> If this still bothers you, please tell me what kind of organization would exist to support 25 years of false starts, and what needs to change to make that kind of organization exist.
A Federal Universal Basic Income along with a Single Payer Healthcare system would go a long way to supporting 25 years of false starts for projects where the primary initial investment is intellectual labor. Many science, engineering, and cultural projects fit this description.
Single payer healthcare, absolutely. Negotiating a market rate between professionals and the entire public is the most optimal approach for the consumers whom; in a moment of need, won't really be able to shop around and choose.
While I do believe there needs to be a first world floor to living conditions, I've come to more understand UBI as one more way of killing the middle class. It's the Supply side, a lack of competition, that is out of whack for many of the most expensive things in the US, and probably most other industrialized nations.
UBI increases how much the poorest can pay, it does nothing to limit how much can be demanded by the rent-seeking rich. In effect UBI is a subsidy to the rich and an attack on the middle class.
But the same supply side problem is also an argument against single payer healthcare. Maybe you've negotiated an awesome rate for the public, but then this comes back to bite you in the form of shortages and/or reduced R&D of new treatments. I mean, essentially it is one big monopsonistic price control regime, right? On the other hand if we can somehow bolster competition, increase doctors trained, etc., then maybe prices can come down on their own to a level accessible to the public again.
If a thing is desired by society but the market is unable to fulfill that need that sounds like an area the government (the people's organization of foundation, first / last resort) should apply work. Though sometimes government can be the cause if regulations aren't well thought out and there's a failure to minimize unintended consequences.
If there aren't enough doctors as a whole, that's a sign that either the incentives and detriments offered by society are incorrect or that barriers to entry are too high for the market to function. (In the case of medical professionals in the US I've heard that a combination of artificial scarcity and malpractice worries are the issue. For the latter I'd like to see criminal (reckless endangerment, etc), rather than economic, outcomes for egregious cases; which should also apply to institutions training and certifying doctors. With that layer of protection the 'insurance' against being harmed should instead be covered by normal disability programs at the society level.
In the case of insufficient doctors in an area, that sounds like a great place for the military to have a base and provide civilization; though the doctors (and possibly other professionals) not existing there might also be a sign of larger issues.
If a place isn't economically viable anymore it is important to identify the root cause and fix it, or offer assistance to relocate to places that are useful for their residents and society.
Doubt that. We have full socialized healthcare and great unemployment benefits. Yet we also suffer from the same problems in academia.
Having those is pretty orthogonal to actually getting results in science. No need to mix them in.
Universities should actually fund (so indirectly by the goverment from taxes) long term research. That’s kinda the whole point of Universities, in addition to education. Long term research that doesn’t have immediate short them commercial interest. Not make the scientists be basically startup founders that must constantly pitch to get money.
And the reason we want to support that is because on long term there often is very useful commercial benefits that then improve everyones lives.
No, they're not. They're implying that a world where the government takes an even more active role in promoting economic activity, and secures the fundamental aspects of human dignity for its citizens, would be a society where more people can spend time on their passions, which often are things like "develop a groundbreaking new style of vaccination".
Come on, are we being serious here? "Developing a groundbreaking new style of vaccination" requires far, far more support than just a salary. UBI/social safety nets are totally irrelevant here.
The human review process in the app store leaves a lot to be desired for consistency. I've worked on multiple apps that were denied during an update renewal for something that wasn't part of the update and was already approved. If a specific app gets approved or denied often has a lot to do with which reviewer picks it up.
While it seems like bad press has changed the review outcome it is plausible to me that the stance would be reversed regardless because it's such a grey area in the rules.
For what it’s worth, non-human review processes are equally problematic. Just look at all the automated shutdowns of YouTube channels for bogus reasons.
I’m not sure there any evidence the PR had any effect. This was about apple’s appeal process working as intended.
Id much rather have a human involved with some inconsistency and an appeal process, than an automated algorithm or rigid process that is consistently wrong.
There has been enough anecdotal evidence by now to show a pattern. The silent appeals often fail, while publicized appeals, accompanied by public outrage, are often successful.
Their intention is to make money (they do). And to do so, they have to maintain a good image and please different crowds. Some of them want very restrictive regulation, some none at all.
Not possible to make them all happy and very expensive to try.
So they indeed make decisions based on public "feedback".
Is this fair? No.
But walled gardens by monopolists are never fair. But this is sadly where the money is.
Can you provide some examples of legitimate but failed silent appeal, because on the other hand I think of quite a few publicized illegitimate appeal that failed not matter what. Fortnite being the incontestable leader of this category.
You may be right but we should gather some metrics before jumping to claims about correlation between publicity/outcome. Perception bias is inevitable when remembering anecdotal evidences.
Well it would be nice to have an independent plateform to track and compare review process of the different appstore. Maybe EFF or a news outlet could think of that.
As a developer you may not have enought follower to publicize widely but you could fill a report. Theses report could then be audited by the independent plateform to label claims as legitimate or not (and maybe publicized or not).
I acknowledge this is a huge work, but this would be a good way to make a strong case and eventually go to court together. Collecting anecdotal evidence is not enough and is always biases toward publicized cases.
macOS ships with a command line program called "caffeinate" that disables the sleep function of the laptop. With this background knowledge I was immediately able to assume Amphetamine is a more powerful program that provides the same results. With this background in mind I find the name to be clever.
That's funny because Apple maintains Coca, which is the name of the plant source of Cocaine. The Coca plant is controlled/regulated by the DEA exactly like cocaine is. So by following Apple's example in Apple's ecosystem it is okay to name things directly after drugs.
Here is a handy link of all 50 state's noise regulations for motorcycles. Not every state has one, but many of the larger ones do.
Also, many modified motorcycle exhaust systems will not have a catalytic converter in order to save on weight, this is especially true for sport bikes.
A Federal Universal Basic Income along with a Single Payer Healthcare system would go a long way to supporting 25 years of false starts for projects where the primary initial investment is intellectual labor. Many science, engineering, and cultural projects fit this description.