pdeuchler

This is not a new philosophical problem. We already know what the inherent tension is here. Do we value the sanctity of a human life over the greater social order?

Of course both answers to that question have very far reaching implications, and to answer one way or another almost always reveals oneself to be a hypocrite in some way. But instead of actually engaging with these hard questions we equivocate and try to build logical defenses that allow us to have our cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately with modern science and medicine we will be forced to reckon with the consequences of these unspoken choices soon or later. I don't pretend to know what is correct here, and I don't necessarily pass judgement on those who would answer these questions differently than I, but I do have large amounts of contempt for anyone who tries to ignore the realities of their positions and even more contempt for those who think the answer is obvious and self explanatory.

> I'm interested to know what the majority of the Windows machines are used for.

Willing to bet it's SQL Server and Azure AD

Yeah some pretty clear propaganda going on... from reading the released summary of the study the vast majority of dependents that did not find employment seem to live in job deserts and economically depressed areas. Obviously UBI won't increase employment if nobody is hiring.

Did you even read the article or the study? One of the only conclusive statements from this study was the UBI experiment as enacted here encouraged dependents to take up "fulfilling and meaningful jobs /w low wages"

FTA:

“Some people said the basic income had zero effect on their productivity, as there were still no jobs in the area they were trained for,” said Prof Helena Blomberg-Kroll, who led the study. “But others said that with the basic income they were prepared to take low-paying jobs they would otherwise have avoided.

...

It also encouraged some participants to get more involved in society, by undertaking voluntary work, for example. “Some found the guaranteed income increased the possibility for them to do things like providing informal care for their family or their neighbours,” said one of the researchers, Christian Kroll.

“The security of the basic income allowed them to do more meaningful things, as they felt it legitimised this kind of care work. Many of the people who performed such unpaid activities during the two-year period referred to it as work.”

> There was no clear indication that basic income encourages people to find jobs. You can scratch that one off the list.

You clearly didn't read the study or even the guardian article. There was clear evidence that basic income encourages people to find jobs in many cases, just not conclusively in every case (which no proponent of UBI argues).

> There was a pretty big and important hypothesis that the study was trying to pin down: is UBI profitable? Do you give 500 EUR and get more back?

That wasn't even close to the hypothesis that they were trying to disprove. You made this up off the top of your head. They were trying to develop a simpler, less bureaucratic welfare system that didn't have the pitfalls of the existing system while measuring dependent's wellbeing.

> And the answer is: there is no trace of that.

Again, not true. There was plenty of evidence that a UBI (as enacted in this study) could have positive economic effects, just not in every single case, and not conclusively.

Pretty much the only conclusive result from this study was that the dependents had a better sense of well being on average from the control group. That's it. I have no idea where you got these made up factoids from, I cant find any kind of review or analysis that shares your opinions or statements.

I know a bunch of people who went to RSA in Vegas that got a mysterious flu that was extremely similar to Covid. Given the Vegas mayor's recent publicity it wouldn't surprise me that Vegas was fudging the numbers.

Most people who work in customer facing roles in Vegas are already extremely paranoid and careful about hygiene. Gloves, constant cleaning of commonly touched surfaces, etc. Being a low level casino/hotel employee teaches you very quickly that humans are just sentient germ dispersal machines.

> The individual officers are often just too dumb

You know, my dad always told me to just listen to people... eventually they'll tell you who they truly are.

The "is it doing X before we run out of money?" question is way overblown in startup land, usually by product people to skew developer time towards more features instead of much needed foundational work.

In reality, this question is almost always instantly answerable. You're either still building out your MVP and desperately need customers to validate your idea, in which case the answer is "No", or you're an established startup with runway and a growing customer base, in which case the answer is "Yes".

> RSA 2048 keys are unbreakable for the foreseeable future, and using 4096 bit keys are just being paranoid with no gain

This is only true if you consider pure brute force as the only way to "break" RSA 2048. While as of right now there is no hard evidence there has been plenty of hearsay that some of the 5 Eyes have had tools for years that can drastically reduce the brute force complexity needed for RSA 2048 keys.

There is also really no such thing as being "paranoid with no gain" when it comes to computational security, since digital assets can be stored indefinitely and compromised in the future with more advanced computational power or techniques. On the contrary, given the computational power of your average laptop/server these days there's really no reason to _not_ use 4096 keys, unless you are operating on FAANG scale.

Uhhhhhh, are you talking about bank term loans? Bank term loans have repayment periods over decades (usually), and use the physical assets as collateral. Not what OP is talking about.

> It’s not uncommon for companies to use leverage to fuel growth. High yield venture debt is often tied to growth metrics.

This is, of course, exactly my point. "High yield venture debt" only exists due to absurdly low interest rates and an abundance of capital being driven out of public markets and into private ones. Now that the free lunch is over do not be surprised that your lenders come calling now that your "high yield" (read: risky) loan is no longer profitable under current market conditions.

> In a highly competitive market, if you don’t lever up, your competitors will eat your market.

I.E. When capital is cheap and abundant it is possible to burn cash on an unsustainable business plan for marketshare, but when the entire market itself rapidly shrinks your business plan is horribly unviable.

Pretty easy to call their bluff and just pay for those people's unemployment instead

If a 50% drop in expected revenue _growth_ causes you to default on your debt you are either a startup that had trouble raising money, in which case now you know that you do not have a viable business plan, or you are running a completely unsustainable business that only existed because of easy access to cheap debt the past couple of years.

Crazy to me that they've released this without a way for organizations to disable using it with private repos... in no way shape or form do I want engineers using this app to access company IP on their personal phones.

> I honestly don't get the attitude against a certain level of preparedness. What is wrong with stocking more non-perishable food stuffs at home if those are the things you'd normally buy anyway? You don't need to fill your basements with MREs, just get more of the usual non-perishables than you'd normally do - pasta, wheat flour, oats, etc. Get some yeast to bake bread as well while you're at it. Get butter, put it in the freezer. Dried beans last forever - I had some around which I took with me when I moved from the Netherlands to Sweden about 20 years ago, made a chilli with them, tasted 'like new' - and can make a good meal with a few odds and ends. Get 'canned' (i.e. packaged) tomatoes, frozen vegetables (the power will stay on during this crisis), etc. This is not doomsday prepping, it is common sense.

I have no problem with this, but that's clearly not what GP is advocating for. I doubt most in this thread even comprehend how much food is required for a 30 day supply of your average household. Buying double the amount of perishables doesn't seem unreasonable, stocking up for a month+ is absurd.