The arguments against UBI are pretty much the same against rising minimum wages. That being, the baseline just moves, so everything gets more expensive, so the situation doesn't improve at all.

It intuitively makes sense, and like most economic reasoning it's horribly simple. But economics is comprised to two parts: theory, and practice.

Practice always trumps theory. If practice defies your theory, it doesn't mean that the market is broken, or that there's over-regulation, or that your theory will eventually come true. It means your theory is just wrong. All economic theory are predicated on thousands or millions of underlying assumptions. If even just a few of those are not true, or aren't true in the way you think they are, then the theory can be wrong while simultaneously being logically perfect.

When it comes to the arguments against minimum wage, the theory is just wrong. Rising minimum wages do help people making minimum wage. If it does raise the COL, it's slowly, and not in the same degree as the minimum wage shift. In addition, a flat minimum wage still results in a rising COL. You can't simply pin the COL like that.

So knowing what we know about minimum wage, I think it's arrogant to claim the UBI would just result in a rising COL to eat up all the UBI.

A descriminator between minimum wage and ubi is location.

UBI (if people trust that it will continue) will encourage people moving out of the cities as they don't need to be close to jobs.

I would hypotheses that this would 1) create new more local economies (where people can earn money) and 2) reduce pressure on the hyper metropols.

I would even hypothesize that because of this, it would have an adverse effect on the cost of living.

Butnthese a theories.

The concept of repeated operations executing with respect to some condition is always going to be a bit different in declarative / functional constructs than in imperative ones. A purely functional language is never going to have the equivalent of: for (...) a++;

Good functional languages like Clojure make something like this awkward and painful to do, because it doesn't really make sense in a functional context.

What I've learned comments here is that k8s is essentially already perfect, YAML is actually awesome, and that any criticism of k8s just proves the ignorance of the critic. I guess this means k8s 2.0 should look exactly like k8s 1.0.

The bureaucracy involved is usually the biggest cost driver. Another is the refactoring needed once mode code has been built atop the buggy code.

Are these rootkits?

Yes. That's the point.

Not a rootkit but it does run at kernel level. If Vanguard is a rootkit then so is every anti-virus software (including Microsoft Defender which is on by default)

For example wikipedia description of a rootkit is

"A rootkit is a collection of computer software, typically malicious, designed to enable access to a computer or an area of its software that is not otherwise allowed (for example, to an unauthorized user) and often masks its existence or the existence of other software."

Vanguard does not mask its existence or the existence of other software nor does it get/give access to unauthorized users (you authorized it during install so by definition it is not unauthorized).

You don't manually give permissions to actual rootkits and they do their best to try and hide their existence.

What do you believe is his secret agenda?

He never said he was testing FSD. He referred to it as Autopilot throughout the video.

The problem with passkeys is that they couple a security credential to a device containing lots of personal information. I don't take my phone into certain countries where I sometimes travel, but I do bring my yubikey. I get the security benefits without the exposure of everything that's on my phone.