Think one step further. What happens if you do? Doesn't the USSR example teach you anything? You will have a different breed of oligarchs, that's all (yes, there were oligarchs in the USSR, just not in the way you think, money is not everything and oligarchy is not about money).
What do you consider as "productive"? Look at animals in a zoo, do they look productive to you? They have "a universal basic income", they simply don't need to be productive. Humans, just like animals, are productive when they are trying to achieve something (catch food, find mates, and for social animals to establish their position in a society which leads to food, mates etc.). E.g. you are developing OSS -- ask yourself why? Forget about money for a second. Are you doing it for yourself only, just for a pure fun of manipulating characters? Or you expect your software to be used by others? Revered by others? So if it's useful for others do you expect them to use it for free and pay you through taxes via the universal basic income (relying on a government to do a "fair" distribution), or maybe just pay you directly thus showing that very reverence? So it's just a distribution problem. If you don't want to worry about selling your software, then let others do it (it's called "working for a company"). As opposed to a government, which can pay for a work not needed for anybody (not very efficient, but that's what governments do all the time). Want to spend more time with your family? Don't buy the latest iPhone or an expensive car and work remotely part time, you will be able to spend more time with your family. There are tons of possibilities. Yet people do want the latest iPhone and then complain they don't have time to spend with their family or do "what the like".
I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature. If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need. No, it doesn't have to be a work "for a company", but if you can't "make money off of this" it probably means your "work" is only relevant to you, or somebody else will "make money off of this" using what you have created. It's how society works, and we are social animals.
It's only magic if you don't know what's going on under the hood. I felt this way for the first couple of years until I figured it out (experience matters as with every other language/platform). Then there was no magic, just conventions. You can do crazy things with Ruby and people tend to do them thinking it's "cool". Just don't. Rails doesn't have many and they are pretty well documented.
We recently upgraded our pretty large enterprise Scala codebase from Cats v1 to Cats v2. Static typing does help, but there are tons of other problems. One of them is lack of conventions like in Ruby on Rails, which can easily be much worse than dynamic typing in the presence of conventions (provided that conventions are followed -- rarely the case).
Just use Big Five in Canada, I assume you have 100% guarantee then. In the US $250,000 is guaranteed by FDIC (per bank), so you would probably be fine here too. OTOH not all businesses can operate from a founder's wallet, some need loans. Who's going to provide those loans if every bank is a full-reserve bank?
Yeah, that's exactly how we called it in the USSR. Employer pretends they are paying, employees pretend they are working. How it's ended is well known.
You shouldn't know how an internal combustion engine works, right? So you bought a shitty truck for you business, it broke (let's say the warranty has expired), now you are broke. A knowledgeable capitalist knows that decreasing trust in vehicles hurts economy, so let's government intervene and compensate you for your broken truck. Right? Or maybe take over Ford/GM so they can build reliable trucks and they don't break, it will be good for economy, right? Banking and choice of banking tools is as important as choosing your truck and it's on you if you call yourself a capitalist, and if you failed, well, blame yourself.
You realize that if there was such a model SVB wouldn't have existed and startup founders would have to turn to e.g. BoA, which ... would have turned them down? So those startups wouldn't have existed in the first place just as SV as a whole. Problem solved! Back to the USSR!
Referential transparency is something you can reason about. While technically monads are "reasonable" you are not going to reduce them by substitution. Yes, you can if you have a good imagination, but how does it help? While combining effects is thread safe etc., executing resulting function not necessary is. So we just kicked the can down the road adding another layer on top of existing compiler.
Monads is a nice way to hide state I have to admit, but not because of referential transparency and "reasoning".
But we do have loops in the real world, don't we? So in a true FP we are talking about recursion as an alternative to for loops. Can you easily reduce recursive function? If you can, I can as well "reduce" for loop. Otherwise we are talking about a paradigm without recursions and side effects.
Not really. Try to interact with DB in FP. Yes, there is a referential transparency ... when combining functions which call DB (e.g. using monads). As a result you get a composite function, which is the same every time you run that composition. Who cares really? When you execute that composite function though you will potentially get different results and your "referential transparency" goes out the window. Of course one can write a "pure" FP program without effects, but any side effect reduces referential transparency to combining functions, is it really easier to reason about computations this way? Nope, it is not.
Basically how FP sells:
def a
1
end
def b
2
end
def c
a + b
end
You see? c = 3! Now try to apply this logic to (real world with effects):
def a
(conn: DBConn) => { .... some complex code ... }
end
def b
(conn: DBConn) => { .. another complex code ... }
end
def c
(conn: DBConn) => a(conn) + b(conn)
end
There is an interesting analogy which came to my mind. Let's say we have $100 each and both decided to buy stock, only I bought e.g. Microsoft shares, and you bought Facebook. Who has more money (i.e. cash)? Hard to tell until we both sell and compare. Similar things happen with inertial frames of references. You can only compare time when you are at the same point in space and have zero relative speed (reminds me of Back To The Future moment when Doc Brown compared watches). E.g. time on the ISS is ticking slower. Really? How do we know that? We put one clock on the ISS (i.e. launch it there), wait some time and bring it back. Yes, it shows less ticks. Is it because ISS is moving? Not really, ISS is following its world line and is roughly an inertial system, so its time is proper. And proper time is always the shortest. We on Earth on the other hand are constantly crossing world lines (unless falling down with 1g of acceleration). Why is it in reverse then? Because we need to accelerate to get there and decelerate returning back. Now imagine that somebody from ISS sends one of their clocks down to the Earth then gets it back. Which clock has less ticks? You guessed it, the one that traveled to Earth and back, because it's our time that is dilated, not their.
One correction: "moving" has nothing to do with it, crossing world lines does. Space ship flying at the speed of light (well, close to it) is also following its world line, so its clock is not "worse" or "better" than the one on the Earth. They both show "proper" time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time). When the ship starts to accelerate that's when its time becomes skewed. Also times at two different points of space are not comparable as there is no way to synchronize them, it depends on observer's speed. So "all clocks that are at rest" _always_ show different time if they are not at the same spot (well, they may show "the same" time like a stopped clock shows correct time two times a day).
We don't know how much of this stuff exists in the interstellar space. It's possible that a probability to hit something there is much less than ISS hitting something big enough to destroy it, even with all radars and maneuvers. So I wouldn't consider it as an argument against interstellar travel, not yet.
Suddenly is the wrong word. You will need to decelerate, and that can't be done suddenly. If you decide to fly by your clock will still be ticking at a slow rate (from the point of view of an observer on Earth of course).
If a large pebble (or a large piece of space junk) collides with ISS at 16 km/s ISS will be destroyed. That doesn't prevent ISS for being where it is though.
It's slightly more complicated. The main idea of special relativity theory is that you can't compare "time" at two separate points of "space". E.g. it makes absolutely no sense to compare age of a twin left on Earth with the age of a twin on a moving space ship as long as they are not at the same point in space. So if you really want to compare age you will have to turn your space ship around and return to Earth. Now, that part is covered not by special relativity, but general relativity. Here we need to consider effects of a gravitational field (any acceleration is equal to gravitation). The most interesting question in the twin paradox is what's the difference between space ship and Earth. Why it's the ship which is accelerating, but not the Earth. Why Earth is considered an inertial system (according to the Newton's first law), but a space ship making U-turn is not.
Nature abhors a vacuum (c) We are social animals and there is no such thing as "all people are equal" or "flat organization". There is always a structure, only it can be explicit and regulated (and usually more efficient and easy to navigate due to explicit rules), or it can be implicit (aka Wild West).
Even FLOSS enthusiasts need to eat. Money don't come from writing code by itself, they come from sales. Or from donations. In both cases there is a lot of non-coding work. Do you want to do it? I don't. How do we call those guys who organize donations or sales? Collect requirements? Yes, there are requirements in FLOSS too, otherwise you wouldn't get donations, or support contracts, and those requirements are coming from the people who pay. Let's call everybody developers, only some won't write code and would organize coders, gather requirements, distribute payments. Wait, those people are currently called managers.
You understand, that company goal is not to "build a good product", even less to "write a good code", it's to increase a company value (in the sense that "good code" is orthogonal to the goal)? It might be unfortunate for developers, but quite often (almost always from what I've seen) developers' role _is_ minor here. Not in derogatory sense, just money don't come from writing code, they come from sales. Also no, not everybody can be a good manager, and not everybody can be a good developer, as those two roles require different mindsets and different training, so very few people can effectively do either (and not at the same time). So a good developer normally can't do "whatever needs to be done". You don't want a developer to do your surgery, do you?
Of course most biases is something we learn. Some of them can certainly be harmful if we are out of our ordinary environment, like in your example. Or if bias is based on a false assumption. Evolution simply roots out those individuals who are unable to build proper biases :)
It's a bias. Let's assume that all muggers wear red pants (or you have been mugged mostly by people in red pants). So when you see somebody in red pants you cross a street. It's surely not a textbook racism, since no race is involved. Also how do you know that anybody wearing red pants is a mugger? The tragedy of blacks is that they can't change skin color, unlike pants. This bias will exist until crime percentages will at least equalize between blacks and whites (do they?). You can call it a racism if you want but it doesn't change anything. I have worked with many blacks, I had zero problems with any of them, I don't consider them worse than me in any way, but I will cross that street. Sorry. There is a difference between a concrete person and statistics.