dbsmith83

It's great these people liked their jobs. I don't think you're going to find enough people like that to fill every janitor position though. Not to mention all the other jobs which tend to be less desirable that society needs. In any case, I think the discussion has changed here because there is a difference between 'hating your job' and 'doing a job to get paid'

Huge income tax evasion and money laundering. On a massive scale like we don't have today. It would be harder to detect

Great, but I also have extensive life experience too meeting people from all walks of life, and I know plenty of people who would rather sit around and get loaded than work. Hell, there's enough of them already without UBI such that it is already a burden upon our healthcare system. The last thing we need is more of them.

> Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.

reminds me of a great Office Space quote:

Michael Bolton : No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.

Please tell me, who actually works because they enjoy cleaning shit up and not to just get paid?

Disingenuous argument which completely ignores the ramifications of severe economic downturn on a global stage.

You will still need the bureaucracy there to be monitoring for abuse. I'd argue it'd be larger since the scale is increased

> Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true.

What are you saying? That most government programs aren't working? Please share the data.

> The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning... The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning.

I disagree. That rosy perspective comes off as being really naive

It wasn't Jupyter related, but I can't remember which specific packages it was. It was quite a few years ago

Several years ago when I had to build a custom package manager/build tool to solve this use case, I wish I could've just scoffed :)

...until you need to use a Conda library, or until a transitive dependency suddenly breaks everything

https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/9204

Since it isn't molecular you can scale it by any number. Oftentimes it seems that decimals will be used when the ratio is not fixed. I'm guessing that at different temperatures some of the atoms will move around, while bond distances will change and thus overall the volume stays consistent.

> Not with this stuff, which the team observed across that huge temperature spectrum demonstrating "only minute changes to the bonds, position of oxygen atoms and rotations of the atom arrangements." The team says the exact mechanism behind this extreme thermal stability isn't totally clear, but that perhaps bond lengths, angles and oxygen atom positions are changing in concert with one another to preserve the overall volume.

Inside was a link to this awesome retro font site https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/

Exactly. Once the number of stakeholders crosses a certain threshold, your lead developer will be so busy with them that they will essentially just become the manager because they wouldn't have any time to code.

So, you shared an email from a kook sent to Fauci. Is that your evidence? This is just copypasta from 2005 paper

https://www.pnas.org/content/102/33/11876

If you want to split hairs, you actually said:

> The Fauci emails in March 2020 that described the exact components of the virus ...

which is a complete lie. The email does NOT describe the components of the virus at all. You clearly are lacking in any sort of biochemical background as this is obvious. Do you actually fact check anything you are posting?

The idea is laughable. This sounds like something in an episode of Alex Jones and/or QAnon.

> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/03/fac...

Any other crank sources you'd like to share?

I think it's because if you think about it critically for more than 3 seconds, you will see that it is a tin foil hat idea with many, many holes.

Ridiculous to think that it was deployed by NATO because NATO countries were affected by it just as much if not more. That would be the most idiotic weapon used ever. It literally makes no sense.

Sorry, but the idea of NATO deploying the most idiotic weapon imaginable on the entire world vs. the idea of an accidental escape from a lab are NOT equally plausible at all. In fact, this entire article goes thru evidence that it was not NATO because of all of the internal investigations and such.

What you are suggesting is tin foil hat conspiracy theory crazy.

> It's also plausible that the fault was brought in deliberately by a rogue engineer to raise the subject globally.

Doubtful to me, I would think that an action like that would be very traceable in a big corporation like Microsoft

I bet the filter was supposed to be applied only to China IPs but was accidentally applied over all IPs. So whatever work is required to fix that and roll it out

This treatment may or not be effective. Hopefully it is. To me, this analysis seems pretty basic and surface-level. It fails to examine other factors going on which may also be mitigating the number deaths in different areas. It really doesn't have the rigor of anything scientific. It's like a collection of coincidences. Unfortunately, I see anti-vaxxers using this as an excuse to not get the vaccine on social media a lot nowadays.

edit: great, one of the promoters of this crap downvotes me before it gets flagged and now I lost karma because no one had a chance to come back and undo it

edit2: thank you whoever restored it!

Nonsense. What a foolish weapon it would be. Both for its lack of virulence and imprecise targeting. This is (a rather bad) conspiracy theory

I use a script to strip it from the file. Definitely not ideal.

Ah ok, I misunderstood your point then. I had seen other discussions on HN about UBI and people proclaiming that it should be ok if people don't want to work at all

> It seems to me the increases of efficiency should allow all people a minimum quality life(...), no matter their contribution to society. I think this can turn people that are a strain on the system to contributors

How would they be contributors? I'm thinking maybe you mean that they will participate economically (buying stuff and making more babies). Is that really a good thing though, to have people who do nothing to contribute besides consume things--especially from a climate standpoint? It seems unnatural to me, because nature rewards competition, survival of the fittest, etc..

There's nothing wrong with pointing out problems with a solution and not providing a counter-solution. When one isn't provided, it can simply mean that the offered solution is actually worse than the status quo.

In this particular situation, I may not have the solution, but I know that the offered one is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction which has terrible implications for other things

Right, but if you actually read the parent comment you will notice that "_always_" was used and even emphasized, along with "there are no accidents", and the only example provided of a non-accident is a non-car crash example of a meteorite. My examples are much more plausible, and the list goes on. I came up with those examples in like 5 seconds. The point is that there are lots of cases where it truly was an accident.

> "There are no accidents, there are only fuckups. Maybe getting hit by an asteroid would be an accident - but hitting or getting hit by another vehicle, or driving into the scenery, is _always_ a fuckup on somebody's part, not an accident."

That's a stupid phrase. I can think of many cases where there was not a fuckup yet vehicles collide. Example: someone has some kind of acute medical issue happen (maybe a seizure) and crashes. Or maybe there is black ice that you cant see. Maybe a truck flings a tiny rock it couldnt see in time into the windshield of a car behind it. It is really easy to come up with examples like this.

You are framing the argument disingenuously. This isn't a simple formula where union = better. There are reasons why people don't think a union is in their self interest. Contrary to whatever you're parroting, there are actually people who have good reasons why they don't want a union--including things they have actually experienced. The fact that you can't possibly see the other side of it and can't even fathom an argument against it just shows how biased you are. The fact that you don't even think other people can make their own rational choice shows how condescending you are.

Things can also change when rising costs of manufacturing due to a unionized, aging, and over-paid workforce cause the company to decide to shut the factory down. It works both ways.

> And anyone who doesn't believe...

Right, because no one has any relevant experiences which might influence their thoughts. You said anyone. You come across as incredibly condescending