Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@jwz I'll mail one of these to you https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/114651389461831606

@jwz I dunno man, the truth hurts sometimes, but it's still the truth.

@jwz it's correct framing! I could provide extensive documention but your honor

@jwz I also don't care whether I live or die, but other people seem to for some fucked up reason

@jwz well, it gave me critical information about my health and DNA that none of the dozens of "healthcare professionals" I was working with for 4+ years ever did. (as you can probably understand, I have an entire team working on my stupid ass)

@neil tl;dr needs LLM summary

@simon_brooke tell me again how corporations aren't de-facto nation states right now? ref https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/116233751933300375

"Justice is what love looks like in public." Via Natalie Foster and Cornel West, commissioned by me through Clay Graham Art https://www.claygrahamart.com/products/robo-justice-battle-damage-variant-matte-poster

Check out this cool bat-signal @Pippz made and sent me! 🤩🦇💛

@timnitGebru Bernie is still alive?

@brad @oblomov @pol_9000 it is much more like GMI if it is targeted at all, in fact. And that Irish artists example is a good one because

Universality is a bug, not a feature. When you have limited resources, you don't spread them paper-thin across 330 million people. You target.

▪️ The EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit): A proven "pro-work" GMI that rewards people for staying in the workforce.

▪️ Specific Support: Focusing on the disabled, the elderly, and families with children -- the groups who truly cannot work and need the most help. And GMI can help them get back to work.

Artists would be targeted under "specific support", totally NOT universal, and thus GMI.

@brad @oblomov @pol_9000 https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/1qvngza/comment/o3kwnxx/

The cost difference alone is massive. To reach the same poverty-reduction goals, UBI requires a budget of 15% of GDP, whereas a GMI/Negative Income Tax model only requires about 3.8%. By not wasting money on the top 60% of earners, GMI allows the program to actually give more to the people at the very bottom.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/macroeconomic-dynamics/article/negative-income-tax-and-universal-basic-income-in-the-eyes-of-aiyagari/00FEC4C9D02026504E18270ABF9ED82D

There are other problems with "Universal" as well. I suggest reading the whole post, if you have the time. For example...

The theory behind UBI is that people will use it to pursue their passions or education. But when "everyone" gets it, that gives the money no meaning, no intent, no drive, no... purpose. It's also deeply unfair, by the way, when a rich person gets extra money, if you haven't noticed by now. I'm rich, and I would be deeply offended if someone gave me money that could have gone to another family that desperately needs it. So you can probably imagine how those people who aren't rich might feel.

@nlswrnr and how to we get the wealthy and particularly the billionaires to pay taxes, exactly? Can you walk me through this step by step? We are in the second gilded age so there's more money in the hands of fewer people than at any other time in history

@oblomov @brad @pol_9000 but you are far less likely to get UBI in practice, putting aside the vast increase in cost and magically waving away the "we'll just tax it back" issue, which.. uh.. good luck?

@oblomov @pol_9000 and "taxing back" all the money unnecessarily paid to the rich has "no overhead"? UBI has lower overhead but it's also WILDLY more expensive and far less efficient in terms of distributing money to those that need it. See https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/ and the specific web citations in the above reddit post you are responding to

@oblomov please read https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/ closely and let me know if it does not answer all your questions.. because I feel quite strongly that it does.

@oblomov @illogical_me the word Italy? Can you elaborate?

@mbpaz @illogical_me unfortunate but unavoidable name conflict. I had never heard of RGMII in Ethernet. There are three hard problems in computer science..

@mbpaz @illogical_me very well said, and I agree 💯 with the last five sentences. Check out https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/ for counterpoints for the first half of your first sentence.

@Epic_Null

So to bring us back, I need to call out how much scruteny poor people are under to prove their poorness is not a moral failing instead of the fact they are paid less than enough to meet the poverty line - a line chosen to describe not "Who has enough", but instead "Who is literally starving".

Agree, which is why if you read the FAQ here https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/#why-not-universal it says

RGMII does not contract with any external means verification services. GiveDirectly personally verifies all dimensions of program eligibility, drawing on more than 15 years of experience delivering large-scale cash programs in the U.S. and internationally. By using a streamlined, low-overhead model, 85% of RISE RGMII funding is paid directly to recipients.

and it also says https://rgmii.org/blog/initial-frequently-asked-questions/#how-do-you-prevent-abuse

Focusing so heavily on the prevention of abuse can cost more than the abuse itself. It also fosters a culture of distrust and stigma where you must constantly prove you are needy “enough” to qualify. Some are so ashamed they don’t even bother to apply.

RGMII only asks for simple, minimal documentation — enough to verify household income and residency. Systems that trust the people they help are not only more efficient, but also more effective, because participants return trust by engaging in good faith.

also

So no. I do not trust us with any means testing. I will not until we fix existing means testing.

in that same section of the faq:

UBI implementations often assume efficient eligibility testing is not possible due to the so-called “means-testing industrial complex”:

I suggest you come along with us and direct your ire at the "means testing industrial complex", and not than the very people we are trying to help. Some of these companies are outright evil, especially Maximus.