriage is less popular, a larger percentage of the population is single.
They can be in a relationship (not single) but not married. I know people in relationships for 7+ years who haven’t married. That was far less common the further back you go.
> UBI is first introduced at any arbitrarily low amount higher than $0. The fiscal authority then gradually increases the payout until the maximum-sustainable level of UBI spending is discovered
> Notably, since this policy is proposed to be 'funded' by a monetary policy contraction, it in theory requires no tax or consolidation of existing government programs to implement; nor does it necessarily imply a net increase in the overall money supply.'
What happen if this CBI maximum happen to be a very low amount? Too low to be an ‘income’, for example 10$.
I’m saying that because there has been periods where monetary policies have already been very tight [0] (recently following the subprime crash).
According to my understanding of the paper, in the periods there would be no leeway to fund this CBI.
Yours is the first comment that suggests you read the article. At least kinda? Not sure anymore.
US banks create, though lending, 10.7 Trillion per year. If money creation though lending was shut down entirely it would work out to something like 3500 per person per month. You would have the same amount of money in circulation.
Rather than trickle down though clogged tubes it would stimulate spending directly. The economy would then greatly favor companies that do things that are useful to citizens.
Lowering interest rates might stimulate some part but I've never seen it affect my paycheck directly. If the measures don't influence peoples salaries their purchase power doesn't change much and the measures have little effect on that part of the economy that is relevant to citizens. You might improve the economy, if you don't improve quality of life simultaneously the economy increasingly becomes something unrelated to human life - which is bad.
> What happen if this CBI maximum happen to be a very low amount?
It shouldn't need to be pointed out that that's deeply unlikely, but I'll point it out anyway.
The available monetary contraction is orders of magnitude larger. Economic conditions where it would be constrained to such a low level would likely be rare and temporary. And, it's generally accepted that direct cash transfers increase spending.
No you're not. This thread feels like a nostalgic crowd who idealizes the past and falls into the “it was better in the old days” trap, letting go of the myriad of things that improved since then.
I was inspired by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash, which was proof of work for email to disincentivize spam. To my horror, it worked sufficiently for my git server so I released it as open source. It's now its own project and protects big sites like GNOME's GitLab.
That's cool! What if instead of sha256 you used one of those memory-hard functions like script? Or is sha needed because it has a native impl in browsers?
Right now I'm using SHA-256 because this project was originally written as a vibe sesh rage against the machine. The second reason is that the combination of Chrome/Firefox/Safari's JIT and webcrypto being native C++ is probably faster than what I could write myself. Amusingly, supporting this means it works on very old/anemic PCs like PowerMac G5 (which doesn't support WebAssembly because it's big-endian).
I'm gonna do experiments with xeiaso.net as the main testing ground.
Interesting idea. Seems to me it might be possible to use with a Monero mining challenge instead, for those low real traffic applications where most of the requests are sure to be bots.
I'm curious if the PoW component is really necessary, AIUI untargeted crawlers are usually curl wrappers which don't run Javascript, so requiring even a trivial amount of JS would defeat them. Unless AI companies are so flush with cash that they can afford to just use headless Chrome for everything, efficiency be damned.
Sadly, in testing the proof of work is needed. The scrapers run JS because if you don't run JS the modern web is broken. Anubis is tactically designed to make them use modern versions of Firefox/Chrome at least.
They really do use headless chrome for everything. My testing has shown a lot of them are on Digital Ocean. I have a list of IP addresses in case someone from there is reading this and can have a come to jesus conversation with those AI companies.
Use judo techniques. Use their own computing power against them with fake links to fake Markov generated bullshit at random, until their cache get poisoned with no turning point as it's impossible; the LLM's begin to either forget their own stuff or hallucinate once their input it's basically feeded from other LLM's (or themselves).
How would those 5 lines of code look like? The base of this solution is that it asks to solve a computationally-intensive problem whose solution, once provided, isn't computationally-intensive to check. How would those 5 lines of code change this?
> Some may argue that, from a business standpoint, not charging for stories primarily relying on public records automatically means fewer subscriptions and therefore less revenue (…)
> while some readers might not subscribe to outlets that give away some of their best journalism for free, *it’s just as possible that readers will recognize this sacrifice* and reward these outlets with more traffic and subscriptions in the long run.
(emphasis is mine)
Not, the outcimes are not as likely. This is the same argument that switching to foss and donation-based model would not result in income-loss compared to traditional business model.
We know from experience it does not financially work for a (very) large majority of products.
I laud Wired’s initiative but I hope they have considered it as a net-loss of income.
Most major subscription newspapers in Finland have a model where "important" news articles are free but for feature stories and such a subscription is needed. Having specific articles free would be something similar.
The free news articles are not out of the goodness of the shareholders. Most newspapers (Wired included) run ads, and still get ad revenue from the free stories and with them get to somewhat compete with fully ad funded alternatives.
I wonder how many subscriptions are bought for outlets which have no outside-internet recognition or freely accessible content, where all you can see is a paywall.
If I'm gonna subscribe to your magazine, the main things I want to know is quality of reporting and if I can cancel without hassle (due to tactics sadly employed by some titles). I will not just believe you have good stories if I can't see them. This is not the level of trust we give nowadays. And magazine and newspaper subscriptions are not some pressing need that I can't forgo.
For some of these I could just buy one paper issue to try out (technically even for foreign titles), but otherwise how would I know. And no, with a book I would buy, I know I can expect some level of quality because of the publisher, and I can read what it is about in the backcover. Worst case scenario, I get 250 pages of poor entertainment to read when very bored in a train. It's not the same with getting access to someone's sorry content farm.
reply