The desire to own all the information to own the whole world.
And it's obvious that this is not "his" statement, but a statement from the mouth of a puppet who is absolutely dependent on spreading the agenda in order to maintain his status quo of an "independent billionaire"
Purpose of UBI isn't to improve your finance/risk management, that's an issue of education. Let's be real, there won't ever be a system that's perfect and has no minority of population that suffers.
I think you are touching upon an important point there. Because from the little I know, it appears that experiments with UBI have been largely more successful in places where people appeared to me smarter. Smarter, as in capable to make less ignorant/unwise decisions. Which indeed is largely proportional to education (although not grade or level), but can also in part come through culture and unwritten social habits and norms.
However, this is also why I believe that there is nothing that could still save the USA. For starters, the changes it would need to prevent it from cannibalizing itself (as most crumbling empires), would require dismantling existing power structures and interests that will not hesitate to destroy everything (civil peace, country, world, everything) to "defend" themselves. Those powers are almost nowhere as powerful as the are in the USA, and I am everything but positive about reining those in. As long as those run the show, good luck with anything else.
UBI experiments in countries like Kenya and India in poor rural areas with little education show few problems.
Non-mainstream ideas like UBI and RCV are simply suggestions exasperated that things aren't working to avoid a complete disaster and dissolution of the US. Should we keep trying to yell and scream for the same solutions tried for decades and ultimately lost as the GOP has stomped on the fragmented left in the US? To me, the worst of all solutions is to KEEP doing the same damn things and continuing to lose like what Dems did with Russiagate. We might get gay marriage rights, perhaps some civil rights 2.0, and some semblance of Roe v Wade but to me that won't matter if we're in a full blown Civil War a few years from now. Pulling conservatives / regressives back to the middle and into something resembling good faith dialogue again is possible with UBI discussions at least that I haven't found with almost any other political topic in... decades. Granted, that'll be until Fox News gets their hands on it, but beating mainstream media narratives (both left and right) to the punch has been productive.
I do get those points, and I can agree with all of them. Just with the exception that I no longer believe that there is anything that can save the USA from itself (as in: literally nothing).
It's not that there aren't initiatives/option that will obviously improve the current situation. It's that all the decision making paths towards any such progress are thoroughly corrupted and rigged, with the effects of such improvements being diametrically opposed to the personal interests of those who (both overtly and covertly) run the USA.
These are people with a proven track record of "always winning". Meaning, they will sacrifice anything and everything, before having their own interests harmed. Good luck with that. It could prove far worse than civil war. The current political divide that everyone knows the USA so well for (but is mostly a crafted false dichotomy either way), might "evaporate" surprisingly quickly, once shit really hits the fan. The government might quickly turn to "protect the country at all costs", against any form of "chaos" and disturbance of "order" (and no, it won't matter which party will be in power).
On the other hand, even in hopeless situations, people should never give up hope. However, I certainly expect no improvements as long as those who currently consider themselves untouchable, remain convinced that they are indeed that.
Why would it be worse? Slumlords exist because they are the only ones who accept the rent vouchers. If you just receive cold hard cash you can spend it in the conventional housing market.
Welfare isn't meant to solve addiction but it could certainly kick start someone's life after they have recovered. People think drug addicts don't deserve welfare but a UBI would prevent that stigma because nobody gets excluded.
Really the only valid concern is the first one. The rich have no interest in giving up their wealth but that is only natural.
What really bothered me was that the cost to the government to drug test welfare recipients in Floridia cost more than to simply give them the money in the first place. Fiscal conservative me says "what was the point of that?" and the only answer I see making sense is that it's competing ideologies where the more important one wins, and in this case it's punishment over fiscal responsibility and abdicating any government responsibilities for solving the causes of widespread addiction. Which makes almost no sense given how strong the DARE program was in the 90s (granted, based upon hilariously bad trials and a sham by politicians as feel good projects)
"Does google rig the system to squash its rivals and hurt us?"
Well, this is one kind of modern skepticism I particularly like: Does gravity kill if one jumps off a cliff? Is a sphere round? Is it really bad if we give up our freedom? Who are we to think for ourselves?
When questions like this are asked, the damage is already done. And it seems like it's already beyond repair.
> When did losing money become acceptable and the new normal for publicly traded companies?
It's when big investors decided they'd better keep a selected few companies on life support while they kill fair competition with their suicidal price dumping, and then milk the monopolies they inevitably become.
They don't lay off because they're on their deathbeds, they do so because of automation and optimization. No need for that many mechanical turks.
> Visa applicants who have never used social media will not be refused on the basis of failing to provide a social media identifier, and the form does allow the applicant to respond with "None."
Chances are they wouldn't (if you were reasonably cautious with, e.g., your phone). But if they find out you don't later they can throw you in jail and deport you. Lying to federal officers while getting a visa over something as innocuous as a social media account really doesn't seem to be worth it under basically any circumstances.
The whole Dragon is a simulation written in Python and running inside a VM running inside an OS written in JS and running inside an Electron app running in a container somewhere on Amazon AWS.
And it's obvious that this is not "his" statement, but a statement from the mouth of a puppet who is absolutely dependent on spreading the agenda in order to maintain his status quo of an "independent billionaire"