wturner

Location: Texas U.S.A

Remote: Yes

Willing to Relocate: Not at the moment

Technologies: Front-end, JavaScript, React, Linux, Various

Home Page & Resume: helpknow.com

wktdev@gmail.com

Their are two main factions of UBI. On one side you have free market libertarians and conservatives that would cut social spending to pay for it. On the other hand you have a "progressive" version of UBI that is founded on Modern Monetary theory and would simply make UBI an addendum to social spending. Modern monetary theory holds that a government that issues it's own currency can never go insolvent. If you haven't heard of MMT I suggest you google the topic and listen or watch some material by Stephanie Kelton on the topic.

Edit:

With the corona virus "stimulus" people are getting a taste of modern monetary theory. They are starting to realize how little the nation debt matters and that what really matters is the result of the spending and the actions it invokes.

Some people are wondering why the stimulus checks are so small. I believe that if they were any bigger people might get used to the idea of living decent lives without economic anxiety thus the cats out the bag for the corporate big wigs, corporate democrats and republicans.

It might lead to a domino effect of a new standard of living and a new collection of cultural assumptions regarding money

Also, generally Andrew Yangs version of UBI would cut social spending and is not founded on modern monetary theory axioms.

Edit again,

I should mention Stephanie Kelton does not support UBI perse', she supports a federal jobs program but the economic assumptions still hold true.

1 definitely won't happen. Money is nothing more than a number on a computer screen. When the fed spends, they just type a new number on the screen - literally. Modern Monetary theory really opened my eyes around the phony assumptions regarding U.S. "debt".

Edit - I know money is more that a number on a computer screen, it's also a general collection of cultural assumptions, it's a partial reflection of the energy system etc. I'm replying in the context of "running out of money"

Stephanie Kelton and MMT should be part of the basic income discussion so that Yang doesn't create an ideologically tinted version that kills social security making it politically appealing to libertarian free market wing nuts.

I worked at a private college called Expression right at the end of the first dot com bust.The founder wanted to turn the school into the "Julliard of the digital arts" - and keep the tuition as low as possible. For the first few years it was a really interesting and unique place. To make a long story short, the board of directors weeded the main founder out and moved the school through the accreditation hoops so that students could get massive loans. As a result, the school raised the tuition. The place exploded with students for x number of years. When Obama came to office new laws killed off the loans (and the school). Most of the original staff left and the whole thing was sold to a company named SAE. I always wondered what would have happened if they were never able to get accredited and were forced to stay a small trade school. The aftermath is documented in the eastbay express article below (2015). From reading current reviews, the place never recovered.

https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/sound-arts-fading-out...

The main point of the documentary is that the EROEI of the "green economy" turns out to cost more than using fossil fuels directly. In short, the green economy didn't give common people an alternative, it simply gave business people a new tool to mask their intentions while idealistic politicians genuflect to the lie. The lies trickle down through the career pipe line and people go along with unquestioned assumptions out of fear of losing their jobs.

I personally think the documentary doesn't go far enough about the cultural aspect. I'm speaking specifically of the social norms of conformity, sociopathy and narcissism in the decision making classes. We have fucked future generations for short term gains and the only hope the tech community can come up with is to pretend that we will build rockets to go to Mars. When the kids of the billionaires pushing this horseshit get preventable cancers or tangled up in a class war - maybe then things will change (albeit I doubt it). Until then, it's all bean bags, idiocy, shiny tech toys and fluff. Enjoy it while it last. The magic bullet of nuclear fusion doesn't seem to be likely and the social organization to leverage what we have in a responsible manner doesn't either. We will keep doing what we are doing until nature bitch slaps us and we have to change. Hopefully I'm wrong. I want to be.

Location:Santa Cruz Ca.

Remote: yes

Willing to relocate: yes

Technologies: JavaScript,React,Node,Front End,Linux

Resume: https://helpknow.com/resume.pdf

Email: wktdev@gmail.com

I am waiting for the day when you can learn math kinesthetically like skateboarding or some other full-body activity. The video I linked below embodies what I'm thinking. This could easily be turned into a VR game where the user "is" the math. https://youtu.be/ovLbCvq7FNA?t=849

Looker just sold to Google for 2 billion and there is still an army of tent cities around town due to people falling through the economic cracks coupled with a city wide meth and heroin epidemic. How-do-we-fix-this ?

Okay, enough trolling. I sent you a real email. Bye

"Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for everyone else"

As a middle aged man I use skateboarding solely for exercise and the dopamine rush. If I went to the gym I would be bored to tears. I go to the skate park and just pump around in the bowl as hard as I can for a few hours. It's great. I'm on the carve and grind program.

"I want to document some concerns I have with Satori," she wrote. "[Satori's staffer] is operating completely alone. He has no team, office and is not even currently being paid."

"He is struggling to even get basic responses/comms from anyone from Machine Zone. He has 'no certainty if [he'll] even have access to the systems tomorrow as he could be removed at any time because he's technically not an employee'.

I think anyone who wants to explore the world of programming should do so, but I don't agree with this article. I fit the demographic that this article is talking about. I taught myself JavaScript for years, taught it to others and I currently work part time at a cloud technology start up and part time teaching online with another company. The reality is that contrary to the hype the truth is that it takes a long time for your mind to adapt to thinking in code. Learning programming is not something that most people can do in a year or even two. Basic programming? Yes, maybe. Basic Wordpress development? Maybe. But keep in mind for modern front-end development you are also talking about the DOM, async, frameworks like React and a hodge podge of things that can easily drown developers who have been working in the field for decades. I once had a bio-chem student who was extremely smart and had A's in his advanced math classes. No matter how much we tried to work through it he could not get his head around DOM programming. I went out of my way to try an help him but eventually he decided it just wasn't enjoyable and he dropped the course. I've also had many students that have assumptions about the attainability of this stuff that make my jaw drop. I've worked with online bootcamps that treat students soley as customers and instructors as pseudo-guru's that are expected to keep the student "happy". If the student complains because the instructor gave them a reality check - the onus is on the instructor. I do believe that most people can do more than what they perceive, but this article is not promoting a perception that I think is beneficial.

I'm curious what a company like Lyft (or any number of companies that have grown rapidly due to funding but still seem like they have some kind of sustainable business model) how they might look as democratically owned companies (basically a giant coop). Technically their is no reason that the entire thing can't be owned directly by the drivers, software developers and legal people with profit sharing and extreme voting. The social scaffolding is still a radical idea and the cultural assumptions are not crystalized like dictatorial businesses , but as a general idea it's hard for me not to "feel" like the democratically owned equivilent to many of these "VC funded" companies is not the the disruption model to the disruption model. I picture companies like lyft getting off the ground due to huge influx of investor money, experimenting, feng shuing out any uneeded clutter and then some leaner, more organic democratically-owned alternative gradually becoming more of a norm after the previous iteration did all the experimental work. I kind of hope that happens - at least as an experiment. If it were successful it would be funny....and neat. I can dream. :/

Dan Lyons, one of the writers of the show recently wrote a new book titled "Lab Rats: How Silicon Valley Made Work Miserable for the Rest of Us ..."

It may be counterintuitive, but the most responsible thing people like you can do in those situations is to accept, play along for a year or two and then speak out publicly the way Christopher Wylie has. It's a one step back 5 steps foward approach to facillitating social innoculation against this kind of behavior.

From what I've come to understand personality characteristics strongly determine political leanings. The media targeting mentioned in the video can serve to create cultural associates with any given voters personality "characteristics" and move people to action. So it's not just about "changing" minds, it's about cultivating a social mileu based on prexisting peronality characteristics with votes being the end result.

I never said it was meaningless, I said it was subjective.

According to your definition if some kid happens to get their music played across the country soley on college radio stations then they are mainstream.

Okay - let's play. How many people need to hear a song or artist for them to be designated "mainstream"?

"underground" is as subjective as "That's a great song!". It's all a matter of individual opinion.

Summary:

if you are an artist performing live shows and you are interested in building a cult of followers you can do so, and no one will stop you. If your performances and merchandise fees break through a threshold of profitability, you are designated a success. You can use digital tools like YouTube and Facebook to do this, but engagement is low. There are new companies and digital tools that are building engagement by facilitating addiction and game mechanics to make artists money. Record companies are bad, and they are not the way forward.

I wrote a book to teach JavaScript to sound artists that is is loosely related.

http://javascriptforsoundartists.com

I am not telling people what they should or should not value.

*edited

@tqi So when you get down to the numbers and the prevalent value assumptions we all have, Oprah Winfrey (one person) provides more value to the country than 2/3's of the nations garbage collection workers. Even though that is apparently what the numbers say, I can't help but believe it is divorced from reality in terms of practical day-to-day life.

In other words, if the average person was forced to choose to either "get rid of" Oprah Winfrey or 2/3's of the countries garbage collection workers, which one would the average person pick?

*edited

You could easily replace Oprah with some other person. I am simply using her as an example because she is wealthy, popular and her creative output isn't easily quantifiable the way someone like Bill Gates might be.

Here's how I see it:

If Oprah dies tomorrow society lives on and for the most part nothing changes.

If all the sewer treatment plant workers die there is a scramble to replace these invaluable workers to abate a national health crisis.

Why does Oprah make more than these individuals?

Is it because she provides "More value" ?

If you believe she does.... then fine.

If society, through implicit acceptance does...then fine.

I don't, and I don't understand the logic. I believe I understand some of the psychology around it...but not the logic.

I never said Oprah Doesn't provide more value than one garbage man. I am saying that I don't understand how a task that is literally needed for society to function is less valuable than one that is negligible for society to function and I don't understand why the person who does the more needed task is paid less than the person who does the negligible task. It's really a philosophical question about values but I think entertaining it is more elaborate than a simple catch phrase. Also hierarchy of needs vs wants etc all come into play.

And you are guessing wrong. From what I've read she is probably one of the better people I would like to see in the role if "Billionaire"

My point was that each garbage collector is more valuable to the person paying for them than Oprah Winfrey is, but Oprah makes hundreds of millions of dollars and the garbage collector makes a typical wage. I understand the reasoning that Oprah provides a little value that is distributed to a lot of people and that the garbage industry in its totality is more valuable than Oprah. With all that, I still think it's a bit of a partial way to summarize whatever is happening here - and something about it just seems misleading. Then again, maybe I just think societies values and priorities are bizarre.

I still can't get my head around the logic that a garbage collector gets paid next to nothing relative to someone who is paid millions to talk into a microphone and the reasoning is that the latter "provides more value". "They provide more value" just seems like a very partial catch phrase to make this all look less absurd than it actually is.

The world "value" is always confusing. Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire presumably because she is valued for her ability to interview people (she basically talks into a microphone for large sums of money). If she left society and shacked up in the woods tomorrow it wouldn't impact my life in the least. On the other hand, my garbage pickup person does harder work and makes a lot less, but if there was a garbage collector strike I would not be happy. I value my garbage collector more than Oprah Winfrey and I would assume the average citizen does as well.

Using the phrase "They provide more value" as an umbrella phrase for why people get rich is understandable, but something just doesn't seem quite right about it.