You can tell the one they quoted in the summary is full of crap because he's concocted this new phrase "universal HIGH INCOME" (his capitals). Dude sounds like your average scammer with guaranteed returns who's going to make you rich. It also shows how completely out-of-touch he is. People want a roof over their heads, a sensible vehicle, clean edible food, a decent school for their kids. The one who cares about "HIGH INCOME" is the tech bro.

What's attractive about UBI is that it preserves as much as possible the existing system of capitalism and ownership. The least shock to the system of the possible options. But I'm skeptical the conservative approach of UBI is enough. There's something to be said for the efficiency of government providing a service directly, versus doling out a private subsidy, which is what happens when you receive your UBI and give it to a landlord.

That thing rocketing way up there, is the national debt, not a UFO.

On the upside, AI lets anyone make a movie.
On the downside, AI lets anyone make a movie.

Including people who have terrible taste in plot, style, and everything else.

There's some genuinely good stuff out there - Gossip Goblin's work for example. But this is....

I'll just say, there's far better things that one could have spent half a million dollars on...

I would ask the time traveler which century he came from, and where his craft had landed.

All these people are on a list of designated marks now. There's a whole scam ecosystem bubbling under the Redhat movement, feeding on itself. The stuff you read about in the news isn't even the half of it.

There's an army of absolutely inspired finessers the guy attracts. There's a whole community - millions - of concentrated stupids for them to feed on. They're turning it into a conveyor belt like the religious crazies do, especially the Islamist terror groups with their online recruiting. Rope em in, squeeze em for everything.

The ones I've seen with my own eyes are concentrated on scamming, but no doubt some of them are going in a more militant direction. I'm expecting attacks before long, big ones, more than the handful of people killed at the mosque this week. Particularly if the Republicans lose an election.

When's the last time you successfully conducted a job search?

Why would they stop at Canadians? They can raise 15% across-the-board and pocket the surplus, which is what they do every 2 years anyway.

Some here on Slashdot would tell you this is not only likely, but a legally required outcome. Something about obligations to shareholders.

Are you under the impression that Indigenous people can't speak French? Hard to tell because most of your post seems to be expressing some weird emotion(s) I can't quite identify in a jumbled-up way, and the quote seems suspiciously truncated.

Is that how people write after a year of ChatGPT'ing their brain?

The idea that ancient dietary laws were essentially early public health measures disguised as religious commandments is popular, but lacking in evidence. And there is some evidence to the contrary. For example: some dangerous foods that frequently made people sick were still allowed. Some foods were banned even though neighboring cultures had been eating them safely for centuries.

Apparently some historians have claimed that the prohibitions originated from ancient world-views that saw these animals as anomalous (sea creatures that don't look like fish, or land creatures that don't have both the cud-chewing and cloven hooves) and forbade them for that reason.

I for sure don't know the reasons; I wasn't there. And I don't remember who wrote about any of this so I don't have citations to present. I just remember the take-away that the claim you made is popular but unsupported.

Well no, actually, bread is a processed junk food. Even whole wheat bread is just "ok" in moderation. What you are missing from your list is fresh fruit, vegetables, and other whole grains (brown rice, oats, wheat in other forms).

But even more than that, the advice here is not "NO meat, NO cooking" (though it is NO liquor). The advice is just to moderate. There is a world of difference between small game a couple times a week vs steak three times a day. And also, there are kinds of cooking (especially cooking vegetables) that don't cause the formation of carcinogens.

Dairy is controversial, but, if you have the metabolism for it, it is very healthy (in moderation). Yogurt especially, thanks to the symbiotic bacteria that also helps reduce cancer risk, so long as you don't get yogurt that is full of added sugar.

It may be worth pointing out that some people find red meat to be irresistibly delicious, while others find it to be "meh" and have stronger flavor experiences from fruits and vegetables. This is a genetic predisposition and will have a huge impact on how one feels about the advice being given here.

How are you defining "statistical inferences" as distinct from "logical inferences"? If you're defining fuzzy logic (e.g. not necessarily yes-or-no answers but allowing for ambiguity in conclusions), then we can agree conceptually, but your choice of wording is, I have to say, weird if so.

Yeah I think I heard something about that 8 or 10 years ago. About Tesla not using it. Not about LIDAR solving every vehicle problem, or world hunger; that I don't remember.

"We can fix autonomous vehicles."

[citation needed]

When I briefly lived near downtown Houston along the Metro rail, I used it a few times and didn't notice any dirtiness or anyone particularly acting like a "crazy nut job". If you can't stand the sight of homeless people, cars don't save you from that here. They're at every intersection, banging on your car window.

The main problem with the Metro rail was that they hadn't built enough miles of track to get me to my job. And lately the mayor has been deliberately slowing the trains, but I haven't ridden since then.

The best way to address the homeless problem is to get them housing, not rip out the train service. That's not only sweeping the problem under the rug, but shooting yourself in the foot by limiting your transport options. Or other people's. There are gobs of people who have no business driving, or no desire to, yet we are forcing them all into cars and into traffic. Houston's particularly unworkable traffic is a direct result of kneecapping the alternatives. It's why I spend 2 or 3 hours in the car every day. Give me a train, please.

Maybe if you've already got 7 figures in the bank; you're not going to be earning much out there. It's probably a nice idea for retiring boomers, but other people need to work.