MovieChat Forums > SolemnMime > Replies
SolemnMime's Replies
What do you mean by commercially available?
You can buy Mustangs nearly anywhere.
True. That is one potential use of it I didn't think of.
Any kind of new-ish, premium/fully equipped Mustang -- 4 door would be ideal too. Colors would depend as that's harder to decide on.
The Mustang's design is what appeals most to me, but under the hood they're not too bad either (specs-wise/performance).
This is already underway with Alexa, Siri and etc. Their software uses some form of A.I. and heuristics, machine learning and pattern recognition probably as of now. The employment of this in stuff like personal assistance type work can depend on how far this can go vs. humans as assistants in the timeframe. But stuff like Alexa, Siri and etc. are already learning stuff about users in multiple ways (search suggestions; voice requests; etc.). These setups can use your data to sort of build an "intelligence data network" kind of thing where it can try and familiarize itself with your interests over time based on your interaction/voice data, purchase history and just about anything else. You don't even need manual-type reminders that much as (think with web browsing) like you get targeted ads, but with heuristics or machine learning/pattern recognition these devices use are already sort of like assistants to people in ways by suggesting or telling you of new types of similar products you buy; new products to view; recommendations of news/media/habits/activities; you name it basically.
They're far from Rosie/Rosey in The Jetsons level of capability, but purely for voice interaction/reminders/learning some tidbits about you and your use/data/requests/etc. they're pretty good but still have lots of room to get better.
Seems to be more males than females, but can't say anything specifically as to why in one "particular" reason.
But back on IMDb females would populate certain boards more than others. Although most seem to be about 5 or so guys for every ~1 woman (just a completely random guess of mine which could be very much wrong), some boards back on IMDb seemed to have a larger share of women/girls/etc. (like on the boards for Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girl, maybe iZombie, some "chick flicks" or etc.).
I could usually tell which users are female either based on their names (not always possible to tell though) or if they had linked social media, certain signatures or etc. This isn't always foolproof, but it can work sometimes. Also, certain shows/media/etc. have a larger female viewing/interest, so it occurs to me that they would have a higher density of female users.
But overall, yeah, it seems to be mostly males, as is true in lots of places on the net with discussion boards/forums.
Would be interesting to see where she goes now. I remember her on All That, What I Like About You, The Amanda Show and etc.
But I had thought she wanted to start a fashion business or something of that sort too/instead maybe....
Some people maybe, but I would think much bigger things down the road than just getting high or using all of the money for drugs.
Just because some people would blow it mindlessly or such doesn't mean it isn't still a good thing for the rest who would make better use of it/need it to help with bills/improve their or others lives in some other fashion.
The "people will get free money and just blow it all so it's probably worthless or pointless" seems to be only type of mentality many people focus on immediately.
I don't know if you mean this as a point against UBI or just in general, but this is the impression I get from people who point out the "it would just be for pot/alcohol/'insert bad thing here'/etc." theory.
Economies can grow, but that alone isn't likely the best measurement of how good people overall are doing. It isn't a bad factor, but a slight change in the economy doesn't necessarily translate perfectly to a slight change in the population overall, including with money/jobs issues and limitations that a "booming economy" may not exactly fix thoroughly.
But I'm not sure here. I don't think just because it worked in some places means it's going to work in the U.S.A. the same way. Success in one place doesn't really mean the same success in others, but it's at least an idea and yeah....
I don't know if a "flat tax" will make a big difference for the U.S. of A. I'm sure economic scientists will have far more insight on this than me though and where the U.S. could go with this.
I know it's probably not always good to think that -- if success in place A benefited because of B -- then the same would be working/applicable anywhere else. I'm not disagreeing with you on the flat tax, but more so not seeing the immediate benefit it would bring like Yang proposes with UBI. Everything under a "here and now" mindset isn't good, but waiting long and seeing things not change/get worse can be much worse.
There would have to be some kind ideal backup hopefully. If it becomes a government-mandated thing (which UBI would) it would be up to the companies with the VAT additions to determine if they can keep afloat or adjusting pricing/seek alternative methods of profiting or operating. If they don't like it, I guess either the industry will fall or they will take it on and adjust things financially.
But the thing with Yang is that he wants UBI to come from money already in circulation -- not "create new money" or etc. The biggest issues with possible inflation, I think, are attributed mostly to new additions of money than changing the dynamics of the money already "out there."
Yeah, that's true, but I prefer some risk at least, even if it is penny stocks.
I agree with the investing young mentality. Even if you don't profit much or like it, at least you can establish some sort of financial fallback/support -- or maybe even additional/living income overtime (like with dividends).
I tried going in with ACHV (Achieve Life Sciences) since they were going for up to tens of thousands per share. I bought in when at their lowest, but then I think they did a split or something and it seemed not worth it holding them and hoping they would go back up to the hundreds/thousands -- so I sold. Don't know if that was the best, but I still watch it.
Good point/breakdown on the two differences there. I liked the idea of day trading, but that's nothing to jump in to without really high risks and preparation. So I've stuck with just "investing" more so, but still prefer higher risk which is why I go with stocks (REITs included) only now. I don't quite get is what makes one "qualified" to know where a stock will go. I can know everything about a stock (price, sector, all little earnings tidbits, popularity, past and present values, etc.), but predicting where a company will be in 5 years or even 50 years sounds to me like it's nothing much different than gambling/wild guessing in a sense.
I've never tried investing straight in to index funds, but it sounds like something good.
I know analyzing companies can give you lots of info, but even doing so thoroughly I don't believe you can 100% predict the future of a company (or even in good faith make an educated guess much either) even with everything because even the company itself strives on and can't make guarantees to anyone, including to itself. So that's really more so on my point that you can learn, learn, learn, but it's still very much hit or miss in my view regardless. I don't read all info about companies, but that's because I don't really get the sense that some info really makes me more preferable to one company vs. another or helps me "know" which one is supposedly better. I am holding on to stocks now that have gone up well and fallen back down, and couldn't say even with my time and knowledge if it's a "good investment" or not as that comes down to subjectivity when you factor in the guesswork and future predictions.
But then again there's "insider trading" and other stuff, but even predicting the weather seems more reliable or viable than predicting whether a penny stock you invested in to would be net you, say, millions in the next 10 years or so.
But I admit this could be my negativity/skepticism talking on this subject specifically as there are a lot of so called "gurus" that make me question the legitimacy of investment tactics/profitability/methods and where you can go with investing financially.
3. This one is tougher, but.....
Eliminating the welfare stigma is probably just a side-effect. The real goal is slowly band-aiding "the money problem" even if the further implications of such a system have no real positive gain. Society as it is has no clear or correct direction on where it needs to go socially, economically or etc. When you give everyone $1,000 a month, will this make any difference than not, other than granting more people higher chances of financial mobility and freedom in some small ways even? I don't know what the future has in store for us all or anyone of us really. I do know that if you can't predict the future with one million dollars or zero dollars, it matters little about worrying on what's to come and whether people deserve anything or not, including UBI or social structures and work, jobs, etc. The point is that UBI isn't meant to answer or solve all future questions about where things will go or why, but to increase the standard of living and help people out because face it ... Money is a problem in societies and it hasn't gotten any better in time overall. Richest country(ies) in the world, but so many poor and miserable because of one thing. Is it any better to keep things the way they are?
We can have a moral argument or go full philosophical theories here, but the point is ... UBI is for here and now. Andrew Yang never said what purpose it would serve in 100 years or 1,000 years, because what would worrying about that do now? And is it really such a concern that people having just a little pinch more money would drastically play a role in to some hypothetical dystopia any more than not implementing it? I can't see many downsides vs. upsides personally.
2. I'm not good with history or USSR, so I can't add anything there without significant researching. When it comes to UBI, I don't know if the goal would be to specifically fix income equality as opposed to just helping with income mobility potential of many more people. I see it personally as something like a loan maybe -- or possibly a door opening for people. Sure, giving money alone won't fix everything -- but when you have many people falling behind, sometimes a little push back up can be worthwhile in the case of such. I also don't see it as access to "basics of life" because that may imply that people receiving UBI under Yang (which would be any adult/U.S. citizen over age 18) are impoverished or in need of "basics," whatever that means. Since most people are not poor, most people getting UBI won't be getting access to "the basics of life" but really more about some form of income mobility. Poor can become less poor (some even richer/wealthier); lower/middle-class/working class average can get a boost to help their financial situations (debt; future investing; new job; new business; relocation; fallback security); and the more upper-class gets more money to play with too (in a perfect world this could benefit the worst off even more, but things aren't likely to be that movie magical).
My point here is that your idea of tech access inequality wouldn't likely be a real issue -- at least not in the near future. I can't imagine such a massive surplus of new technology that different classes or income variations in people would be gaining while another is losing. In our current structure now, both poorer and richer people can afford iPhones, computers, TVs and etc. How would implementing something like UBI make this any different? You already have massive income differences as is and no tech access inequality -- so giving more people overall more money under a VAT (with specific areas of application here to add) doesn't strike me as something problematic.
1. I know that with TVs and stuff it won't make much of a difference, but my point was that consumer electronics as a whole probably won't change with a VAT. Most people are in the market for consumer electronics (TVs, game consoles, kitchen appliances, washers/dryers, monitors, computer accessories and etc.). VAT would not impact this since the production behind which operates and would be taxed has no relation with the majority of electronic consumer needs/wants anyways. As for things like apps, as long as they're easily programmable and made with increasingly simplistic tools, toolchains/frameworks, and abstraction layers/engines, the price margin for profit on small indie projects would not be greatly affected given the limitations of most smartphones/mobile devices/computer platforms and their technology. If you mean with VR/A.I. specifically in a common consumer app (like on the app store or indie developed) I don't see any significant differences. Only a small part of the technology market would be impacted by this, which seems to be the the least in demand/use anyways (like you said with biotech and etc., which is in its infancy or in limited use in many cases within the medical/health industries or such). My point overall is that this "big new tech" is more theory than widespread application. If you're taxing something that's very limited and only partially useful to most, I can't imagine cost being a burden when the production/use/implementation isn't even mature enough yet to be comparable to a current market TV price and supply/demand/etc.
Hey. I don't think your ping worked -- didn't notify me (if that was intended).
But yeah, I try and make conversation that has a point or goes somewhere. What would be the point of starting a discussion just to derail it in to personal attacks?
But you make good points and not easily refutable (by me at least).
I am not a huge Yang supporter or anything, but do prefer him as the ideal candidate over, say, Bernie or Trump again.
He is not perfect, but maybe his plans might work out for the time being even if not sustainable.
I'll add more to the discussion/topic soon, but interestingly only you seem to have had any input so far.
Above average, but wouldn't call her phenomenal.
I can't say anything about overrated, but she does okay/good enough on Jane The Virgin.
She can make herself cry on cue pretty easily, which is a plus for acting in dramatic scenes/etc. (several huge celebrities can't do this to add)
And I was going to add some more to the first and second point, but there's a limit here to how long a post can be. I was going to further explain/clarify that just because you are added a VAT to certain companies or etc. doesn't mean everything in the technology industry is going to become only affordable to the top 1-5% or such. Even if it did have to affect consumers, I don't think the cost will be that much of a burden when considering how good a successful UBI system could be for everyone, specifically those with lower income/below the poverty line.
To continue on point two, perhaps it's time the U.S. saw some of a money surplus for everyone. While I get your point about money, it's crucial in life. What good can we do restricting some people's access from it? Even if it ultimately means nothing in the end besides a means of transfer and the like, it's a mandatory one in our society. I think at the same time people could evaluate money's meaningless in being spread around because the concept of it being special would lessen, one could also ponder how it shouldn't be seen as scarce at all. Is your point that making welfare ubiquitous is bad, or more so that making money/access to money in general ubiquitous is bad? I think there is a difference in the two. If making money easier to get is bad, then who's it bad for? Everyone? Should it only be good for some and bad for others? That doesn't sound just. I get that you mean if everyone had money then you can argue, "If everyone has it, no one has it" but what else can you propose that's better when it comes to fixing financial issues and lack of employment/ability to find work/extreme classism/etc.? I know these are complicated/tough subjects at their core. But if money can get in more hands easier, classes and struggles of people will fade more I believe. You have to be for the people's benefit overall -- not for some.
If no/insufficient money is one of the main problems, what is the simplest and easiest solution to implement?
One reason why is that money gives people opportunities to better things for themselves/others; consume and create; and make changes in the economy. If everyone knew they had money, they'd be able to do more with that money and improve their standard of living. As we are now, everyone cannot do this and some really face tough financial obstacles. All of these barriers can be lifted just by easily implementing an UBI, even if at the expense of some higher costs that are still fair.
1. First off, good point/response. I have heard of others saying similar things. I agree that this could be a negative for the consumer-end somewhat, but at the cost of successful UBI, will it be that much of a loss? I doubt a TV is going to go from $200 to $2,000 just because of a VAT.
2.Money is like a good and a bad I think. In our current society, the majority of wealth is controlled by a few. Does that sound good? I don't think so. UBI wouldn't fix that, but it would at least lift the line of how poor/bad financial situations can be for people. No one could say they are struggling with no money because everyone will have at least some money to their name always. This doesn't mean things will be great and bliss, but at least re-evaluates the need of money and the inability for some people to sufficiently get some that's adequate for some form of happiness, survival, or improvement in life (due to lack of employment potential or resources; mental issues; etc.).
3.Great point. I kind of explained/wrote that part without thinking much. What I meant was that the concept of "welfare" will not need to exist if everyone had some little basic income. The idea is that it will help everyone because poverty will no longer be argued for in the case of income insufficiency. I can't guaranteed a good prediction, but on the base of everyone benefiting financially and possibly helping shift the current stigma of poverty, some positives are probably likely if the system was restructured this way. Since everyone would receive it, no one would classify as "poor" like in the current system which is based on the negatives of having to be considered lazy or etc. because everyone will always be at a guaranteed minimum of money no matter what. So while you are right that you can't fit everyone in to poverty because that doesn't make sense in our society, you can possibly eliminate or change the concept of welfare/the welfare stigma drastically by everyone having default income.
Okay. I didn't read all of those articles fully, but read most of the first one. From what I read, the Finland experiment (in article 1 you posted) claims it would have had to raise income tax to support such a policy. In Andrew Yang's case he plans to use a VaT/VAT for certain companies that intend on producing said machines/etc. which are taking jobs away from people (makes some sense: they are creating things that are taking away jobs, so a tax imposed further on them to support lost employment doesn't appear completely unjust from the face of it). Maybe the solution isn't to raise everyone's income tax to support a basic income, but to have highly profitable technology companies that affect the specific working sectors contribute/chip in? Also, it said in the same article that income inequality will grow as a result -- but that doesn't make sense to me....
How would giving everyone money increase inequality? At the worst it shouldn't change at all since everyone would gain equally and the net difference is effectively zero. Giving people more money to me sounds like giving people more economic opportunities, such as investing and influencing the market; starting businesses; and increasing consumerism (not necessarily a bad thing). Reasons as to why it's failed before could be in the ways it was implemented rather than in the core of the UBI system itself. I mean we already have a welfare system in the U.S. and nobody argues against that. I don't see how UBI being implemented in place of it in a slightly different manner (like everyone getting it by default as opposed to having to make yourself qualified for it like people struggling to get benefits/assistance) is seen as bigger negative. By doing that it would eliminate the need to jump through hoops for people in need, as everything will be covered by default and no run around or etc. is needed to get welfare or any SNAP/food stamps/etc.
So while I didn't read all of that just now, from reading most of the first article I feel it's a slightly flawed premise/test in some ways. The U.S. did try something kind of like what Yang is trying to do, but this was done time ago. In today's age you could see a massive difference in how UBI would play out in current day U.S. possibly. Last, Findland's experiment from the first article seems to mention giving these benefits to only the unemployed, whereas Yang wants to give UBI to literally every American citizen aged 18 and over, having it replace or drastically restructure the welfare system as a whole.
Doesn't the DOW index fluctuate anyways? Trump alone isn't to be credited entirely for that, I don't think.
Plus I don't see how using a stock market index on just 30 major companies is giving a full picture of how great America is. You'll probably need more than just the performance/market statistics to evaluate the entire state of a country and its prospects. Whether or not major companies are doing good isn't necessarily saying too much about the country entirely and all aspects of it, however imagined. This doesn't appear sound enough to determine how good the U.S. is by itself in my view.
As for the other people/left rooting against Trump, sadly they appear to be doing the same thing in reverse: just bashing the "evil right" as the so-called right just tosses some back at the "evil left." Where do we get with this? Nowhere it seems....