Personally I pick the amount of hair on my arms.

This argument doesn't quite sit right with me. Sure some people might give up on working completely on UBI, but I'd imagine UBI being at so low a level that you would still need a job if you wanted to do anything like live on the beach or buy a new shiny computer etc. Some people also just can't take doing nothing constantly. They go stir crazy. Or want to do SOMETHING to benefit society. I imagine these are the Star Trek people who fly on the space ships to see new worlds. They don't have to; they CHOOSE to. Imagine how much we could advance if people were allowed to do what they chose to do (passion) rather than what they needed to do (work). I don't consider pursuing a passion seriously because I'm too busy working. (Though I am happy being a programmer and would only make slight adjustments to the things I program rather than stopping being a programmer.)

That said, I don't know that UBI is actually a good solution to achieve the results I want. I just don't get the "Everyone would stop working" argument. Maybe some people would, but I doubt they'd lead good fulfilling lives.

The other side of the world from any potential social safety net you have crafted for yourself, a vastly different culture, much different climate...

I'm not sure I want to reply because I don't really want to weigh in on this, but just curious what the general welfare part of that phrase means to you if not some base line level of support?

Personally I don't think the government should guarantee you a job or step in to ensure you have a job other than enforcing laws about equal opportunity employment, which I do think is a good thing. My personal career prospects have not been harmed by H1B despite working with several. But I do think it is bullshit to be training your replacement and I wouldn't do it.

Ahhh... sometimes I like to believe in the good of humanity as well.

My bill dropped about $100. I didn't change my streaming services because that was how I preferred to consume content even when I had cable so for me don't really factor into the equation. Besides my streaming services together are about $50 a month. (I have 4.) My bill was around $170. Cutting cable dropped it to $70. Just to provide a counter anecdote to your anecdote. As long as you're continuing to get any level of cable at all there additional fees you're paying that with just internet you don't have to. I also decided to buy my own cable modem which will end up only paying off if I stay subscribed for a year, but it is unlikely that I won't use internet for more than a year. You pay rental fees on your cable box, your cable modem, and there's taxes involved. Oh and I decided to increase my internet package or it would have been only $60 a month.

The answer to this is it depends. I'm sure there are lots of shops where the dev team don't care where you got your diploma from, but in honesty a diploma from a prestigious university DOES open doors for you that are normally closed. I used to work at a job board website and recruiters (read people who paid us) really did care about making sure we parsed the school from the resume correctly and ranked in search results. We would receive complaints if person who didn't list their education and had 10 years of experience was ranked higher than someone who listed their education as MIT degree with 10 years of experience and MIT should be ranked higher than no-name state college. I could understand somewhat needing that for entry level positions, but these weren't entry level positions that the recruiters were trying to place. And I'm using recruiter in the broad sense as in HR person at company and drone at recruiting agency. The request came from both places. And even if you claim that you wouldn't want to work for someplace that did place value on the level of education you achieved; having more doors open to you results in more opportunity and unless you actually talk with these people who can't *know* that they aren't good.

Do you actually believe a jury of 12 of your "peers" are not swayed by the most eloquent orator rather than the "facts" as you "claim" them to be? Money talks in courts. Which sucks, and punishes honest poor people, but we haven't seen a better system. I'd use the court system in its current format simply because I have some faith in humanity still, but not enough to wager a million dollars if I lose. I put "peers" in quotes because showing knowledge and intelligence are often disqualifying criteria for jury selection, not always, but often.

This is probably the most lucid counter argument to natural language programming I have seen. Hell we often need to spend 30 minutes discussing design before people on my team are all on the same page with what we need to do. And we're all operating under the assumption that everyone giving us work has the same vision we're decided on, and even that isn't always true.

Because Franklin D Roosevelt was a horrible president. I mean can you imagine? He hid his inability to walk from the public! People disqualify qualified people for the stupidest reasons. They also vote for unqualified people for the stupidest reasons. I'd be in favor of a presidental candidate being required to go through a health screening by a nonpartison doctor, but unless there's a condition that would seriously undermine their ability to perform in the capacity of president, anything discovered should not be shared with the public. Your health is between you and your doctor unless you choose to share that information with others.

Oh I like the idea of a piss test as well for any elected official. Prove you don't break the law before you enforce law on others. But the only thing I'd want to know is pass/fail.

Let's say Nebraska decides that corporations that host in their borders do not have to pay any local, state, or federal taxes. If a corporation took that deal and stopped paying federal taxes, I think the I.R.S. would still be upset with them. Ireland being part of the E.U. has agreed to a bunch of treaties about how corporate taxes can be accommodated. This investigation is based on that. If Ireland was not party to any treaties about this then you would be accurate that there is nothing anyone else can say.

The bigger intent of my comment was to indicate that the idea that something whose defining characteristic is race based is not necessarily racist is ridiculous. There might be organizations out there specifically targeting disadvantaged races for privilege, but that doesn't make those organizations not racist. The ESSA thing bothers me because one of the rejection criteria is race. That's pretty horrible. Like saying only women and non-white, non-Asian minorities should be programmers. If they were encouragement based and not segregation based I would be really glad about it. I would also like it more if it was socioeconomic based rather than race based. Meaning have the program mostly for economically disadvantaged children. That would result in better race statistic while also not telling kids it's ok to make decisions based on the color of someone's skin.

To the contrary I do have experience with minorities. And I don't think them feeble. I'm also aware of the barriers that they face. Though honestly while I think a lot of the barriers they face are economic in nature, some of them are truly racial. The combination of the economic and racial and societal barriers can be insurmountable for a lot of people. Not everyone, but why should anyone be held down or held back simply because of their birth? The intention of my comment is more along the lines of I think it is ridiculous to say something that has qualifying characteristics including race is not racist.

So it is perfectly acceptable for a group to hire no one who is not a member of their own race as long as they don't espouse the belief that their race is superior?

Your premise is coming from an angle of "You shouldn't expect to be paid well enough to live." Even if you argue from the standpoint of our lifestyle is unsustainable, that's a pretty bogus angle. We should be able to expect to be paid well enough to live. Because if we aren't the money is only pooled at the top. I agree that our current pace is unsustainable. But the pace of approaching unsustainability is being driven primarily by wealth desparity and not lack of resources. Money and resources are being pooled at the top and having the poor, working, and middle class lower their expectations that thinking a family can have their own home is unrealistic is not going to slow the consumption of resources. It's only going to increase the wealth disparity.