Today's schoolchildren all seem to start with Scratch.
Today's schoolchildren all seem to start with Scratch.
I think the issue is that "clean" is in the eye of the beholder.
Sounds good, but utterly untrue. There are plenty of objective criteria by which the clean-ness of code can be assessed. Yes, you get beginner programmers who take an attitude of "That's your way; this is my way - we're both entitled to our opinion." but unless they shed that view point they'll never become competent.
We use it because it's pragmatic to use the lingua franca of programming.
If a decent alternative to JS were suddenly to be supported by all the major browsers, the rush to get away from it would be immense.
Not sure about the idea of recursion being forgotten, but I used to work on a system (GEC 4000 series) which had no stack, making recursion slightly more difficult. The neat way of achieving it was by using a goto, back to the beginning of the function.
Why would that approach guarantee that your speed is consistently high, and why would a no-cap method be limited only to "ultra-cheap" ISPs?
Giving everyone a 1TB cap doesn't prevent congestion,
True enough, but you've reversed what I said to try to create a straw man.
Yes, applying a cap doesn't in itself prevent congestion, but what I said was the opposite way around. If ISPs sell a service at a price below the wholesale cost (because the market is driven - at least in this country - very much by "cheap, cheap, cheap") then they need to find some way to make a profit. To begin with they applied caps (whilst pretending they weren't doing), but as that's now become politically unacceptable to the mass market what they do instead is to vastly oversell their capacity, at the same time claiming, "We'll never slow you down". Then when your connection does get very slow, they say it's not them but other users and you shouldn't be so selfish.
I choose to pay a realistic price for my bandwidth, from an ISP who is perfectly clear that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and accept that they do properly provision their capacity (which is why my link stays fast) but that I can't use more than I've paid for. Doubtless they do still oversell - although not nearly to the same degree as the cheap, cheap, cheap merchants do - because there's no way I'm going to use 1TB in a month (typical usage for our house, with a game-obsessed son is about 250G) and they don't oversell enough to affect my connection speed.
You have to accept that there need to be limits somewhere.
I rarely go over 60-70GB, but I still don't like the idea of caps. You should be paying for speed, with everyone limited to a percentage of their paid-for speed when there's congestion, while the limit would be increased during low-usage times.
That's how far too many of these ultra-cheap "unlimited" services work. The advertised price is so far below the actual cost of providing what they're claiming to provide that something has to give. The way it's done is to oversell the capacity heavily, and then no-one gets anything like the speed which they paid for, but at least there's no data cap.
I prefer it the way around my ISP does it - I never get near my 1 TB cap, but I can be confident that my speed will stay high all the time.
Cap is 1TB. Connection is 80Mbps (actually, about 75Mbps) and is consistently that fast day or night.
Andrews and Arnold ISP
I'm in Wallingford, England
How so? Take someone that's being paid, let's say, $5000/month at the moment, and let's take a UBI of $1000/month to have a neat number to work with. With the UBI they'll be getting $6000/mo, but paying back $1000/mo for a net of $5000/mo. That's exactly what they were already getting, so where's the subsidy for the employer?
The $1000 less they have to pay the person to do that job because that component of their worth in the market is being met by the UBI not the employer.
The minimum wage is not the same thing. It is a required minimum amount the employer must pay, not a minimum amount paid by the public.
It's a good point. I quite like the general idea. None of this is going to be viable long term though, because we can automate all of these things too.
Yes. But there needs to be a transitionary step so the people who can't handle the idea of "getting something for nothing" can get their head around it (or die).
They can't just pay $X less and hope to still have people working for them though, unless the resulting wage is high enough that the employee will be paying most or all of their UBI back in taxes, in which case the $X reduction is mostly or completely just a regular pay cut.
That doesn't really address the point ? Even if someone is being paid relatively a lot, the UBI still represents a subsidy to their employer who will be paying them roughly the equivalent of the UBI less than they would be if it didn't exist.
A job guarantee relies on there being jobs available, which as we've established is kind of the problem. I guess you could invent some pointless work for someone to do, but forcing them to spend a significant chunk of their time doing meaningless busy work doesn't strike me as being better than not forcing them to do it.
There is arguably plenty of work that is not so much "pointless" as not particularly profitable. Someone to help little old ladies on and off buses, for example. Or more teachers. Or take back all the jobs around publicly funded services that have been privatised and improve it (eg: cleaning staff).
That is an incredibly convoluted way of saying "reduce the cost to business for employing people".
But it doesn't really explain what you're trying to achieve. The last few decades show that reduced costs to business go primarily into CxO bonuses and - maybe - shareholder dividends.
Businesses aren't charities. They won't employ more people without unmet demand. Supply-side economics is bunk.
In that context what really matters is this:
[...] while receiving an extra $269.08 deposit from Social Security every 2 weeks.
Not the reduction in taxes to business (though I agree payroll taxes are bad taxes).
As I said elsewhere, a jobs guarantee is a better and fairer option than a UBI (or similar), at least until we really do have robots that can do anything and current attitudes towards welfare have matured.
Let me put it another way, a UBI of $X is a subsidy of $X to employers who can pay their employees $X less and pocket the difference themselves.
A jobs guarantee (paid employment by Government for anyone who wants it) is a better and fairer solution than a UBI, at least until we really do have robots that can do anything and everything.
And if you don't pay your employees enough, they'll stop working for you[...]
That's OK, there's zillions more employees out there. We already have a massive surplus in workers (hence high unemployment and low wages) and that surplus is only going to keep increasing.
But since people who are working will essentially be giving their UBI back in taxes anyway, I find it hard to see it as a subsidy to businesses.
Employer pays someone a dollar an hour to work 20 hours a week. Worker needs UBI to live.
What scenario are you envisaging where a worker will be paying back their entire UBI in taxes ?
Yes, it is.
The only free market is one without any rules. So no property rights, no contracts, no money, no fraud, no standards, nothing.
Anything else and all you're doing is arguing about the extent of regulation you want in your market.
It shouldn't take long with a history book to conclude where "no rules" inevitably ends up.
Taxes don't need to be raised on the highest income earners; they can be lowered on businesses, notably on payroll (tax taken based on how much wages you pay).
What would this achieve ?
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer