huh. Went looking to call bullshit on some flimsy anonymous coward's lie.
I wonder what sort of incentive was given to make this thing happen. I mean, I imagine that's why it's happening. Trump needs to show some results and he can certainly buy business. Pay $11 for every $10 in wages or investment it brings in. But it's tax breaks or profit guarantees, so it's hard to count. And hey, end of the day, it might be a net win. But if they get paid $5 million to talk about a $7 Billion plant that never gets built, it's a scam.
Sorry for being skeptical. I'll call it a win once people start collecting paychecks and the deal is transparent.
They've posted the details about how they make money, which basically boil down to two things:
1) They show clearly-identified ads (unless you disable ads in your settings) at the top of some search results. The only information they send is your search term, that way they can get relevant ads. They never send anything identifying or that would allow Bing/Yahoo (the source of the ads) to target you specifically.
2) They modify eBay and Amazon links to make them affiliate links, just like you'd see on review sites or pretty much anywhere else. I.e. The URL is modified to indicate that you're coming from DDG, so they get a commission if you end up buying anything.
For them, that's enough to keep the lights on, though I doubt they're bringing money in hand-over-fist, since the majority of their current users are likely savvy ones who've disabled or blocked the ads, I'd imagine. They're probably hopeful that they can attract a more mainstream crowd with time, since those users are more likely to see ads.
By the way, unemployment is below 5%, which is quite healthy.
Even U6 is below 10%, which is worth mentioning.
Jesus, focus. This ISN'T a "social or political system". It's an economic one.
How to actually build such systems I don't really know.
FOCUS. The proposal is to charge people for their software according to their ability to pay. Specifically charging nations with less GDP a lower rate.
And that might seem like a great idea. But people would take advantage of it. You can look at nearly any other post in this thread for examples, but we've got:
A) People will buy the software in el-cheapo land and bring it to the rich nation.
B) It requires nightmare dystopian levels of DRM to enforce.
C) It won't necessarily stop piracy.
D) It's not necessarily more fair.
E) GDP is a really rough-cut metric.
Because of those problems, it's a bad idea and we shouldn't do it. How about, instead of selling things cheaper to poor people, we tax rich people at a larger rate than poor people? That seems easier to control and manage. As for international inequality, let them freaking pirate it until they make enough money to be worth sueing. You can't sue poor people, they don't have anything to take. Get over it.
Some fundamental shifts in the way we divide up our society's immense riches between its members in light of the impact of automation, AI, and other advances seems likely to be necessary.
The proposal is how we divide up the costs, not the riches, but sure, close enough. Automation, AI, and advances are kinda moot in the discussion. There's plenty of inequality already and the issue is here and now not some far-off impending impact of future tech.
Yeah yeah, you're gearing up for the UBI rant. We get it.
You're very welcome. I like to think that Slashdot is one of the few places where we can still find posts like these, so inasmuch as I can contribute to that ideal, I like to do so.
That's a loophole worth considering, to be sure, but I don't think it's actually a concern in practice, given that their Information Shared section lists the data they share (i.e. nothing) and the conditions under which they share it (i.e. only when there's a court order). Suffice to say, if they were sharing info in the manner you described, they'd be obligated to disclose it there.
I'm afraid I don't know the expenses off the top of my head. I looked them up around a year ago and realized it'd be untenable to pursue as a career in my town (not that I was planning to; I was just curious about the value proposition), since you'd have to be working crazy hours just to break even on your costs. Other than that, I saw mention in some of the articles I linked of the expenses being far higher than Uber had advertised, which obviously would push the bottom-line down, though I admittedly didn't look into the specifics.
Your solution of turning it off before a possible event is a step in the right direction, but it's not reliable enough. It works ok when you get pulled over
Or if you are grabbed when your phone is open, like dread pirate robert's.........
Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.