"Russian counterintelligence agents are analyzing data from the popular Chinese messaging and social media app WeChat to monitor people who might be in contact with Chinese spies
I'm pretty sure Chinese spies use something more secure, and stealthy than WeChat to communicate with their informants in Russia.
Whether you learn to type in one of the approved ways, or any other way that allows you to type without looking at the keyboard, being able to do so is a critical skill for any kind of typing. The less time you spend thinking about how to type, and the less time you spend correcting edits, the more you can allow your thoughts to turn into text. I can do a certain amount of punctuation without looking (All the usuals... and of course including parentheses and brackets) and that's handy even while just scripting — or trying to quit vi.
You'll find the urban dictionary diverges from Miriam Webster as well, offering up several definitions, some involving "side hustles
Well that's a lie. From your own link onUrban Dictionary: "An online side hustle that consists of expressing political opinions, usually right-wing, and then asking for financial support in order to continute to express those opinions. . . " TThat's not remotely the same thing.
So there seems to be some variation here that you're insisting not be allowed.
And what part of the rest of the definition has anything to do with what you are saying: "In this context, grift implies that either A) the opinions are just a performance (and not actually held by the speaker, so the grift is just an act to make money), or B) the need for financial support is significantly overstated, typically by stoking fears of being censored. Thus, a genuinely opinionated online presence with a small amount of support is not considered a grift."
Furthermore Jeff has posted elsewhere here and is free to defend himself if he feels the need. But I suspect "the playa is too busy running his game".
What game? The man is making YouTube videos.
And I'm not actually the originator of the post that invoked the original "grift" in this thread.
You said: "He makes videos mostly about other people's technology, and sometimes it's contrived stuff just to make a video about the latest tech toys." when someone asked why he is grifter. Then you said: "You two are reading way to much negativity into "grift"" when called out on your statements.
So your pedantry is noted and dismissed with prejudice.
Bahahahahahaah. You think you are some sort of judge here. No you are not.
And: you could have told us why you think Russia is invading Ukraine: as I do not know why.
Climate change, of course.
Ha ha, only serious: Ukraine has a number of resources which are important to Russia, including cropland. Russia invaded Ukraine historically for the same reason. Ukraine also used to be an important manufacturing center for Russia. Notably, they produced cast tank turrets. You may have noticed that Putin is experiencing an armor shortage.
UBI sounds wonderful and all until you realize that people WILL just sit and do drugs all day with no external force applied to them.
It's certainly true that some people will do this. But you also don't necessarily need to set the UBI benefit at levels that will allow people to do it everywhere, or to take up much space doing it. And people who want more or better drugs will still go pick up cans. Basic income trials generally show that people usually still work so long as the payments don't affect anything like eligibility for other benefits, which for large families can be critical. Many of those programs are not even paying very much.
Even in fantasy worlds like Star Trek, people have jobs.
The people you see mostly have jobs. You have to have a job to be worth ferrying around on a spaceship, or taking up space on a station. (Or you have to be the annoying child of someone who fits that description.) You have to have a job to have a lot of stuff, or big expensive things like a spaceship. But it doesn't seem like most humans in the Trek universe have to have a job unless they live on a colony.
where the fsck is that kind if money supposed to come from?
We might also have to prevent profiteering on some items, like housing and groceries, or provide alternatives to the commercial options. There's no reason why people should be able to make more than a reasonable profit providing necessities. Businesses need to serve communities in a mutually beneficial relationship. They depend on the apparatus of the state to exist. Of no communism! But we already have many laws on how much you can charge for many things.
The alternatives to UBI are far larger changes than it is, especially since a lot of people are already receiving a BI in the form of Social Security. Nearly 74 million Americans are receiving some amount of Social Security benefits, with a pretty wide spread of benefit amounts which average around $1900. Even some people with an acknowledged disability are only getting a few hundred dollars, because they are doing some work. And if they do very much, they lose the rest of the benefits.
It takes a bunch of administration to do all that screwing people over.
UBI is already a good idea, along with national health. Expand Social Security and Medicaid to cover everyone over time. Exactly how much/what it should entitle you to is a matter for debate, but if this capitalism thing is going to not eat itself when it's based on there being consumers then it will need them to continue to exist and have money.
Obviously the plan is to make sure some number of us die, which is why they're doing all this malicious bullshit to the public health apparatus. They clearly don't think they need as many of us. They are no doubt correct about that, although I don't think the system will work well if they get it down as far as I suspect they would like.
The system they are building is called techno feudalism and it is not good for you.
It's not good for them either. It's not good for us sooner, but it's not sustainable. The technology is nowhere near ready to replace enough of the plebes to keep them from danger.
Make more babies. The killbots have a limit.
Sadly, it's possible to make killbots much more cheaply and quickly than humans. The "waves and waves" approach will not work against palm-sized drones which can fire say twenty ~22lr shots or so, which is extremely feasible and "bounce around death round" bullshit aside, still plenty deadly. It will not work because there will be waves and waves and waves and waves of them. You can try the jamming devices, that hasn't got much spam in it.
The republican trick is to make sure everything is "means tested".
It's also to make everyone work for everything unless they can prove that they shouldn't have to, and then they make determinations about who can or cannot prove it without medical qualifications.
Yes you can buy lobster using EBT, but so few you will starve, and direct knowledge of this would defeat all the stories.
There is a broad spectrum of opinion on what SNAP should be for, and who should get what kind of food aid, and how much. The intent of the program from a federal perspective is to provide supplementary food, it's right in the name, which implies that they think that everyone should be dependent upon either labor or literal charity for at least some of their food. Some state do their utmost to avoid handing out food aid, while others do their best to provide it. Recalcitrance in relation to feeding people is unexplainable from an economic standpoint because the money benefits everyone in the state, and it seems like it should be difficult to justify for people who commonly like to cite Jesus as their reason for voting one way or another, but it does exist.
Some people feel, as you invoke, that one should not be able to purchase luxury food items or even unhealthy ones with food aid. Indeed, there is a program for pregnant and nursing mothers called WIC which operates on that premise, and you have to request approval for a substitute product when the items on the approved list are out of stock. But some people are of the opinion that you should be able to buy yourself a steak, or yes a lobster tail, or buy a child a birthday cake because have a fucking heart. (I'm not accusing you of anything, only finishing my sentence for effect. Pax.)
The litmus test for how correct I am is to ask yourself if you'd be satisfied living on exclusively UBI. I'd venture it's a safe bet to say that unless your income is $0, that's not an arrangement you'd be happy with.
You are of course correct. I would still work. I might work less. I might work doing something else. If you have a truly functional UBI that's actually tied to the cost of living somehow reasonable - more on that in a moment - then you can reduce or even eliminate the minimum wage, if you can show that it really works. You can remove or scale back a number of other programs because the UBI is covering needs. Those programs themselves employ a number of people, but since they would have UBI, a number of them wouldn't need much more income to be making more than they're making now. Government jobs famously do not usually pay much, unless you are a licensed professional. Even then they are only generally barely competitive, and that only because otherwise there would be no takers.
If people's needs are genuinely met, then they will have time and opportunity to create new jobs, new things, etc. A lot of energy and expenditure will be saved, as well. We need to either get a lot more efficient, or do a lot less, in order to reduce our impact. There's absolutely no good reason so many of us should have to work so much and get to keep so little of what we produce.
ftr: the way this works is that an attack on russia's nuclear capability with the obvious implication of nato/britain provokes russia into striking back, and hopefully in a strong way that allows the ignition of ww3. this is the aim: expand the war in ukraine, which is otherwise practically lost for nato, into a global conflict that can be maintained in time which would inevitably drag the us in. it is a desperate and reckless move.
Bahahahaha. Next thing you'll say is that Ukraine soldiers shooting Russian soldiers with bullets is an attack on Russia's nuclear capability. After those soldiers could have guarded Russian's nuclear missile silos in the future.
look: the russians have been using 6 of these bombers to strike deep into ukraine with conventional weapons, and not even at full payload.
According to you Russia used these bombers to attack Ukraine with conventional weapons. I seriously doubt only six were used.
only six of them. by the most optimistic estimates this attack only disabled 10 (and that's an overestimation, but still). they had 58 total. what this means is that this attack has had absolutely zero impact on the capability of russia to keep hitting deep inside ukraine with conventional weapons and these same bombers.
Bahahahaha. So was Ukraine supposed to identify exactly which of the six was used and only disable those six? According to you, there are 10 fewer bombers now that Russia can use. Did Ukraine wipe out Russia's fleet? No one said they did. But your "zero impact" statement is pure denial and you know it..
they could have chosen many other targets: refineries, amo depots, naval fleet, infrastructure, whatever. the potential for damage would have been huge, possibly not very signifficant in the bigger context of the ongoing war but still greater than zero, and the media effect would have been the same or even better. but no, they specifically crossed this specifically red line targeting strategic nuclear bombers (ffs, how hard is this for you to grasp?) to elicit a very specific response.
They have attacked other targets. It's you either ignorance or denial that you don't recognize. But according to you from above, these bombers were used to attack Ukraine.
and russia will respond, no question. the clamor in all layers of society and elite is unanimous. they have to, but hopefully not in the way that the warmongers, the provocaturs, intended. if they do that we're all pretty screwed.
Please. Russia has ALWAYS been the provocateur here. Again it is either your ignorance or dishonesty that is being demonstrated.
You two are reading way to much negativity into "grift".
Grift has a meaning. It seems you define to use words according to you.
Busking on a guitar in the subway for change is a grift too.
Please explain how a busker is a grifter. Again, words have meaning.
At the end of it, he's a self-made man, and I respect that.
Are you confusing someone who has initiative with someone who is a grifter.
Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.
