Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Unemployment (Score 1) 187

I think there are problems with UBI, but the basic fact that EVERYBODY GETS IT means it is impossible for there to be fraud where somebody who should not get it lies and recieves it, for the simple reason that no such person exists.

Fortunately there is no other form of Fraud, amirite?

I think you are trying to box me in as some sort of right wing nut. So let's move on - okay, should everyone get UBI from birth? You said in all caps - "EVERYBODY GETS IT". So okay, at birth a person stars getting UBI. How much?

Now since it is in your words, impossible to there to be any fraud under UBI. it's take this woman who funds her lifestyle with th eSSI her pretend autistic children get. So your system of everybody gets UBI - will autistic children get more UBI, or will every child, no matter the disability, receive the same UBI from birth?

How will fraud become impossible. Who gets the money, the child, or the parent?

I'm pretty certain that you have the completely fraud free answer, no fraud is possible under your system. You said it is impossible to have fraud. Show us.

Comment Re:That'll show 'em! (Score 1) 34

Seems like the typical case of workers producing things of value that can actually be sold, and management managing the "American" way fucking them over for "shareholder value".

A pity this is a French situation, but you get 2 points for your typical "Ebberting dat's a prawblim iz 'Murricas fault!

Seriously, how many yuan or rubles do you get for posting your wisdom?

Comment Re:That'll show 'em! (Score 1) 34

It is quite illegal to "replace" workers only because they use their legal right to negotiate working conditions. It would be a surefire way to get the company in trouble.

What often happens is after negotiating something that costs the company or institution a lot of money, is that they don't replace workers who retire or otherwise leave.

Or just make a position redundant. Or outsource.

The place I retired from had its unionized employee headcount shrink over 50 percent since the 1980's. Inverse of the rest of the place. Yeah, the remaining people were paid pretty well and had lots of bennies. It ends up like the old adage of "I got mine, screw you!" And further shrinkage will happen.

There is a need for unionization on occasion. However, calling for a worldwide strike is silly. And considering the issues Ubisoft is having, this corrective action just might kill Ubisoft. Of course then, the employees will be able to stay home, just like they want.

Comment Re: Luddites (Score 1) 52

Ah yes, blame the people who don't want to research with a tool that notoriously makes up results, not the garbage tool that tells you to drink bleach and type sudo rm -r /* to cleanup your HDD.

The guy who lost his jerb to AI just checked in! Whatever you do, don't learn anything any more, you know enough now and forever. You sound like some of the guys who were pissed off about transistors taking over from tubes.

> On occasion, the truth is marked as trolling. In further response to the guy, time moves on. Technology moves on. Referring to the Tube vs Transistor comment, early transistors were fragile, sensitive things. They couldn't handle much power. Tubes were better. Many thought transistors would be at best, some niche product.

The frailty and limitations of transistors were a little bit similar to AI hallucinations and slop. Some limitation, some unfixable problem that prevents success.

But time went on, and transistors became better, and tubes were used less and less. Now tubes are the niche product.

Same with computers. Same with programming. Anyone want to go back to programming with punchcards?

So I'm learning how to use AI. Hell, writing prompts reminds me a little bit of the old game of Zork. Have to figure out what you type to bring the proper response.

Comment Re: Unemployment (Score 1) 187

It isn't his fault, it is his mothers. but interesting that you support the fraud.

The SSA is using people who are not medical professionals to make what are effectively medical determinations. This is ever so much bullshit.

This is true. I don't actually think you support fraud, Just a rhetorical thingy.

In support of what you note, the approval process is seriously inconsistent. I knew a woman who was definitely in bad shape -yet no approval. In the 2010 era, they were granting SS disability to people in some communities that had jobs that were going away forever, like clothing manufacturers. They were not disabled, just going to be hard to employ (heard this on NPR)

The hell of the thing is that SSI - even basic Social Security is pretty much a pittance.

But that woman might not be committing fraud in her mind, but she was just taking advantage of every opportunity she saw as her right. Maybe the person approving her surprising three children being autistic liked her. It was at a time when Autism speaks was claiming an epidemic epidemic, People were blaming things like vaccines for it. It was the cause du jour.Might have even been a quota.

I do know she is pissed that her son going to college is moving away. Even the Social security system has trouble deciding normal college students living normal college student lives, taking normal courses - are autistic to the point of needing disability. Wife say she thinks he wants out of the system for being considered impaired, wants to live a normal life.

Note, he isn't an aspie.

People can appeal with the same facts (documentation etc) and have a much higher approval rate when they do, and then they have a yet higher approval rate if they employ a disability lawyer (who takes a portion of their back benefits as payment.)

Some times they can wear the appeals process down. A member of a local ham club found a doctor who specialized in calling people disabled. They just kept appealing until the SS system figured he had no intention of ever working again, and granted him disability.

Comment Re: Unemployment (Score 1) 187

In your example the woman's three children would get EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUT of UBI, no matter whether they are autistic and or her own situation and income. This is why fraud would be reduced, because there are many fewer things that a person can do to change how much they get. Obviously things like making up fake recipients would still work, but all "lie on the application" fraud is removed. At least pretend to understand the argument before saying anything.

Had to get to insult level, didn't ya. Funny how people who would claim to be so much smarter than me believe that UBI is some sort of fraud deterrent. Like this woman would be pure and law abiding if only they threw money at her and her children.

SOrry, perhaps you do not know as much about human nature as you purport to. She worked. She got Child support, she got Alimony.

She did not get the SSI money because she needed it. She got it by taking advantage of the system. She used the SSI to support her lifestyle. She went for as much as she could get without doing anything.

Worst rationale for UBI ever.

Comment Re:Care more than just "morals" (Score 1) 31

Yep.

It's not just that it's a significant proportion of your life, people can't physically do it, especially not to the standards of care we expect today.

As you say in the past people with dementia would have died of all sorts of preventable things like being lost in the woods. You'd find out in the morning, maybe people would go look, maybe you find a body. That wandering off isn't supposed to happen now, if it does the authorities get involved etc etc. Not in a bad way, the police will go looking to bring them back, an ambulance will come to check up on them and the council may send someone to discuss options.

Yup, it is a humanitarian thing, and trying to keep people safe. Something like that happened with my MIL. She was far into end stage dementia, the part where the brain is so far gone that bodily processes are shutting down. She was in an end care nursing facility. Her heart stopped early one morning. The damn EMTs arrived, and after 10 or maybe 15 minutes, they got it started again. So we ended up with her at the hospital. Doctor came in and told us she was basically brain dead. So there she was on a ventilator, and it extended her so called life another 5 hours or so.

It was at that point I thought to myself - no way, no more. I didn't blame the EMT's, but I was surely not happy what they did.

But also the end result is it's also way more work to look after someone to modern standards. No one can give 24/7 care, it's not physically possible. No just going to bed and hoping they are there in the morning. Trouble is it creeps up.

I had to convince the wife that needed to happen. She was exhausted from all that stuff that creeped up, so it really wasn't too hard to convince her in the end.

I'm trying to work out an exit strategy that I think I can execute if it comes to it. I don't want to put anyone through this horror, but neither would I like them imprisoned for murder. Hopefully though it won't.

It is a problem to even discuss. Say something to the wrong person, and next thing you know, you have therapists and suicide hotline type people call you. Yet I'm the farthest thing from suicidal, I just want to save my family from that "long goodbye", a particular cruelty of modern life..

Comment Re: Unemployment (Score 1) 187

The SSA has to make a determination of disability before SSI (or for that matter SSDI) is granted, so blame the SSA for getting it wrong.

And? Autism is pretty hard to prove, and yes, there was a time when a lot of things got rubber stamped. All that said, if the ATM spits out a thousand dollars, and you take it, then you are stealing it. The child claimed to be autistic to a point where he needs supplemental income just to live, yet presents normally socialized, and will be going to college is hardly a person who needs that money.

It isn't his fault, it is his mothers. but interesting that you support the fraud. No, just because there was a time that little investigation happened does not exonerate the theft of money applied for under deception.

Comment Re: Luddites (Score 0) 52

Ah yes, blame the people who don't want to research with a tool that notoriously makes up results, not the garbage tool that tells you to drink bleach and type sudo rm -r /* to cleanup your HDD.

The guy who lost his jerb to AI just checked in! Whatever you do, don't learn anything any more, you know enough now and forever.

You sound like some of the guys who were pissed off about transistors taking over from tubes.

I know a few Hams who are that way. Bragging about their Heathkit tube radios, While my radio is an RF front end, tied to a server Software defined radio and spectrum analyzer.

Comment Re:Luddites (Score 0, Offtopic) 52

I really dont see how people arenâ(TM)t more productive with AI. You are using it wrong. Ignorance of how to prompt. It has flaws, but you guys consider every current shortcoming impossible to fix, you want no resources spent on improving AI.

This is true. I look at the prompting issue as learning another language. I experiment, I shift things and change words. When something turns out correct, I note what I prompted mentally as well as documented.

And that is what intrigues me. I see something that is coming along, perhaps even inevitable, so I learn about it. I always have. I cam into the workforce at the end of the tube era, so I dove into transistor tech, then IC, I dealt with old school video with linear editing, and the nightmare of frame by frame 3-D animation to tape, then I went to non-linear editing, then switching a department from chemical photography to digital. Learning learning, learning.

At most of these steps, there was someone who didn't want to change, like the old ways were the good ways.The new ways were always bad. I kept my jerb, many of them were laid off.

I'm even having fun learning, I wonder how much for the people bitching and moaning about AI are having?

Comment Re: No, they don't (Score 1) 31

The public chooses from what they are offered. They have to be aware of products and services before they can purchase them. If they only encounter bad offers, they will wind up accepting only bad offers. They will accept things they don't want which are bundled with things they want or need if they are not aware of alternatives.

Is that societies problem? Is there a restriction on what the public sees?Is it not possible to encounter quality?

The closest I can come to agreeing with you is that one facet of consumerism has convinced many that the only metric is price.

I dunno if I hang with a different group, but I look at what I want to buy, then research the price. Then I buy it if it is acceptable.

If not, I don't. Wife and I even do this with groceries. If something is soaring, we don't buy it. And our grocery bill is significantly smaller than most people, yet we eat healthy. Always have, always will. Same with products.

It isn't difficult. Maybe some people aren't all that good with money. But that isn't society or capitalism's fault. At some point, people need to lose the everyone else is at fault narrative. And I got to where I am from poverty, so I'm nothing special. One of the people who are supposed to be the designated victims.

Comment Re:How would they? (Score 0) 31

Markets are not about morality in any way. So how would they?

I doubt they are any more of less moral, it probably just reflects a better quality of life for most people.

Nostalgia has a lot of people believing that we live in some sort of latter day hell, while pre - 1900 times were halcyon days.

Comment Re:Care more than just "morals" (Score 1) 31

The article states that "market access also meant orphans, the disabled, and the elderly became less likely to be cared for by relatives at home." as if that were an indication that people are now shirking duties of care or are more callous to the needs of the disabled and elderly. But there are more factors at play here:

1) Medical advances made it much more likely that people needed care for an extended period of time. It's one thing to care for a relative for a few months, it's quite another to do it for years with a relative that needs 24/7 care. It used to be that you either died before you got Altheimer's, or it would kill you pretty quickly.

A whole lot this. Now that we can keep dementia sufferers alive for a dozen or more years, it means that if they are going to get 24/7 care at home, someone will have to stay at home 24/7. It doesn't mean the family is callous. It means that someone will have to give up a significant portion of their lives, when at one time it was just a much smaller part.

And yes, all of the things that killed the demented, since their entire physical and immune systems are failing, are being circumvented. There is a saying that Pneumonia is the old person's friend. That it is a merciful end to suffering. But we stretch out the suffering as long as possible today, for both the older person and their families.

And I've made no bones about it, when I hear that bell tolling, I'm checking out. Told the wife that if I can't do it myself, to put me on a flight to point Barrow, and have them sit me out overnight. Quick and pretty painless.

Comment Re: No, they don't (Score 2) 31

> They are merely an efficient means for delivering what people actually want.

Eh, people want ads, service fees, multiple subscriptions, poor quality and craftsmanship, reduced wages, and extortion?

I guess when you say "people" you mean a certain class of people, not the general public

Seems a little odd that you believe the general public buys things they do not want.

At this point, I believe there are a few failtroll users who comment on every topic on Slashdot with generalized doom and hatred. I hope you don't actually feel this way - if so, you need the anti-depressant/anti psychotic cocktail they give some people now to numb their ennui,

Perhaps your goal is to return to pre-industrial times when everything was better? Or just anarchy in general.

Comment Re:Can't see that happening (Score 1) 42

Even if studios agree to it when AI gets good enough that a couple of people can make a full movie in days those studios that did agree are closing. Setup a new studio in a non-California state or even non-US local and churn out movies without this union tax. You would need federal level protections for actors and then every single industry would want their protections. Going to be a wild time as AI keeps progressing.

It would be as difficult as eliminating free speech. If I were to make that hypothetical movie in a couple days, what would be the law that could be created that would keep me from showing it, at an indie fair, and even making money with it on say Youtube?

If I were an actor, I would be looking to find employment in a different field.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...