Disappointing but not surprising that the chosen solution to increasing swaths of the population no longer being supported by our economy is concentration camps. I honestly don’t think it’s that far fetched that the endgame here is they literally kill us all while acting like it’s our own fault, and the America of the future is just robots and genetic clones of billionaires.

They were actually paying out to everyone revenue from carbon taxes, and people really still voted to get rid of them?

I feel like if there was a carbon tax that was directly putting extra money in everyone’s bank account on a regular basis, and it actually got to the point where that was happening, at that stage nobody would fail to understand the math.

I’m assuming a form of UBI that is actually “universal” and not means tested, so the majority of working people would be getting more than they pay towards the program in taxes, and thus personally benefit.

like corporations raising prices constantly to meet the new extra money supply.

People always bring up this point but the idea that prices are an arbitrary number selected by sellers isn’t actually how the economy works. Wealth confers actual agency and leverage. If you have a UBI which functions somehow as redistribution of wealth (ie. funded by taxes on the rich or collective ownership of natural resources rather than by printing more dollars), that is an actual increase in people’s negotiating power on the market, companies can’t just unilaterally undo it or make buyer’s choices for them.

state run essentials given out for free

While this would be much better than nothing and is the better option in specific cases like healthcare where markets are non-functional, something like state housing for the poor is more subject to political backlash. Someone who isn’t in state housing and doesn’t want to be will likely see it as a drain on their resources going to the “other” and seek to chip away or put degrading restrictions on it, while with a UBI a majority of people would be directly made more financially secure in a more efficient and flexible way, so ongoing political support for it could come from all of them.

It honestly sounds like the person tweeting doesn’t even know how the database got deleted. Maybe it was commands they entered themselves without knowing what they do. Then got the AI to admit responsibility and be apologetic.

What are the criticisms? Genuinely curious, have no idea what problems anyone might have with it, other than some quotes from the Ubisoft exec trying to act like implementing user run servers is borderline impossible

Asked students what we wanted to spend our time in his class doing, actually followed through, and was then fired.

What would be effective ways to move away from the credit score system? One major problem I see is, credit score is used to decide who can rent an apartment, and it also affects your ability to get a mortgage. Fear of being locked out of housing is why I got a credit card, despite hating the concept of credit cards. Even if there are people who aren’t affected by this who can afford to opt out, it isn’t going to be practically possible for most.

I don’t think I would be a very impartial juror if I were on this case

Or black hat hacker confirming that a stolen credit card works without raising red flags

This is just being a freelancer, with extra lying.

The anti-coercion instrument, known as the “big bazooka” of the EU’s trade arsenal, would give the commission powers to go after US multinational companies, slapping extra taxes on the digital revenues of tech firms.

Nice

Honestly being a child is awful in many ways, wouldn’t want to go back

It can get kind of old seeing stuff on social media that’s just using every easy trick available to fish for engagement though, especially when now a lot of it is probably bots and various propaganda campaigns. Especially if it’s being posted somewhere that people can otherwise have more thoughtful and interesting conversations.

Pointing a gun at someone is dangerous. Pointing a moving car at someone is dangerous. We are gentler on car accidents because almost everyone relies on them and they are so normalized.

Is that a wrong approach though? I don’t have to point a gun at anyone to visit family, but practically I do have to get behind the wheel of a car. That can be fixed by being rich, but not everyone can be rich. The reason people drive despite the inherent risk to themselves and others is more about infrastructure than poor personal choices. I think it might be better to focus on solving the infrastructure problem than being more willing to put people in prison for driving mistakes, because the latter isn’t going to deter people from driving when most of us basically have to in order to live a normal life.

Like you said, it’s societal negligence. With guns, owning one is truly optional for almost everyone, and I think it’s reasonable to impose a much higher standard of personal responsibility on their use than with basically anything else. If you have a gun you better be capable of always using it correctly under pressure or else you should not have chosen to have one and criminal liability makes perfect sense.

What tech do you think is going to be introduced?

Designer pandemics

At this point I’m just hoping for reduced federal influence over blue states and measures to help out refugees from the places whose own state governments are working against them.

To me whether this comic is being fair hinges on stuff like, how many people are being intentionally murdered with cars but the killer gets off easy because of the method? How many accidental gun deaths are prosecuted more harshly than they should be? I don’t actually know the answer to these. It does seem relevant that guns are a tool designed for killing.

The easiest way to tell they only did this for the picture is the lack of red stains on the pants