@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:

Me IRL.

@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

Still defining a bribe. Just because a bribe is public and direct to voters, or secret and direct to a legislature doesn't change that someone is using votes to get money to buy votes.

Still perfectly legal. This is why I keep saying that their democratic system is crap and needs to be changed, but for it to change, a government would have to pass a law, and with these groups in the government, they'll never vote for such a change.

This is also why I laugh so hard whenever I hear a kiddie in the US saying your system needs to be overhauled to the European way, with representation from multiple parties instead of just two. Please never do that

Legal corruption is still corruption.

This goes back to the ethical vs legal conversation in another thread.

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.

No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.

Two party systems only makes people choose a side. The problem is the both sides are extremely corrupt and because of collectivism people are unwilling to think for themselves. This problems is on both sides. People are defending Trump or Obama just because he his on their side or vice versa. There is already an opinion formed that I am a Democrat/Repubican therefore my party is always right and the other guys are completely wrong.

Intelligent people are able to look at things by issue not by party or politician. Unfortunately 90% of people are completely tied up in this party affliation bullshit. It's easy to sell because you can always make the other side look stupid since they both do stupid things. Then people from each party will make themselves feel better from mocking the other party. When in essence they are the ones being fooled since they never look at issues from a neutral or opposite point of view.

Collectivism is a bitch and it makes people dumber than rocks!

so you are suggesting to split all those people into even smaller chunks, and try to form a government out of a collection of those tiny chunks. If you have 10 parties instead of 2 (with the size of the US, it'll be more like 100 parties really), each pulling in it's own direction, how will a government be able to even form, not to mention actually do anything?

I mean that's kind of the point... the Government should be forced to negotiate between itself. It will need to slow down and actually work through problems instead of waiting for 2-4 years for the next party to become the majority.

@IRJ That's a great gif... I'm keeping that.

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.

No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.

Yeah... we have that too... in fact we have it to an extreme. We elect people not on policies but simply because they aren't part of the other tribe. Therefore anything to help or hinder your tribe or the other is more important then actually getting anything done.... At least with a parliamentary democracy you have the ability to vote for a different minority party if your does something you don't like.

@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.

Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.

Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.

So you consider yourself one of the 5%?

Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.

Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?

And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?

Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.

I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.

Both. Almost all IT isn't necessary. Most of us support things that have little to no purpose.

Automation needs set up and managed. Physical server equipment constantly needs added and replaced, so automated scaling can take place at minimum. Business needs and goals continuously need translated into good IT solutions, etc...

You're making the point for us. We agree that some IT personnel is necessary... but the vast majority really isn't.

@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@coliver said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

What are the exact terms of GBI as it would be implemented in the real world? This whole discussion here seems based on no real info that I can find anywhere.

Does someone have a link for an actual fully proposed GBI?

It's a generic concept. But most basics are assumed. Like that it does what it says, lol.

GBI is one thing, Scott's 98% useless theory is what it is based on, but lots of people believe in GBI and not in the 98% theory.

UBI\GBI goes a lot further back then Scott Adams IIRC.

In the Star Trek sense, yes. In "proposed economic theory", I am not aware of it for a long time after Scott Adam's proposed it.

Look up Thomas Paine's Utopia. IIRC that's the first document that argues in favor of a basic income. I think Scott Adams refined it but it was a working economic thought experiment long before him.

@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@DustinB3403 said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Dashrender said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

awww - our premises are off. Scott came up with that title, not me.
His idea is that 95% of the population doesn't work - because there are no jobs for them, because (likely) it's all handled by computers/automation.
So 95% of the planet will be on the government dime as it were.

Right, so assuming scott is accurate in that 95% of the world isn't capable of working because there literally is no job. Then absolutely give those people a quality place to live in, food to eat and a means to live happily.

Out of the other 5% as it were, maybe 3% already have a standard of living they can presumably afford. Maintain that 3% where they are and then 2% who are unable to actually afford the life they live today can go down to the 95% level.

So you consider yourself one of the 5%?

Of people who are living a sustainable lifestyle that isn't over abundant and drowning in debt. Yes.

Fair - but not what I was asking - do you consider your income to be above what that of the 95%'ers should/would be?

And assuming you are jobless like those 95% (come on - IT folks will be out on their ear like most others), do you feel you deserve more than the 95%'ers?

Right, IT is mostly a bloat job, here to prop up workers who are unneeded. Think about it, most of us spend most of our time fixing things that should never be broken in the first place. Remove the users, and most IT goes away instantly.

I don't think you mean IT... perhaps bench work is like that.

IT too. Most positions are actually there to support the welfare jobs.

@scottalanmiller said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

@Obsolesce said in Moving to Guaranteed Basic Income:

What are the exact terms of GBI as it would be implemented in the real world? This whole discussion here seems based on no real info that I can find anywhere.

Does someone have a link for an actual fully proposed GBI?

It's a generic concept. But most basics are assumed. Like that it does what it says, lol.

GBI is one thing, Scott's 98% useless theory is what it is based on, but lots of people believe in GBI and not in the 98% theory.

UBI\GBI goes a lot further back then Scott Adams IIRC.

@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.

@smartkid808 said in Gaming Rig Issues:

@DustinB3403 said in Gaming Rig Issues:

Running stress tests against the CPU would at least tell you if the CPU is defective at this point. But it would be beneficial to actually be there to see it run.

Any particular one i should try run? Anything I should look for?

@coliver said in Gaming Rig Issues:

Generally the life of the machine. Since they are closed loop coolers they will last longer then that CPU has life.

Thats what I figured. But I seen reviews plenty people have had problems. Of course it could be then did something to it..lol

No product is without defects. Could be the pump is too slow (or too fast) or the fan isn't spinning as expected.

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

I don't think that's a good thing - it shows that they aren't really participating in the rest of the world.. even more corruption.

LOL what isn't corruption with you? A country doing well is corrupt. A country falling apart is corrupt. What isn't?

That's their point.... all Governments are corrupt almost by definition.

@DustinB3403 said in Gaming Rig Issues:

They last for quite a long time. Definitely more than a year.

Dumb question but can your buddy see if the fans are spinning on this unit at all?

Generally the life of the machine. Since they are closed loop coolers they will last longer then that CPU has life.

@pmoncho said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

Spending money for the sake of spending money and creating fake jobs because of it, is just smoke and mirrors. No real world problem is solved. It's ok though because we can just print more money. Economic Stimulus is nice and all, but it is really just a temp solution. You cant keep throwing out money to solve issues that dont exists. This is the kind of stuff that builds up over time and creates issues. You need to find a real solution of the long term that provides value.

Nothing fake about creating jobs there. I have friends who worked for those fleet management companies, and the food they put on the table was real enough.

Well, there is a decent book about BS jobs on Amazon.

Worth a read if you haven't. It's very good.

@dbeato said in MangoLassi Hangouts????:

@coliver said in MangoLassi Hangouts????:

@scottalanmiller said in MangoLassi Hangouts????:

This past year was very disruptive, but we've done one or two regular "Mango Events" and in May is the third MangoCon. After the conference, it is really time for ML to get local events going, even if just a few.

I know there are a lot of NJ people on this forum. I'd be willing to go into NYC if there was meetup there.

I would be down for that.

@scottalanmiller make it happen!

@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:

What law?

Many Corporate Espionage laws are a big one for this example.

@scottalanmiller said in MangoLassi Hangouts????:

This past year was very disruptive, but we've done one or two regular "Mango Events" and in May is the third MangoCon. After the conference, it is really time for ML to get local events going, even if just a few.

I know there are a lot of NJ people on this forum. I'd be willing to go into NYC if there was meetup there.

@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:

When I left, my friends at the office told me they were meeting with a lawyer the very same day. Nothing came of it, because I didn't give them anything to base a lawsuit on, but the fact that they tried remains.

Been there, done that. Went "by the book" and escaped a job where nearly everyone stayed "forever" because they were threatened that if they left that they would destroy their lives (and often did.)

Didn't the threat of a lawsuit prevent you from working in the US for a long time?

@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

@coliver said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/business/huawei-charges/index.html

Hmm. One of corporate espionage the other was selling to Iran. Neither of which are similar to what Lenovo had done in the past. Both of them are serious allegations though.

Serious enough to warrant additional caution before purchasing. Because who honestly knows what else may be occurring that hasn't surfaced.

That's fair.

@DustinB3403 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/business/huawei-charges/index.html

Hmm. One of corporate espionage the other was selling to Iran. Neither of which are similar to what Lenovo had done in the past. Both of them are serious allegations though.