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.
The problem isn't the trouble of having to read and modify so much, it's that even if you do all that you can't trust what you have; you can't be sure those "41 pages of switches, GPOs, and reg hacks" will grant you the privacy you seek even on the Enterprise variant of Windows. Anyone who tells you otherwise is speculating from ignorance. You can't stop any variant of Windows from tricking users into "upgrading" to some more recently-released variant (like the trouble Windows users had with Windows 10 "upgrades" recently). That's the thing about proprietary software; you're never in charge of what it does. Even if you think you've set the switches the right way, programmers can make a UI that looks like it is doing what the user wants but actually does something the user does not want and does this without the user's permission or control. No configuration of switches can fix this. Users need software freedom to fix this.
Satya Nadella and Bill Gates before him focused on what's important for modern proprietors—spying on the user because that's profitable and secures powerful friends. Consider that Microsoft tells the NSA about bugs before fixing them. This doesn't help most Windows users, but it helps the NSA know to devalue those bugs. And it tells you to devalue proprietary software. With proprietors, you're the product: all the data you generate including what you run, when you're using the computer, and where you take the computer (for computers with cell phone capability or GPS units) can and is spied upon. You don't get out of that trap without software freedom either.
It would be wrong to attack someone for supporting Hitler too
Utter bollocks. If that is the conclusion you reach, something is wrong with your premises or logic.
Peter Thiel is proving that even idiots can become billionaires.
So you can see why he would be attracted to Trump.
Even the Daily Mail has more credibility than Brietbart.
I'd have said that was physically impossible, unless you allow negative figures (the Daily Mail being zero).
Also of note, Scott Adams got shadowbanned [dilbert.com] from twitter, for no apparent reason, and has seen invitations for speaking go from several per month (for decades) to none. He estimates that blogging about the election has cost him $1 million in speaking fees alone.
Sorry, could you just remind me again why the world owes Scott Adams a living giving lucrative speeches? Or are you claiming that there is literally nowhere in the US/world that isn't run by some imaginary liberal mafia? I suppose everyone who's ever worn a Trump badge has been fired from work, banned from their local pub and forced to sell their home and live in a cardboard box?
I don't care of someone votes for Trump, or for Hillary either. However given them $1.25 is a terrible waste of money. The smart investor would say "screw it, I'm spending my money on a ballot initiative instead of either of those bozos".
If I were a Trump supporter I'd be concerned that a donation of $1.25 was considered noteworthy.
All this is is more virtue signaling; heaven forbid the other silicon valley lefties do not publicly show their disapproval. It's this public displays that lefties live for, after all.
Funny enough it's the same people who watch movies like Trumbo and are outraged by the actions of the HUAC and McCarthy. Bunch of hypocrites.
There is a pretty big difference between a group of like-minded individual citizens expressing disapproval, and a government-led witchhunt.
I realize that Trump cannot be pinned on any of the issues and does not really deliver on promises much,
Wait... What? What promises are you talking about? Unlike Clinton, Trump has not ever been a part of politics (directly). There's yet to be any broken promises from him.
That's an interesting way of spinning the fact that Trump has no political experience.
It's like saying that as someone with no medical qualifications whatsoever I'd make a good doctor because I haven't killed any patients yet.
Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened." He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence?
What people are afraid of is him becoming President and having his finger on foreign policy (and the nuclear button).
He's either been offered a shitload of money and book deals, or his life was threatened.
You forgot that he might have been abducted by alien ant people and his cloned body sent back with an anti-matter brain capable of destroying the universe.
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.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?