This isn't an extraordinary claim at all. It's well established through many different methods.
Cities with high levels of welfare such as Chicago and Detroit, as well as native reserves in Canada that are government funded communes are exactly what I had in mind -- there's poverty in a modern sense, but in a historical context some of the richest people in the history of the world and still richer than most of the world on a dollar for dollar basis. There are also examples of trust fund kids with nothing else to do committing suicide through lifestyle because they don't have anything else to strive for -- so rich neighborhoods can have similar issues to poor ones when you take away people's reason to live.
Many dogs misbehave when they have everything taken care of and they don't have anything to do with their energy. They might dig up your yard, tear up your furniture, freak out when the mailman comes by, and the advice from experts is to play with the dog more and to on more walks to "give it a job". Many millennials or zoomers are stuck in their parents house and they get all the essentials and sometimes more taken care of, and it's made the most miserable generation out there, with the most mental problems of all time.
The famous Mouse Utopia experiment gave mice all the space and food they needed and no natural predators. The results were that the mice became more and more dysfunctional until the colony fully died out.
Human beings aren't like lawnmower engines. You can't just fill them with fuel and do basic maintenance and expect they'll run properly for a lifetime.
As Dostoyevsky said: “Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.” because that's not how we're built. We've evolved in a world that will kill us if we're still for too long, so in the absence of a need for useful work, we'll pursue useless or destructive pursuits.
Cities with high levels of welfare such as Chicago and Detroit, as well as native reserves in Canada that are government funded communes are exactly what I had in mind -- there's poverty in a modern sense, but in a historical context some of the richest people in the history of the world and still richer than most of the world on a dollar for dollar basis. There are also examples of trust fund kids with nothing else to do committing suicide through lifestyle because they don't have anything else to strive for -- so rich neighborhoods can have similar issues to poor ones when you take away people's reason to live.
Many dogs misbehave when they have everything taken care of and they don't have anything to do with their energy. They might dig up your yard, tear up your furniture, freak out when the mailman comes by, and the advice from experts is to play with the dog more and to on more walks to "give it a job". Many millennials or zoomers are stuck in their parents house and they get all the essentials and sometimes more taken care of, and it's made the most miserable generation out there, with the most mental problems of all time.
The famous Mouse Utopia experiment gave mice all the space and food they needed and no natural predators. The results were that the mice became more and more dysfunctional until the colony fully died out.
Human beings aren't like lawnmower engines. You can't just fill them with fuel and do basic maintenance and expect they'll run properly for a lifetime.
As Dostoyevsky said: “Shower on him every blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of the species, and even then, out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.” because that's not how we're built. We've evolved in a world that will kill us if we're still for too long, so in the absence of a need for useful work, we'll pursue useless or destructive pursuits.
There are a number of problems with UBI, and important and dangerous problems.
One of the basic concepts of Ubi is that you provide enough money for people to live without doing anything else. A lot of people will choose to live exactly like that. That seem so bad at first, except there's some pretty major consequences. You take away people's need to work to live, for a lot of people you've taken away the little shred of meaning they had in their lives. We know what communities look like when you do that. Around the world there are plenty of communities where people get just enough to live, and not a whole lot else. You get high crime, you get people destroying their own neighborhoods just for something to do, you get high levels of suicide.
Then there's the distinct problem that you create a class system: there will be the people who continue to work, and the people who do not work. This could play out in a number of different ways, in some cases we would expect the large underclass to be slowly strangled because they don't contribute anything anyway. You're going to live without working, the people who do work get priority. In other cases, we could see the opposite: the people who aren't working look at the extra that the people who do work get, and go "that's mine too", so eventually the only way to keep people working is under some sort of threat since their carrot has been taken away, all that's left is stick.
Then there's the evergreen problem of people who want to come in and take everything that's already been built: nothing new will be built. With masses of people unemployed by choice, and the economy not really giving incentives to people to go out and produce anything, there will just be less stuff for everyone. You can't print goods and services into existence.
Overall, it's an idea that is well meaning but would cause hell for a substantial proportion of the people trapped in such a system. It's like a perpetual motion machine: everyone claims they've built one but the laws of physics aren't that polite to let you.
One of the basic concepts of Ubi is that you provide enough money for people to live without doing anything else. A lot of people will choose to live exactly like that. That seem so bad at first, except there's some pretty major consequences. You take away people's need to work to live, for a lot of people you've taken away the little shred of meaning they had in their lives. We know what communities look like when you do that. Around the world there are plenty of communities where people get just enough to live, and not a whole lot else. You get high crime, you get people destroying their own neighborhoods just for something to do, you get high levels of suicide.
Then there's the distinct problem that you create a class system: there will be the people who continue to work, and the people who do not work. This could play out in a number of different ways, in some cases we would expect the large underclass to be slowly strangled because they don't contribute anything anyway. You're going to live without working, the people who do work get priority. In other cases, we could see the opposite: the people who aren't working look at the extra that the people who do work get, and go "that's mine too", so eventually the only way to keep people working is under some sort of threat since their carrot has been taken away, all that's left is stick.
Then there's the evergreen problem of people who want to come in and take everything that's already been built: nothing new will be built. With masses of people unemployed by choice, and the economy not really giving incentives to people to go out and produce anything, there will just be less stuff for everyone. You can't print goods and services into existence.
Overall, it's an idea that is well meaning but would cause hell for a substantial proportion of the people trapped in such a system. It's like a perpetual motion machine: everyone claims they've built one but the laws of physics aren't that polite to let you.
For the most part, the games industry started stagnating 10 years ago.
2007-2012 was a golden age.
2007-2012 was a golden age.
tbf, lighting has transformed in the past 20 years. Most energy use has.
One rental I moved into, I removed several kilowatts of incandescent light bulbs and replaced them with a couple hundred watts of LED light bulbs.
A lot of our other energy use is also way better than it used to be going back into the past. Cars use much less fuel, televisions use less energy since they're using LEDs and LCDs instead of giant vacuum tubes hurling electrons at phosphorescent coating (and the televisions last virtually forever comparatively speaking since the phosphor doesn't fade and there's no need for super high voltages). Even critical stuff like heating is on a completely different level now -- energy was much cheaper post-war so houses weren't really as well insulated, and more importantly the efficiency was on a whole other level. In the 1950s, a furnace might only be 50% efficient. Today, a furnace can be up to 99% efficient, which is absolutely mind-blowing when you think about it.
The massively increased efficiency of modern life is one of the few things saving us from the fact that consumer electricity costs have generally risen faster than inflation.
One rental I moved into, I removed several kilowatts of incandescent light bulbs and replaced them with a couple hundred watts of LED light bulbs.
A lot of our other energy use is also way better than it used to be going back into the past. Cars use much less fuel, televisions use less energy since they're using LEDs and LCDs instead of giant vacuum tubes hurling electrons at phosphorescent coating (and the televisions last virtually forever comparatively speaking since the phosphor doesn't fade and there's no need for super high voltages). Even critical stuff like heating is on a completely different level now -- energy was much cheaper post-war so houses weren't really as well insulated, and more importantly the efficiency was on a whole other level. In the 1950s, a furnace might only be 50% efficient. Today, a furnace can be up to 99% efficient, which is absolutely mind-blowing when you think about it.
The massively increased efficiency of modern life is one of the few things saving us from the fact that consumer electricity costs have generally risen faster than inflation.
It's like a reverse trolley problem. If you pull the lever, it'll kill more people, but at least you can say you did something!
I was proud my wife pushed back on the vaxx. We're not generally anti-vax, my son has all his other shots, but it's simple: she couldn't even take anything other than Tylenol for pain because it's so difficult to get drugs approved for pregnant women, but they managed to get this one approved in less time than it takes to have a baby? So what, did they just use quickrise babies?
There was a game like that called facade made like 10 years ago like that.
Kinda sucked iirc but interesting concept
Kinda sucked iirc but interesting concept
>cue me ranting like a Canadian Donald Trump
Build a wall and get the Americans to pay for it!
Build a wall and get the Americans to pay for it!
Looking at my home timeline, I checked the servers the top 5 posts came from.
5 different servers.
That's a damn healthy fediverse right there. No single points of failure!
5 different servers.
That's a damn healthy fediverse right there. No single points of failure!
If Republicans were not retarded, they would be speaking out on the incredibly racist bullshit being put out by the Democrats. Forget about the past, the past is over. I know the Democrats formed the KKK, I know that one Democrat said that they have the n-bombs voting for them for a hundred years, let's just take a look at this year.
They express that black people are pro crime. That's a massive chink in their armor, I'm pretty sure while there might be a small minority who actually actively support crime, black people are still human beings and probably don't enjoy crimes being committed against them.
Here, they express that black people are inherently incapable of paying their bills. Like it's one of their racial attributes they get a -1 to paying bills on time. "Here, we will punish people who pay their bills on time and give the rewards to people who can't pay their bills on time, that's going to disproportionately help black people because y'all don't pay your bills on time."
This should be such a simple strategic blunder to take advantage of, and it's one that they've gone all-in on, and they've categorically failed at it.
They express that black people are pro crime. That's a massive chink in their armor, I'm pretty sure while there might be a small minority who actually actively support crime, black people are still human beings and probably don't enjoy crimes being committed against them.
Here, they express that black people are inherently incapable of paying their bills. Like it's one of their racial attributes they get a -1 to paying bills on time. "Here, we will punish people who pay their bills on time and give the rewards to people who can't pay their bills on time, that's going to disproportionately help black people because y'all don't pay your bills on time."
This should be such a simple strategic blunder to take advantage of, and it's one that they've gone all-in on, and they've categorically failed at it.
Bro bro you don't understand bro this time the publicly traded multi-billion dollar company won't ignore massive pressure from the state and the stonk market bro
You're not wrong.
Sometimes it's all in the same person too. History should tell us that there's no such thing as a perfectly good or perfectly evil person.
Sometimes it's all in the same person too. History should tell us that there's no such thing as a perfectly good or perfectly evil person.
Fediblock is a list of fun people who have fun and are coo and nicel. Prove me wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlf2G0O_VY0
"'Dramaturgical dyad' is a term used in sociology and social psychology to describe the relationship between two individuals who engage in a face-to-face interaction. It is based on the concept of dramaturgy, which suggests that social interactions are similar to performances, where individuals play different roles and use various strategies to manage the impression they make on others."
"'Dramaturgical dyad' is a term used in sociology and social psychology to describe the relationship between two individuals who engage in a face-to-face interaction. It is based on the concept of dramaturgy, which suggests that social interactions are similar to performances, where individuals play different roles and use various strategies to manage the impression they make on others."
