Obviously there would be exceptions, but in general for the last few decades, we have been mainly engaging conflicts outside of the US. So until it is in our home territory, it a good idea to put a limit on the military and divert fund to education. Don’t Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good
I would say democracy is less of a problem, the problem is lack of accountability at least on constitutional level. One of the biggest thing I’d add to the constitution is a rule that mandates for every dollar we spent on the military, another dollar must be spent on education.
I would say Project Zombiod the closest one on that list. Just need a few mods to raise the hunger rate, more comprehensive nutrient stats, and farm difficulty scaling. The game already laid out most of the groundwork.
It would make more sense if community just set up contracts amongst themselves to pool together with monthly community fund added to the pile and if something happened, then a clause in the contact begins and facilitate the steps to release fund for that person. Contract could set up arbiter (paid hourly) to determine whether the claim is covered by the contract agreed by the subscribers.
The major difference in this model is basically that the perverse incentive is removed whereas commercial insurance have every incentives not to pay out to claimants which defeats the purpose of insurance in the first place.
I don’t know much about insurance laws or contracting to say for sure, but part of me is wondering why we haven’t popularize this idea yet.
This is a Pandora box situation, when potential use for malicious purposes on AI on the ponderance of evidence outweigh the goods, one have to conclude that it is necessary to ban it from the purpose of monitoring. This have immense impact on disabled workers for instance.
I don’t think it’s possible for them to do so, because that would means killing the gaming aspect of Windows. GPU on cloud is stupidly overpriced and expensive, just look at Standard_NV6 for an example, it easily cost $10,000/yr according to this (Just look for anything that have “N” in it’s name for GPU enabled VM and they are all expensive.)
If they try to ban everyone from being allowed to use their own computer hardware, I really doubt people would stay on Windows, they most likely would be in the 5 stages of griefs and then contemplate on switching to either Linux or Mac OSX.
Could we think about repurposing the down-vote function to serve a different role? Similar to the report function, which signals a need for moderator review, the down-vote could be used in the same way to flag content that might require a second look. This could assist in handling extreme or illegal content without suppressing diverse opinions or content simply because it doesn’t receive wide agreement.
What if we displayed only the “+1” upvotes on the website without showing any down-vote counts? This would maintain a positive atmosphere and could encourage more open dialogue. Essentially, a down-vote would transition from meaning “I disagree” to “this might need reviewing”.
Importantly, if content isn’t extreme or illegal but still gathers a significant amount of down-votes, it could be an indicator for the moderator to assess if further action is necessary. This shifts the down-vote function from being a tool for disagreement to a measure for maintaining the quality of discourse.
What I want to know is how much of those are fake jobs that were posted online? And how much on average are those jobs paying? Number of jobs are pointless without other facts to accompany it… :/
Theoretically, by wiping out the rich would create instability within the wealthy class, they wouldn't have the time or the means to herd the politicians to serve them or to effectively disrupt democracy.
The inheritance that kid collects would amounts to "Congratulation, you won the lottery, now what? You haven't own any corporation yet, know of anything about how to make connections with other politicians and wealthy class of people and so forth. You're pretty much on your own."
Like 70% of the time, those people wouldn't even bother with politic and would just spend the money vacationing where-ever in the world and having fun with the newfound wealth, not busy trying to disrupt democracy. People tend to be very shortsighted when they amasses huge wealth, in fact, according to some statistic, it ranges from 44% to 70% of people who gain huge amount of money end up losing it all within the next 5 years.