that’s so me. i love talking to weird people.

oh interesting, this is the first time that i see this. but it kinda makes sense, thanks.

as universal basic income doesn’t set universal basic buying power

i disagree. food prices would not go up. prices are set by supply and demand. demand would not change. imagine a society with 1 million people. all of them need to eat, whether they earn their money through wages or get it through UBI. the demand for food does not change. i don’t see a reason why supply would change either. so prices stay the same.

do you have any rational argument against this?

i’m just gonna say it: your assumption that everybody should work is harmful. there’s lots of people who can’t work for medical reasons, but can’t get a doctor’s note either. for example, psychological syndromes are notoriously hard to diagnose.

you’d just create another point of social friction with your attitude.

that’s not really how people are, though. if people are happy, they generally see little reason to change something about their situation. everything else is delusional

i’m not sure why that is weird … aren’t they the same thing?

On top of that, you would pronounce 678 as six-hundred-seven-ty-eight in english … guess what it is in german:

Sechs-hundert-acht-und-sieb-zig (literally six-hundred-eight-and-seven-ty)

i’m actually trying to change this point specifically because it irks me … but i am sadly alone with it.

In german and english, the comma in numbers is swapped. So the number 123.45 in german would be written as 123,45 while ironically, the thing that we used to separate thousands from hundreds is also swapped. So one-thousand-four-hundred would be written as 1,400 in english but as 1.400 in german …

• carry objects around
• can actually lift meaningful amounts of weight
• probably has fingers and can rotate screws in etc.
• can probably operate tools that require fingers with more precision than mini-helicopters?

realistically, yes, at least in america. the reason is simple: it makes the economy go up. if people have more money to spend -> more consumption -> more revenue for companies -> more profit -> higher stock valuations. it’s very simple actually. it’s very much in the interest of the state and everyone in power to do exactly that.

rather than getting essential services

UBI says income, not money. resources and services provided to you would still be income.

can confirm. same second. thanks!

how does that have anything to do with us? why did you post this here?

or did i just miss the joke?

people routinely choke on their own saliva too …

nah i think that the storage requirement grows approximately linear with the number of users, and maybe in the worst case quadratically; but the typical case should be linear.

depends … what are you interested in? why do you want to learn things in the first place?

it would be cool if i (or any user) could just contribute a part of their storage space / network connection to the video platform. something like “i store this video (that i just watched) for a month sothat others can see it too”.

unfortunately, as i understand it, there’s both technical and legal hurdles.

• technical hurdle: this doesn’t work for mobile, where network traffic is often limited. e.g. if i pay $10 for 50 GB upload/download capacity per month, then i don’t want 49 GB of those to be sucked up by other people’s video watching behavior.
• legal hurdle: what if some of the content is accidentally illegal? then i would be distributing illegal material, which can quickly become a problem for myself … (seeing how it is illegal in many countries to distribute copyrighted material, but not to watch it oneself).

how so?

the way i imagine it:

• as long as it’s american companies running everything, it’s “fair” and “free market”.
• as long as some company from abroad manages to do things better and more efficient, and american companies come under pressure, we’ll suddenly erect trade barriers and market hurdles to “protect american values”, “for our national security” or sth else. i’ve seen this soo many times. people who “just follow the rules” as long as the rules benefit them. as soon as the same rules start biting them in their own ass, suddenly for some reason they say that we need to change the rules.

As long as you keep your crimes to an extent that it doesn’t cause a massive backlash on large swaths of the country, it’s a different ballgame.

actually that does sound kinda reasonable. what is a crime, if not defined by its negative consequences for the rest of the population?