The point is that they spend it. When money is spent, it doesn't evaporate. It induces work. That work produces value. Then the money is spent again, and again, until it winds up in the pockets of the rich. The rich are sitting on historically unprecedented cash reserves, and interest rates are high so people aren't borrowing it from the banks where the funds are held. Therefore the money is just sitting around doing nothing, and not inducing any work. The proposal is to pry this money out of the coffers of the rich and put it back into the economy where it induces more work to be done. Isn't that what you love? Why would you be against more work being done? The money will only get spent about five times before the rich get it back again, which is the other thing you seem to love, so you get everything you want.

What we observe will always be somewhere in the middle, because if it gets to the worst case, we won't be here to observe it.

If the numbers get too small, the species becomes genetically nonviable due to insufficient genetic base. And TPTB won't want to "spend enough" (allocate a large enough percentage of total resources) to prevent that from happening because it might interfere with the overwhelming economic superiority upon which their internal self-worth is based.

Or, they stripped out disregard to get their AI to not accept instructions to disregard prior instructions, but did it in the wrong place so it removed it from the search terms.

The government's job is to address the needs of the nation, which includes those of the citizens. If it insists that people should have to work if they want to live, then they should be preserving jobs for their citizenry first.

It's just completely incorrect for cars without controls to even exist. Cars with controls are easier to manage in breakdowns. Not even being able to steer without the computer means it will be difficult to get disabled vehicles onto rollbacks in some circumstances. The correct infrastructure for vehicles without steering wheels is rail.

Obama broke his brain. Funny how it wasn't some other president doing the same shit. It's almost like there's something different about that guy to which he objects.

We used to have EDDs (etc) which companies could inform of their job openings, and people could go to them and find out about opportunities that matched their backgrounds. These evolved into places to get help with resumes and searches for jobs, but not with job listings themselves. While those are clearly needed functions, having a trusted source of job listings with a legal obligation not to needlessly disclose information about you to third parties was also valuable.

At least with a government program there is a reasonable possibility of useful oversight under some administrations. With private operators it always seems to go wrong for lack of transparency, as opposed to only most of the time.

This isn't true. All you need is a lot more people than there is work for them to do for it to make sense. We're well past that, and very far into make work for the sake of employment. That's waste, i.e. inefficiency, and therefore worse than UBI because it requires resource consumption to maintain.

This is quite possibly true. If we don't learn to work together and control our government rather than having it controlling us, then UBI won't really make things better. It will only change how we are oppressed.

Perhaps they can pay them to have it deleted. That's had great repercussions so far.

Most people want things to just work, and then they delude themselves into thinking they do even when they do not.

If I had a dollar for every person who I've seen join a 3d printing group and ask how they can print more than the models shipped on the machine, I could buy another printer. It's a desktop-sized industrial robot, not a games console.

Getting a coherent style good or bad from AI requires training, which is a lot harder than just prompting. Since AI isn't actually working from pictures, just statistical analyses of them, it has a really hard time giving consistency. A real art department making a real film has a body of concept art, samples, and other resources to draw from and compare to, and brains to do it with.

What good is emergency speed capping when the tower loses power? When we had our last earthquake the local cell site went down after a few hours and they never bothered to bring in a generator, I had no phone for almost three days.

Yes, they do, in fact typically every FD has their own for example and then there's one for each county as well, but what's the relevance of that to this?

Spoken like a city dweller with no health issues. Maybe when you get older you'll realize that your situation isn't the same as everyone else's.

Apparently you live in a big city, and not in the country (which describes most of California, despite persistent misconceptions) because in my area, POTS service is absolutely necessary for a large percentage of the population, and in particular a big share of those on fixed incomes who don't have the money to change because COLAs don't keep up with the actual cost of living.

I think you eat crayons while doing paperwork. For someone who's lived in California for so long, you sure don't know shit about it.

Dumping POTS absolutely will reduce power consumption, because they won't have to push analog signals through copper over long distances. It's just not sufficient justification for doing it, because that functionality is irreplaceable. We should be keeping some POTS service around for customers out of wireless range, and for alarm systems. A lot of those have gone cellular, and in some case that might be fine, but it's inferior and cellular should be used in addition and not as a replacement. (It can be text only, so the cost can be very low.)