I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:
Uncategorized
36
Posts
14
Posters
43
Views
-
That’s a bit of a head-scratcher for me. Most proposed UBI systems’ design claw it back through tax so that people above a certain income effectively get little no benefit from it.
Meanwhile, means-testing *inevitably* becomes a tool of ideological control. You start with the best of intentions, but sooner or later someone says “you don’t deserve support if you live in a way I don’t approve of.” I live in the UK, and I would regard the recent political chaos around the child benefit cap as a perfect example. If you subtract the industrial parasites from the system, you’ll still have that problem to deal with.
@codinghorror @decoderwheel yeah, I think taxes that nullify the benefit don't count as means testing even though, in effect, they may be similar.
-
That’s a bit of a head-scratcher for me. Most proposed UBI systems’ design claw it back through tax so that people above a certain income effectively get little no benefit from it.
Meanwhile, means-testing *inevitably* becomes a tool of ideological control. You start with the best of intentions, but sooner or later someone says “you don’t deserve support if you live in a way I don’t approve of.” I live in the UK, and I would regard the recent political chaos around the child benefit cap as a perfect example. If you subtract the industrial parasites from the system, you’ll still have that problem to deal with.
@decoderwheel @aeischeid and how exactly are they "clawing it back" when billionaires pay 0% or quite close to 0% right now, today? How? Please explain it to me, break it down for me step by step, so I can understand how this can happen. Ref: https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116034715309329431
-
@cwicseolfor data doesn't support that, though. You don't hate means testing. You hate the means testing industrial complex. and I agree, KILL THE MEANS TESTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.. and build something far simpler not perversely motivated to become as complex and arduous as possible to extract max dollars from governments
@cwicseolfor and whether you agree or not is ultimately irrelevant. We are already doing it, and will continue to do it, and we will bury politicians in valid scientific data showing FAR more efficient basic means testing IS possible, across dozens or hundreds of american counties running GMI programs, until they win elections on that platform. Or form a new country right here, that does. Whichever. Watch us do it. It'll be fun.
-
@cwicseolfor and whether you agree or not is ultimately irrelevant. We are already doing it, and will continue to do it, and we will bury politicians in valid scientific data showing FAR more efficient basic means testing IS possible, across dozens or hundreds of american counties running GMI programs, until they win elections on that platform. Or form a new country right here, that does. Whichever. Watch us do it. It'll be fun.
@codinghorror If your argument is that it would be better to means test without a profit motive than with one, on that much we can agree. If your argument is that means testing the poor and the vulnerable before providing them *survival necessities* is preferable to even marginally improving tax policy, and specifically bothering to pursue wealthy tax cheats - an endeavor well documented to return nine dollars for every dollar spent, an unbeatable ROI - in the face of wealth inequality rivaling Louis XVI’s France, such an objective is both shortsighted and morally vacuous. That you showed up to say more a day later *almost* protests too much, but I’d rather believe you’re honestly invested in your efforts than any other explanation.
We could do an immoral thing less poorly, but we can also do a moral thing with the very same investment. I’d be most interested in how these very efficient systems might be put to other use, such as means-testing the far, far smaller, more conspicuous pool of astronomically wealthy. They’re only too big to tax if we agree they are.
-
@aeischeid it's a liability. You'll give money to rich people over my dead body. I will do everything I can to stop that. The idea that it is "impossible" to build any kind of remotely efficient means testing is completely absurd. It's the "means testing industrial complex" that is the problem. So let's route around that damage
> "You'll give money to rich people over my dead body."
So you are opposed to bettering life for the bottom 90% of people because of the irrelevant blip it would provide for the top 10%?
> "The idea that it is "impossible" to build any kind of remotely efficient means testing is completely absurd."
Is it? And is efficiency the only metric by which such a system should be judged?
> "So let's route around that damage."
Yes, let's. By completely obviating it.
-
> "You'll give money to rich people over my dead body."
So you are opposed to bettering life for the bottom 90% of people because of the irrelevant blip it would provide for the top 10%?
> "The idea that it is "impossible" to build any kind of remotely efficient means testing is completely absurd."
Is it? And is efficiency the only metric by which such a system should be judged?
> "So let's route around that damage."
Yes, let's. By completely obviating it.
@codinghorror (And I say this knowing fairly well that another near-impossibility is getting something like UBI approved nationally. But it's not fully impossible. My country made means testing illegal for medical care in 1984. I got a "free" CT scan on saturday as a result, which was helpful for making sure I wasn't about to die.)
-
> "You'll give money to rich people over my dead body."
So you are opposed to bettering life for the bottom 90% of people because of the irrelevant blip it would provide for the top 10%?
> "The idea that it is "impossible" to build any kind of remotely efficient means testing is completely absurd."
Is it? And is efficiency the only metric by which such a system should be judged?
> "So let's route around that damage."
Yes, let's. By completely obviating it.
@kboyd Why not better life for not just 90%, but even more, 95% of people with the same funds, using a more efficient mechanism: actually TRUSTING each other. As for the rest:
Google "means testing industrial complex" and when our data goes into https://ubidata.io/ feel free to analyze all that global data and you tell us.
-
@codinghorror (And I say this knowing fairly well that another near-impossibility is getting something like UBI approved nationally. But it's not fully impossible. My country made means testing illegal for medical care in 1984. I got a "free" CT scan on saturday as a result, which was helpful for making sure I wasn't about to die.)
@kboyd so why exactly would we favor the "near-impossible" plan over the "gee, almost every time we see a new study the data shows it works, and it's pretty simple" plan?
-
@kboyd so why exactly would we favor the "near-impossible" plan over the "gee, almost every time we see a new study the data shows it works, and it's pretty simple" plan?
@codinghorror Good question. The GMI idea does sound like a good stepping stone.
My issue with the concept of means testing is that, largely, it serves as a cudgel to hamper progress and harm people - whether or not a complex is involved.
It enacts the same thumb on the scale that mandatory helmet laws do to depress cycling uptake.
And that effect has been known for 20 years: https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/23037/chapter-abstract/183846510?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
-
@cwicseolfor data doesn't support that, though. You don't hate means testing. You hate the means testing industrial complex. and I agree, KILL THE MEANS TESTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.. and build something far simpler not perversely motivated to become as complex and arduous as possible to extract max dollars from governments
@codinghorror @cwicseolfor
Programs that aren't means tested survive much better in the US.Mortgage deduction.
Social security.
Dependent exemption.Build programs that apply to everyone!
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@MissAemilia hard pass
-
@aeva but imagine if you had nvidia generate enhanced frames for you. You could sacrifice significant amounts of frame time to have them yassify your car for you at 240 totally real hz!
-
if i ever finish my racing game, the pitch practically writes itself. 4k 120 hz clean frames on most hardware, no bullshit.
-
Current* conditions near Chicago, IL:
-
You hear an angry drone.
-
Zip-Drive Emulator Puts Big Disks Back on LPT
Iomega’s Zip drives filled an interesting niche back in the 1990s. A magnetic disk that was physically floppy-sized, but much larger in capacity– starting at 100 MB, and reaching 750 MB by the end–they never quite had universal appeal, but never really went away until flash memory chased them out of the marketplace in the early 2000s. While not everyone is going to miss them, some of us still think it’s a better form factor than having a USB stick awkwardly protruding from a computer, or microSD cards that are barely large enough to see with the naked eye. [Minh Danh] is one of those who still has affection for Zip drives, and when his parallel port Zip 100 drive started to give up the ghost last year, he decided to do something bold: reverse engineer it, and produce an emulator. First software, and then in hardware.
It’s not the prettiest-ever prototype, but lots of great things start with a mess of wires.
The first was to create a virtual zip drive that could run on a virtual machine and be accessed with DOS or Windows up to XP. The next task was to move that functionality onto a microcontroller to create something like a GoTek floppy emulator for LPT Zip drives that he’s calling the LPT100. Yes, Zip drives were built for APATI, SCSI, FireWire and USB, too, but [Minh]’s was on the parallel port and that’s what he wanted to replace, so the LPT interface is what set out to recreate.It works, too, though took more guts than was expected– the 8-bit PIC18F4680 he started with just wasn’t up to the task. He moved up to a 32-bit PIC, the PIC32MZ2048EFH144 to be specific, which proved adaquate when testing with his Book 8088, a new DOS PC from 2023. Iomega’s official driver won’t run on an 8088, but the PALMZIP utility does and was able to transfer files, though only at the slow nibble rate due to limitations with the Book8088’s LPT hardware. Watch it in action below.
Alas, moving up to the Pocket386, it seemed the PIC just could not keep up. [Minh] says he’s thinking of moving to the faster Teensy 4.1, which sounds like a good idea. Considering the Teensy can be configured to serve as a drop-in replacement for a 68000, bit-banging the bus at 7.8 MHz, we’d think it should handle anything a parallel port can throw at it.
Thanks to [Minh Danh] for the tip!
-
Onda anomala: “imbottigliati” nella plastica. intervista a luca martinelli sul mercato dell’acqua minerale
@anarchia
“Onda Anomala”- Notizie eventi movimenti dal clima che cambia, la trasmissione quindicinale di Radio Onda d’Urto all’interno della casetta degli attrezzi del martedi pomeriggio alle 18.45 in replica il mercoledi in apertura
