Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@freemo @lefarfadet

>they do fail, but in a way that is recoverable.

You wouldn't even be risking the camera then. Maybe there is a way to hack the button depressors, to make them more firm?

The GOPRO should be fine. There aren't many settings on those old GOPROs anyway -- you could just start it on the surface and let it run for the whole dive. I think GOPRO automatically breaks up the video into separate files of 10mins each or something like like that, so if it fails you can easily recover video up to the last segment.

@freemo @lefarfadet

Your 50m VIRB case would probably work down to 60m, as they usually put in some wiggle room on specs. If it fails, it's not life or death, you just lose a camera. The media (SD card) would probably survive so you could recover what video you had up to that point. Just make sure you record the video into multiple shorter files for easy recovery.

@zleap @dsfgs

If IT hasn't put a password into the BIOS, you might be able power-cycle, then enter the BIOS config to change the time, before the OS boots.

BIOS=Basic Input Output System
OS=Operating System
IT=Information Technology (Dept.)

@tedu

I don't understand your toot because there is too much ambiguity in its content. What is: "next election", "take over again", "one ticket left"?

If someone is not eligible to be elected president, then they are not eligible to be elected vice president because of the 12th Amendment, "...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President..."

_
#truthbetold

The truth is...

When doing building inspections, fire marshals often overlook the use of flint as a building material.

#zippo #flint #fireman #building #code #archeology #spark #flintlock #lighter #cryptocrystalline

-----
TruthBeTold = A statement that is logically or literally true (or partly true), but seems to imply something that isn't true or is just plain weird. (for rhetoric, logic or propaganda studies... or just for fun)

@tedu

This is not true. No one can be elected vice-president who is not qualified to be president (12A), and someone who is doesn't meet 22A requirements is not qualified. But there is actually a real hack to skirt 22A, but just not that way.

@lupyuen

>"I am screwed"

Sounds like good sex to me --
not running Windows.

@freemo

Nothing like that would ever happen anyway because of all the special interests -- short of a full on revolution.

I think it would still cost much less for admin than the current system, though, when you consider all the goofy laws in the tax code -- what mess.

@freemo

Yeah, I thought that one sounded a little fishy. I blocked, too, of course.

@freemo @sapphire

>The minimum ammount needed to file a tax return with the irs is 12,500, below that you need not file at the end of the year.

I think they raised that to about $20K a few years ago. Yeah, that would need to go away. In fact the whole IRS would go away with this new system.

When I first mentioned this idea here in the thread, I said, '"Free beer" in the economics context means something like UBI or other similar transfer to the general population...'

@freemo

Yeah, that would need to change, too. The poor folks would need to actually apply for the AUBI (Almost Universal Basic Income).

@freemo

We wouldn't need all the IRS bureaucracy, so that's a savings.

Yes, there'd be some admin, but much less than the current system.

@freemo
>For that matter if there is no administration how do you even ensure a single person can collect a check multiple times.

They can send the checks using the Treasury's system as they did with the COVID checks. They did an income check for those. They could do a random check when they perform their regular audits and if the cheating gets too high, they just turn a few over to the AG and have a few do a perp walk and scare everybody back into compliance.

>collecting taxes that way doesnt change the numbers at all.. It still means they would have to pay upwards of 10% of their total income to support it. It just means your getting that money from their income but rather sales tax or whatever else you get it from. Your taking the same amount of money out of their pocket (10% of their income) regardless of how you play with the numbers.

No, most people will pay less, and there is no sales tax. It's an income tax, just it's on all income, all revenue, stock trades, all loans, everything, but not a sales tax, that's different.

>So the fact is your still reducing everyones effective income by 10%.

No, it's in place of the current tax system. So everybody, including businesses, banks, etc. pays just .5% or .6% of all income. I know I'd want to have a tax rate that was only .6%.

>Sorry but worst idea ever.. 10% is huge to support a system that ultimately only enables the poor and does nothing to get them out of poverty.

It's not an extra 10%, it could replace the current entitlements and tax system. Yeah, I know, it will never happen, but it's a good idea.

A .6% tax rate. Who wouldn't want that?

@freemo
>only giving it to the 20% lowest class of society, which means you havent avoided the administrative costs at all, your back to needing a means test and all the administration of traditional ways.

No, you don't need admin. Just set the income/wealth figure and tell people they can only apply if they are below that. You don't have to actually check each one, or even any of them for that matter.

>Second redefining tax as being on all money passing hands and increasing the taxable number figure 10 fold only serves to make the percentage appear lower when in fact its still costing the average american in dollars and cents the same amount in taxes as if 10% were taxed with the current system...

We could collect all taxes that way. Make it .5% or .6% of all dollars that change hands. That would cover the entire budget. Wouldn't you want a tax rate that was .5% or .6%? That would be great!

@freemo

>Let me put this another way. The entier discretionary budget of the USA in 2015 was 1.11 trillion. The cost not including administrative cost for $400 UBI is 1.7 trillion. Significantly more than the entire discretionary budget of the USA.

We're not just talking about the discretionary budget. A targeted-UBI would replace all entitlements, SS, food stamps, section-8, welfare, lots of other subsidies.

>I’m not sure you realize just how massive an expense UBI is…

Yes, I do.

>You would nearly have to double all taxes collected int he USA. On average people pay about 13% tax across all forms of tax in the usa.. a 10% increase is nearly doubling that.

UBI is far from “a few percentage points”… it is an absolutely phenomenal expense.

A $1000/mo payment targeted to the lower 20% would be less than $1T. If it were widened to 30% it would be $1.5T. That's very close to SS and all the other entitlements.

Because the tax is on all sources of income, no exemptions it's only a fraction of a percent.

A .3% tax on $1000T ($1000T is less than the flow of all dollars in the US) is $3T. More than enough.

@freemo

>There really doesnt even need to be huge government bureaucracies at all. It can be relatively cheap and require very little bureaucracy if the process and rules are simple.

Simple is what I'm aiming for. How about just sending it to only those who don't have enough money for the basics, and when you send the money, also send a video which has a lesson about good money management and they have to watch the video to find out how to apply for the next tranche.

@freemo

>except that isnt how we tax money....

Yeah, I know. The current way isn't fair because it has all kinds of exemptions and deductions and loopholes. I'm proposing a fair system that doesn't have all that -- it taxes all sources without deductions. If we do that, then it's more fair and the rates are much lower, less than 1%.

Also, a UBI-type of system would be in place of the current welfare system, so it would save all that, too.

@freemo

If you count all income, no deductions, no exemptions, top line of all income statements, every purchase and sale, every loan proceed and payment, every dollar that changes hands, the total is much more than that. It's over a quadrillion. Just a fraction of a percent is more than enough for a targeted UBI of much more than $400/mo.

@freemo

>While I wouldnt give money to the poor without any condition of any kind I do agree that so long as they are looking for work or to improve their lot in life they should get food stamps for food, free education and other skill-building services, and even a small amount of money for extras.

A big problem with having conditions, is that it requires a whole bureaucracy to verify that folks are meeting the conditions, and bureaucracies are a super-wealth destroyer. Plus they take away freedom and make government more powerful (see "The girl with dragon tattoo" for an example). It also takes a lot of time for the recipients for compliance -- filling out forms, tracking down proof documents, bank statements, etc. -- another big wealth/productivity destroyer.

>My issue is more with a UBI where money is distributed to everyone in society without condition and where the poor do not need to show they are trying to get out of poverty to get the money. With the right conditionals I do support a welfare system for the poor.

I just don't like huge government bureaucracies, which is why I think just a plain UBI-type system targeted to the poor would work better than the current welfare system.

@freemo

>Thats just it, they cant “afford” it. Their home is usually section 8 (rented and paid for by the government) and the money they spent on shoes or the car was what little they had and it meant they couldnt afford to feed their child or themselves. The whole point is they bought it despite not being able to afford it by not paying their essentials.

Well, that's a much bigger problem than poverty, if someone is buying expensive shit like that instead of food. That means that they can't take care of themselves even with financial support and probably should be institutionalized or provided with some other kind of support, or basic living skills, or something.

>Then you arent talking about UBI at all. UBI by definition is an amount of money distributed to everyone in the exact same amount (thats why the U stands for Universal). If you are only giving it to the poor then it is welfare it isnt UBI.

I've heard various definitions. Maybe this is something else. I used the term UBI because that's what people are familiar with. But I see now that that actually caused more confusion.

>Yes in fact especially when it comes from wealth generation. The rich when they generate wealth put most of that wealth back into investment (increasing the pool used to generate wealth). so when it is siphoned off the top of that it is preventing the money from going back into investments and therefore reducing the wealth generation.

Yeah, I understand that, I just don't think that a few tens of a percent are going to cause such devastation.

Re university, I agree education is key, but I just prefer a more market-based approach.

>While there is some truth to this it isnt just about inflation. Inflation when it is slow and moderate over a long time isnt a bad thing per se. inflation is only bad when it exceeds the rate of wealth generation. With a UBI you decrease wealth generation and increase inflation, this is devastating. Without a UBI and with good wealth generation then while some inflation occurs the wealth generation will generally significantly outpace it.

I think that UBI (or whatever) would have so many benefits by reducing crime (which is a direct wealth destroyer), reducing mental health issues, reduce malnutrition, increase health, increase education, and generally increase goodwill among people, I think it's worth it. And it will lift many people up to help their economic situations so they no longer need UBI.