Really FAANG can stop a solar-storm? A war on infrastructure?
Remember that your website not just needs running computers but energy too, and a net that brings that information to the peoples, and those peoples devices need power too.
Just look at the Berlin outage where people had to go to hotpots with generators to load the phone:
nah, i generally agree with you on single points of failure, i just don't agree that it would go on as long as 2 weeks. 24-48 hours i can believe, but at the absolute worst case I'd also expect anyone with minimal competence to have a plan to spin things up from the latest offsite backup somewhere else. (minimal competence is a big statement though). Even redundant setups can go down altogether from a fatfinger or automation gone wrong (see almost any outage from FAANG)
> stop a solar-storm
never heard of those taking out a data center, but i'm not highly educated on that one.
> A war on infrastructure
government datacenter will be first in line for fuel, generators, etc. A destroyed gov. datacenter would be the start of much more serious things to worry about.
> Just look at the Berlin outage where people had to go to hotpots
yeah, this one _is_ a little embarassing, but people who have to go to hotspots != datacenters
The US list one (1) banned book in a earlier version (Operation Dark Heart) because of national security.
>The first, uncensored printing of 9,500 copies was purchased for $47,300 in early September and destroyed by the publisher at the request of the Pentagon
>Go Ireland, great scheme. I wish we had it over here in the UK.
It's a bad scheme, it divide's your population into people who have to create "wealth", and people who create "art".
Yes creating art (or preserving rare potatoes[1]) should be supported by your government if it's not survivable in a capitalistic society, however having different rights because of your occupation is not better then the middle ages.
Most people do create wealth. That is exactly how those wealthy people become wealthy - by having someone create wealth for them, and then appropriating most of it.
Leveraging ownership of capital, more specifically.
But lest we forget, all this wealth is still protected by people with guns. These days, those people normally work for the state rather than directly for the wealthy, but the latter can also leverage their wealth to steer politics such that the state does violence on their behalf to protect their property as needed.
What fraction of that time goes to subsidizing the exponentially wealthier? We could just tax the hell out of the rich and and make better lives for the vast majority of us, while wealth hoarders still get to “win” at the game of life.
>Or it divides them into people that create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth.
That's what i meant with the potatoes, the government pays for the field with the rare potatoes, and the standardized potatoes make wealth.
>So you do agree that art should be supported by government I see, so how would you do it?
With free housing (art community's), tax free stuff (for small to medium sales etc) like it's done today. And to be honest i think 99.5% of artist dont do a full-time-art-job, most of them do other stuff too...and that's good.
Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation?
One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state).
On a base your are right, not everything that's good for societies is compatible within a capitalistic system. But this is just a complete wrong step.
> Is my friend who plays the didgeridoo in his free time now an artist if he declares it's suddenly his full-time occupation?
Is this really a risk, given UBI is generally minimal? Anyone who wants to live on it full-time to support their art, whatever it may be, is welcome to it. It's not like they're sitting back and getting rich, here.
> One example, why exclude people like Geo-scientists who sometimes dont even get any money (except they work for big-oil or the state).
Because "UBI for everyone who deserves it" is a much harder, bigger step, and fighting against small wins because they don't include literally every single outlier case you can think of is absurdly non-productive, not to mention that it's a vacuous counter-argument.
>But giving housing or tax breaks needs lots of admin. Isn't that less efficient?
Art community's are most always self managing, i would argue finding out who makes art is much more complicated.
>Giving housing forces people to live in certain places.
No one is forced to take free housing or being an artist, if you want something for free you have to play by rules.
>like the people don't know what they need
True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique. Why is creating art more important then preserving art, being a scientist, a rare-potato-farmer, a retro-game-preserver...or a small town politician?
> True, but why are people who are artist different from anyone else, that's my critique.
I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'. How about saying, 'this is a great start, how do we get a broader scheme for other philanthropic causes'?
>I don't think it is helpful to frame it in terms of, 'sure they should get it, but what about other people doing public good? Since the others can't get it, the artists shouldn't'.
I think it's the only logical way, same right for everyone, occupation is not a factor for additional rights.
> create cultural wealth and people who create mere monetary wealth
the wealth in this case isn't monetary, it's material production, the productive work of people who create material objects, including your food and shelter. If it was about monetary stuff the government would just print the artists whatever amount of money they need. But that money has to be spent to buy from those who produce the stuff the artists need to live. Who's sponsoring the wealth producers?
The UBI money gets spent by the artist though, some on food, probably more on rent. The rent money probably gets hoarded by the landlord, the other goes to people selling real objects. That is real money back into the economy.
Guess what helps provides a reason for people to want to keep the world running?
We've seen what happens to pieces of the world that prioritize economic production over everything else, and it isn't pretty. We have a number of laws and regulations preventing that sort of production at all costs behavior.
It's the same as cities/governments spending on free public basketball courts/tennis courts/running tracks. I come from a country with none of those things, and the difference that makes on the average fitness/skill level of the population is massive compared to places where those things exist.
Both basic income, and public sporting infrastructure have a significant (but not unreasonable) upfront cost, but the payoff in even 2 years time will be massive. Provided the economics check out, there's no reason to not give it a shot.
Killing the idea of basic income would be a good thing. It will never work and would leave a society in much the same situation as other past attempts at Marxism.
>Killing the idea of basic income would be a good thing.
Maybe we have a different look on basic income, for me it's like unemployment money with less steps and less overhead (less bureaucrats). I also dont know why you pull in marxism, but those systems normally starve because of bureaucrats (hello germany) where you have to fill out 10 papers to create one praline, and NO i dont say germany is "marxist", but they are really good at always taking the worst from both sides.
For giggles, lets say every work can be done by robots, every service by ai and energy is free (dyson sphere or whatever you want), who's left to spend money and for what? And tadaa StarTrek ;)
I raise Marx because going from people having what they earn to having what they need was pretty fundamental to the utopia he envisioned. A UBI is a huge step in that direction, complete with a state given the power to decide what we need and control distribution of resources. I'd expect the state would eventually need to take control of the means of production to stabilize the system, another big step towards Marxism.
If all work is done by robots we have much bigger challenges than who spends money. We need to consider how to counter dynamics and incentives that might favor having fewer humans dependent on the system, for example. We also need to consider how we avoid either humans losing control entirely or human control being massively centralized to a small group of people running everything.
Basic income is not Marxism. Marxism is against basic income. Getting a basic income is almost the opposite to getting the actual value of your labor. I write this as someone against Marxism. You should read up on things, and not just let your biases dictate how you understand things.
Basic income is very much a step towards Marxism. Its solidly in the vein of moving from what one earns to what one needs. It empowers the state to decide what we need and to allocate those resources. And personally I see no way the government could control such a program without eventually taking direct control over means of production.
I'm also not sure why you assume I haven't read up on this topic. We may disagree, but its extremely dismissive to assume your view is right and I must simply be uninformed.
I assume that you haven't read up because the modern concept of universal basic income was made by Friedman. You are so far off the mark laying it at the feet of marxism that I was actually holding back and treating you with more respect than you deserve when showing such an extreme lack of awareness of the concepts you are discussing.
I get you don't like marxism. But you come off like a parody when you have such shallow grasp on what it is. Most real life communist countries, it is a crime to be without work. As far as you can come from a basic income.
...and when your labour, and the labour of 90+% of all humans on the planet have no economic value, we'll do what?
Continue to avoid exploring obvious solutions because certain words have been made into epithets, or failed previously because they were solving future (now imminent) problems?
If we don't fundamentally change our economic system its simple, we're all screwed.
If we have a system depending on trading our labor for money to pay for stuff, and the value of our labor goes to zero, we need a different system.
We can't paper over that fundamental crack by giving governments even more power to decide what every person "needs" and send out resources accordingly.
There are so many problems in that system. How do we actually decide prices when every consumer has the same base level of money to spend? How does the government decide what we all need or deserve? How do we avoid the corruption taking over that massive power granted to dole out resources? Are we just living in a feudal state again? Does the government need to control the means of production to keep such a system stable?
Firefox was always a geek thing, I've been using it since it was called phoenix and at its peak, it was mostly nerds installing that at schools, convincing their mums, etc, thanks to the adblock.
The only reason we are not all using edge is because google spend billions marketing Chrome in early 2000. They got the normies with brute forcing, because they could make money with it, not for making the world better.
Heck, they promoted google on the HOME PAGE of google search, an ad spot you can't even buy from google, with a pseudo notification, a format google uses for nothing else in ads.
They went full throttle.
But nobody is going to spend millions to promote decentralization. Because it's about concentrating less power.
HN has always been terrible at undertanding that, because while they argue about what browser to use, the average user can barely make the difference between an app and a website anyway.
>I've been using it since it was called phoenix and at its peak, it was mostly nerds installing that at schools, convincing their mums, etc, thanks to the adblock.
Are you talking about Netscape? Because that was installed on everything ;)
>because google spend billions marketing Chrome in early 2000
I think it's a bit of a stretch to include protocols and protocol suites among centralized services. One simple test for this is the question: "How many Xs are there?". For examples, how many email servers, FTP servers or terminal servers are there? Compare that with "How many Facebooks or GitHubs are there?".
Email protocol suite is designed to be federated. FTP is just a file system access protocol. But you could combine it with an inter-server filesystem synchronization protocol/service to make it a distributed federated service. And as for terminal servers,.. well, I don't think centralization makes much sense there. How can you achieve any of these with centralized services?
I talk about the past, your university FTP-Server was the central point to get your Software/Manuals also publish your work (today's Github/Sourceforge?). Your university Email Server was the primary central point to exchange Information mostly inside your university.
Again i talk about the past when email was primarily used to talk to other peoples often not even over a net but inside a mainframe thing.
I though i was clear talking about the past hence not including Facebook or GitHub, and btw. Email just became "federated" when everyone agreed to use smtp when talking over the internet.
I think that Google has some partnership with Deutsche Telekom where they provide the software and Deutsche Telekom Runs it because Google doesn't have the encryption keys. In that case Google even if they want they cannot provide the data. Anyway that is still not digital sovereignity as Google might decide to stop providing updates or add a backdoor...
I'm personally very aware of that, and I wish Europeans dropped our collective tech-inferiority complex, but I'm currently a junior at a large corpo and that's not even my business branch; I can't steer it.
It's called the Cloud Act. If your business wants to keep its production secrets and personal data safe, think again. This has nothing to do with Trump.
Don't fall for the trick of using an AWS EU sovereignty cloud. Amazon is US-based and falls under the Cloud Act. Don't be tricked.
Yep let's not learn from that incident and wait until is offline for like 2 weeks, and be assured that will happen.
reply