Already explained why… Lots of positions are just nice to have, but are subsidized already, entirely, by other positions that generate all revenue. In many cases you don’t want the business to go away entirely, and in many cases the business wouldn’t even fail, you’d just end up with the optional positions terminated, so those employees make 0/hr instead.
Another poster already contributed a valid solution of UBI.
This is likely a reasonable solution.
This was always the case. Most people couldn’t Google factual info previously either… I’d almost be willing to argue the rate AI is wrong might actually be less than the previous rate of the average person left to “do your own research” …
But it’s also possible AI being fed presupposed answers embedded in the questions combined with prevalence of disinformation farms + no scientific consensus truth authority could lead to an ouroboros effect, greatly amplifying bullshit seekers and magical thinkers over time.
Assuming 25/hr minimum living wage: There are optional positions within businesses that are nice to have, but very simple, but can be opted to be done for any number of hours a day up to full time, and cannot be justified to carry 25/hr… You could have a company offering menial work on razor thin margins, but some people like working there, like scooping ice cream, which could not otherwise exist at 25/hr. There are small businesses that people want to work with that don’t make enough to pay everyone 25/hr (ex. some small gyms). There are cases where low revenue businesses could pay with future equity, but cannot afford 25/hr now. You have to account for these cases in your rules.
People are legit sitting 15+ feet away and thinking a 55 inch TV is good enough… Optimal viewing angles for most reasonably sized rooms require a 100+ inch TV and 4k or better.
You’re wrong, and adults usually enjoy little moments like that from the past. You should fix this
Have you tried to make it right?
Do not have substantial discussions on an app. Move towards a first date immediately and if they don’t respond they weren’t real anyway. There are a few types on these things, bots, ego matches, scared or ego chatters, real daters… Real daters understand a match means a date in the real world and will actively engage in making that happen… Everything else is just noise to throw away.
I’ve become massively hardened to online discourse. I don’t need to block users when I can just ignore and not need to get the last word in. I know this is an incredibly rare ability, but I just wanted to entertain the idea here that there are alternatives.
The exception could be for discoverability. If garbage trolling spam overwhelms your front page, then it’ll be too time consuming to wade through it… So blocking entire communities makes a lot of sense in this case.
This is one of the only issues I have with the show… Homelander’s leash appears to be super hamfisted in, or in general it makes little sense why corporate has so much control with so little relative power. Lots of people in that world have powers, and it would be total anarchic chaos in reality.
Everyone was once a child
If it is, then it already is, so your experience wouldn’t change from how it already is, which you’ve already been through… So the concept that it’s worse (or any different) to go through again ends up being moot.
Yes, the more specific you filter the community towards the niche culture, the higher the probability. But to get there you’d probably have to filter down to specific sub-communities in specific parts of specific towns. I feel it’s intellectually safe to call the rest a vast majority overall.
Despite the down votes, this is the real answer to your question. No the vast majority will not find it appealing. You would be highly selectively filtering your audience. The answer to why, is culture.
You got crushed by the hive mind, but this is the real answer
Prevents naked short fraud and manufacturing shares that they can locate at a later date.
Maybe with a schema that allows a one time verify, and then churns your entry. If that verify occurs upon entry synchronously at the time you vote, if possible, that’d be no less safe than the paper ballot you feed into the machine.
No different than how it’s recorded today. We can improve from there but it’s not worse with the upside of a public ledger.
This is the exact use-case for a blockchain, a public immutable ledger where you can validate your vote, but nobody can tie it back to you.
There is no way this is more viable than a manufactured micro needle, nor scalable.