> Burden of proof belongs to those who want to change the system.
This is only true if the existing system does not keep on worsening. As the technology progresses human working hours has become more and more. How is this even fair when the whole point of technology is to make human life easier. So the Burden is on the people who want the current system not to change.
"Burden of proof belongs to those who want to change the system. "
What if it is impossible to bring the proof before the change has been tried? There is essentially no test scenario which can replicate, accurately simulate and predict the behaviour of people when millions of them suddenly receive a UBI.
At least if one agrees with the claim I just made, then following your logic, the change could never happen, for the simple reason as advanced proof of the effects is impossible to provide. So you would simply never find out if the proposed system would be better or worse than the current one.
Having said that, I do think the article makes a point worth considering.
> At least if one agrees with the claim I just made, then following your logic, the change could never happen...
... big changes could never happen... FTFY!
Which is what we are seeing: non-trivial health care changes happened in 2010 after 1965 (45 year gap), needed massive majorities in Congress and incurred huge political backlash. i.e. a smaller step was possible only after all the stars perfectly aligned.
In an economy where at the early 30's people are too afraid of being unemployed this is the stupid advice. Without financial independence everything is a luxury.
The company policy to speak to another department without managers approval seems great in theory. The problem with this approach is that managers will favor good ratings and promotions to those who take permission before speaking with other departments. How to avoid this situation ?. Are there any links to how tesla management is structured ?
How to define a nonscientific problem. There is none. All sociology problems are related to psychology that is related to biology which is related to chemistry which is related to physics which is related to math. https://xkcd.com/435/
After the google diversity memo issue, i have started thinking about using DDG all the time. The reason being what if google decides to censor the information when it is negative about it. It looks so obvious but never hit me so hard after the google diversity memo issue.
> But I see no evil whatsoever in someone making a software tool and selling only the binaries to someone who is happy to use said binaries under the terms the seller and buyer agree upon.
Same thing can be said about slavery. Some very very small minority may be happy being slaves. The rest of the slaves(people who just use binary) just does not know what it means to be being free(the freedom that comes with changing their software they use at will).
Well the manifesto is a clear claim of the positive discrimination in Google during the hiring process but if this is not true (which I am not sure), he should apologize.
The top comment says the diversity programs only focus in increasing the amount of people in the hiring process but the selection is the same for all. The author of the manifesto says there is positive discrimination (artificial bias) to hire minorities, the lower the bar for them. So if Google doesn't lower the bar for anyone there is no way to say anything against them, everybody is treated equal.
Can I quote a specific sentence for this? No, I would have to quote the whole manifesto.
This is only true if the existing system does not keep on worsening. As the technology progresses human working hours has become more and more. How is this even fair when the whole point of technology is to make human life easier. So the Burden is on the people who want the current system not to change.