A long track with a twist in it and a car that has downdraft significantly over weight would have been ten times as awesome. No one likes superfast cars because they're safe and boring.

I don't need to see his name in every post about every topic. Find a hobby or something.

If it's not your own personal pet cow that you keep in your back yard along with two chickens and a duck, it should be illegal to give it antibiotics. Same for chickens and other livestock.

Expect any lottery winnings to be divided by 4. 50% because the prize is awarded over a number of years (i.e. the actual prize value is really half what is claimed, and that's made up for by paying out smaller amounts over years until total awarded over time= expected at once) and 50% ish more in taxes. For you and me a 60 million dollar win is actually a 15 to 20 million dollar win.

German military procurement is complete garbage, and it will be until you get over your hang-ups about building a lethal fighting force.

Why should they be charged for theft? They bought lottery tickets. The fact they bought a whole bunch of them at once doesn't make it illegal or unethical.

False. Competition will still be alive and well. Rent will still price for a given percentage of occupancy. Since the homeless are a very small percentage of the population and UBI isn't likely to be enough for people to move out of their parents homes or seek fewer roommates, demand will not substantially change. Neither will willingness to move to a different apartment or house if the rent is too high.

To put that another way there are a hundred things that people need to live. Don't motte and baily here. You specified that rent will go up. Is it rent that will go up, or food? Or the price of cars? Or cell phone service? If you change your claim to "it's not rent, it's inflation" that's your motte. Do that if you want to lose credibility.

If they're paying for the electricity, there's your money. No different from demand caused by other things.

You're missing the other side: it doesn't model what wealthy people will do when their incomes are massively cut into to pay for UBI.

>UBI or similar schemes, while having populist appeal, misunderstand the nature of money.

You seem to have been taken in by straw man representations of UBI. Let me help. First, while UBI is funded by taxpayer dollars in most schemes, it does not tax each person equally. As a result its function is not nullified but rather it serves as a redistribution of money from the wealthiest to the least wealthy. If it's funded by debt the same applies: The whole economy pays through inflation, but the poor get a lot more in than they lose.

The haves and have nots have always been with us, but this past 50 years of the wealthy taking all the wealth from increased productivity and their never-ending greed in other ways (like using regulatory capture to feed the rich with tax money) have created an unprecedented divide. UBI would address that problem. In the process it would give those inclined time to start businesses, become educated, raise their children properly, and so on. Furthermore it would massively increase the velocity of money, prevent many crimes currently caused by poverty, create a very clear distinction between those homeless by choice (as they would be the only ones left) and give everyone a needed dose of hope for the future.

That some people would refuse to work and wages for the worst jobs would rise is intended. No UBI proponent with a brain (and there are many) believes this wouldn't happen, or wouldn't cause inflation beyond the re-distribution. Rather proponents believe this is partially or wholly mitigated by having parents at home raising America's future, reduced cost of health care as people have time to cook, new businesses created by people who otherwise wouldn't take the risk and so on.

>If there is no penalty, then society has no way to enforce being a productive member of society
Society won't need one when productivity is high enough.

>If there is no penalty, then society has no way to enforce being a productive member of society...once that decision is made, you pay for it your entire life in one way or another
I put those two sentences to make it clear what you mean is "once that decision is made, you SHOULD pay for it your entire life in one way or another" I find that point of view morally abhorrent. But moving on from your belief there should be no forgiveness for sins, you have to either believe that each person should be forced to work even if that's not necessary or that the march of progress will halt soon with no new productivity increases despite the past century of gains. Which is it?

If I knew I would have to work again in three years I would be much more inclined to keep my job and/or use the time to educate myself.

"Random assortment" is hard to measure. It may have said, "Okay, there are way more pennies produced year on year than other coins. Let's assume that's to keep up with coins in circulation. We want to pick random coins from circulation until we have $1,000. Now in 2024:

Pennies made up about 57.5% produced.
Quarters made up about 29.9%.
Dimes made up about 9.9%.
Nickels made up about 2.0%.
Half Dollars made up about 0.7%.
Dollar coins made up about 0.04%.

Using that math it could have calculated a much larger number of jars than you expect.

The bottom line is that AI software is, at present, nowhere near where it needs to be to be useful. The approach used has serious flaws and more power won't help that.

Artificial silicone life certainly exists in America. But I don't think it's what you're referring to.