If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances.
Not true. If you don't believe me, look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth. Poor people are a lot more reliant on their support networks (family, friends, and so on). If they're in a poorly paying job, then they probably can't afford to take a month to look for a new one in the new location (especially with the real possibility that they won't find one). If they don't have a job, then there's a strong psychological pressure not to move to places with fewer jobs and there's likely to be a delay in receiving unemployment benefit as these things are typically administered locally.
In contrast, someone like a typical Slashdot poster can afford to stay in a hotel room for a week or two (or have an employer willing to pay the cost) while they look for somewhere to live and will typically be able to find a job before they start moving.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes. Most proposals for UBI have it replace the tax-free allowance. You might have a very small tax-free allowance on top of it, but generally the way of balancing the books involves paying tax on all earned income.
But the good ones are either simply not there anymore because they left, or they are not working in coding outsourcing because it pays badly
That's not quite true. The problem is that most Indian outsourcing firms are really crap places to work. They have huge staff turnover (as in, close to 100% over the course of a month). If you set up an office in Bangalore, have a mixture of people who moved out there and know your company and locals who know the environment, then you can still hire a lot of competent people. You'll probably be paying them a few times more than the local outsourcing sweatshops, but it's still cheap. You can also do the same thing on a smaller scale if you work with individuals and build a long-term relationship (pay them a 10-20% of a Silicon Valley salary and they'll have a standard of living vastly better than they'd get if they moved to the USA, so there's no big incentive for them to leave India and their family / friends).
But if you go with one of the big outsourcing outfits, or just do short-term contracts, you're likely to get either people who don't have the skills, or ones that do but will be gone before the end of the project because they've got a much better offer from somewhere else.
Problem is, the math doesn't work. Lets say we pay out 100% of current federal revenue as UBI (setting aside the fact we'd still need Medicare etc). That's just over $10,000 per citizen. Is that even a subsistence wage?
In a lot of the country, yes. UBI would likely be accompanied by a redistribution of people. Currently, poor people are the least mobile: they aren't being headhunted by companies willing to pay relocation costs and they aren't able to speculatively move somewhere with lower costs of living and hope that there will be jobs waiting. With UBI, they would be able to guarantee that they'd have that $10K/year wherever they were and move to places where it would give them a higher standard of living.
You're also assuming that you'd be giving everyone a net increase of $10K/year. I'd expect that under a workable UBI proposal I'd have a bit less take-home income because my tax rate would go up slightly.
Tell that legend to the people who have jobs in the Bay Area but cannot afford to live there
Here's a secret: a lot of Bay Area companies will happily pay 80% of a Bay Area salary for competent people to live somewhere where the cost of living is 10% that of the Bay. They're happy, because they're paying you less than if you were local (even if they're paying for a few of you to rent an office, the cost will be a tiny fraction of the expense of a desk in the Bay Area). You're happy because your take-home pay is vastly more (and you don't have to live in the Bay Area).
Tell that to techs finding their entry level jobs simply don't exist any more.
That's really the problem, and it's been a problem for well over a decade (and not just in IT-related fields): companies want to hire experienced people, they don't want to hire inexperienced people and train them.
On the plus side for RAID cards is battery-backed write caches and freeing the OS from a certain level of overhead -- you can just unload your write on the card in very few cycles and let it deal with sorting out the parity and actually managing disk writes.
This is not an issue for ZFS. RAID-Z doesn't have the RAID-5 write hole.
You also get the advantage of a redundant OS boot LUN.
FreeBSD can happily boot from a RAID-Z pool (though you do need to duplicate the bootloader on all disks, but that's under 1MB).
As a final note, the ports collection on FreeBSD appears to be the Gentoo linux dream achieved. Just tick boxes instead of choosing compile flags.
Note that, if you want to compile ports yourself, it's now *strongly* recommended to use Poudriere rather than compiling individual ports stand-alone. Poudriere can compile any subset of the ports tree you want and give you a consistent package set. Poudriere builds ports in a jail so they won't ever accidentally be affected by other things on your system and will always only have the dependencies that are explicitly set. You can then install the packages alongside the upstream ones or, if you want to do something more interesting (e.g. building everything with a different compiler) build just the ones that you want.
"The Russians are trying to hack everything." No evidence, but you sure hear it a lot, so it seems true.
No, there's plenty of evidence. There's also plenty of evidence that the USA, UK, China, and so on, are trying to hack everything. What do you think the NSA, GCHQ, and friends do all day?
If you suspect a man, don't employ him.