Tech isn't going anywhere. This is just a rich guy on Twitter sharing his pyramid scheme. It will be forgotten in a week just like it was forgotten when it launched years ago.
UBI and machines doing a lot of work does not mean post-scarcity. UBI is just that - basic; and I don't think anyone believes it will be quick to get to a point where machines have eliminated ALL jobs.
This law was passed specifically to allow Aryeh Dery to ignore the terms of his plea agreement and serve as a minister. It's not related to the Jewish-Arab demographic balance (which, within the 67 borders, is about 85-15).
That's technically true but also myopic. This was an explicit step to weaken the judiciary, strengthen the hard right and also indicted PM. This move is not explicitly anti-arab but it greatly empowers anti-arab leaders at the expense of democratic fairness. And rather severely at that. This was a canary. The next bill be worse and the one after worse again because they know they can't be stopped.
As the current government is making abundantly clear, 67 borders are irrelevant. There are roughly the same number of Jewish and Arab people within the territory Israel controls.
In the past the Israeli justice has been reasonably independent of the government, as can be seen from this long list where Aryeh Dery figures prominently:
Even if the law passed now might have only the tactical goal of promoting Aryeh Dery once more, it certainly will allow the government to do unsanctioned in the future other things that could be much more harmful.
Isn't the entire point of Israel to remain a Jewish ethnostate? I'm not sure, but something happened a few decades ago that really soured them on the idea of not being in absolute control of the government of the state in which they reside.
Sort of unreasonable, really. I'm sure the Palestinians would be more than gracious if they ever achieved significant power.
It's wild that a two-state solution was widely accepted 30 years ago, and now the Overton window has moved so much that Israel occupying the entirety of Palestine and killing or displacing all the Arab population is no big deal.
I sympathize with the desire for a Jewish state but the United States has supported them to the hilt in human rights abuses, war crimes and expansionism that aren't related to that goal.
US support was always predicated on "they're on our side against the Soviets, and their enemies are definitely siding with them". Even then, it was always strained (they painted over their plane's markings and bombed one of our ships, ffs).
Ignoring the recent shenanigans, the Russians are a non-issue and the Israelis aren't much helping with that anyway. I have no idea why support continues. It's difficult to formulate an explanation that doesn't come off as whackjob conspiracy-theorist.
As for a "two-state solution"... it was never much of a solution for the Israelis. The other state soon outnumbers them, and they're right back to where they were in the 1960s, but with fewer options and less advantage. Same but for details with a one-state solution. If they ever pretended to accept the two-state solution, it was only to string things along as much as possible. I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it was genuine.
Was that something living in a state that decided it should be a different kind of ethnostate? This might be a controversial take, but I think ethnostates in general lead to poor outcomes.
Sure, it seems like ethnostates seem like they lead to poor outcomes. But you're also saying that to criticize an ethnicity who found out what the outcomes were for non-ethnostates, so it falls a little flat. And since they're the ones you have to convince, not me, you might need to work on your argument a bit.
There has never been a "full democracy". Democracy means rule by the people. Every democracy that has existed has been some kind of representative sample filtered through a select group. That select group does the work of making biased or prejudicial decisions, as they have the powers of rhetoric and overriding the rabble. The judicial section of a democracy has traditionally been limited as well (if it wasn't, there'd be no point to a legislative branch)
I don't disagree, but I don't understand how this contradicts grandparent poster's point. While it's not always the rule, people usually vote for those representatives that they believe will more likely make decisions aligned with their preferences.
Once they've voted for whomever made the best election campaign, can now do as they please, sans checks and balances that exist in a modern democratic country.
Once this government has been established, they started pushing their reform, which has caused many to switch sides. Recent polls show that the coalition wouldn't win an election, if it would be held today.
What do you say to the now majority of the people that don't approve of the government's actions? too bad that you made that mistake of trusting those guys?
In a truly democratic country, the elected government should have power, but it must be held in check by powerful institutions like the supreme court.
Why should it remain a Jewish ethonostate? Countries and cultures change. They should embrace diversity and reap the benefits. They should follow Europe's lead.
And why should they follow anyone's lead? They are not Europe. Why should they embrace diversity? Diversity has a separate set of problems still being dealt with.
They were founded on a jewish identity. Changing is not a possibility. Too many wars and conflicts have baked them to remain an ethnostate.
I am unsure about the goals, but this is what the rule by the seld-elected judiciary was. When Israel's courts aligned themselves too far to the left and along the racial divide, they became incompatible with Israel's current demographics and majority-elected government. The catch is, the Israeli right wing may swing too far just as well.
Israel is no ethnostate. It is ridiculous to assume that to be the case even with the context of the Jewish religion. It probably is less ethnically lopsided than the vast majority of other countries.
I have no dog in this fight but the precise breakdown of population doesn’t decide an enthnostate. It’s about who does and does not have power and what they do with it. Take the “nation-state” law passed in 2018:
> It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”
> It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”
> It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”
I don’t know enough to know the precise qualification for an ethnostate vs not but that first item clearly indicates that Israel is at minimum a country legally stratified by ethnicity.
I really encourage you to try this and see what happens. You need wheat to make bread. The only way to make leavened bread from rice is using highly processed synthetic ingredients to create the gluten structure.
1. When you say "desirable" here you're speaking relatively. Abortion isn't intrinsically something that the vast majority of women want, what they want is to not be pregnant for one reason or another.
2. Many, many people have middle-of-the-road opinions about abortion. Nudging them into carrying the human to term and giving it up for adoption isn't akin to selling fake services, it's more akin to organ donation.
Go to r/RegretfulParents and read about some of the stories of women who wanted abortions and were manipulated by these places at a vulnerable time in their life. It’s pretty horrifying.
Most of these places won’t help a lick once the baby is actually born.
Yes. It's a pro-birth movement, not life. Life lasts a long time and that's expensive and "something she should have thought about before having kids" or some such gymnastics. These same folks will gladly spit on a child because their parents are poor or talk about it like it's some kind of lesson they deserve.
Well I can't speak for these places since I've never worked for them or used them, but that being said, giving up a child for adoption is very, very easy. Even fire halls take children, no questions asked.
I understand that there are regretful parents, but keep in mind these things:
1. These very parents were given the gift of making it to adulthood to make a choice they regret, something that unborn children do not get to make.
2. Adults regret many things and the choice for carrying a baby to term while adoption is such a viable option is far from the top of the list of things that someone regrets in life. It is much more likely for someone to regret getting married than for them to regret giving birth.
3. Ethics truly do matter. It is not what someone does when the manager of the bank is standing over them and they check their balance with their debit card that matters. It is what they do when the ATM erroneously displays a much higher balance in the middle of the night in a dark and seedy bar that counts. In the same way, resisting the dehumanizing characterization of unborn humans matters most in societies where this is common place enough for these decisions to carry weight, and there are many example from history that highlight the same type of moral dilemmas. It seems strange standing in the present and being confronted with a challenge that we may very well be "the bad guys" but the same was true of slavers and many other horrible types of people.
1. You think adoption is the answer? Well, how many children have you adopted?
2. In the US, there are currently 60,000 children 2-years or younger in foster care. Based on that, I’d say putting a child up for adoption isn’t all that easy.
3. There are many reasons a person does not want to carry a fetus to term. Maybe they are a rape or incest victim? Maybe they don’t want to their body to permanently changed by pregnancy? Maybe they don’t want to risk death during childbirth? Or maybe maybe it’s none of our fucking business why they want to have an abortion.
In bitcoin software contributors can propose changes to the protocol and software, but they have no absolute power since they can just be rejected by the miners, who are not paid directly from bitcoin raising in price, but from fees from the operation of the network itself. So there is no organization or entity promising returns for owning bitcoin.
In Ethereum, a centralized group of people put together a public sale of the token, promising great returns in exchange due to their visionary ideas. This is all perfectly fine, except they didn't register their sale as a security and companies touching Ethereum and other tokens continue to not follow security rules; which involve for instance disclosures about ownership and conflicts of interest. Ethereum is an extremelly centralized business with a few key figures with an interest in the appreciation of the asset, advertising it illegally to a US audience without following US laws.
"In Ethereum, a centralized group of people put together a public sale of the token, promising great returns in exchange due to their visionary ideas. This is all perfectly fine, except they didn't register their sale as a security"
If I write a book with visionary ideas that promises to change your life (great returns) and continue to work on revisions as I come up with new ideas - should I register it as a security before I can sell my book?
The whole concept of securities laws makes little sense if you try to expand its reach beyond narrow traditional finance use cases... if even those cases make sense in the first place.
Might be better off repealing all this complexity/bureaucracy and better enforce existing generic laws about theft/fraud...
> If I write a book with visionary ideas that promises to change your life (great returns) and continue to work on revisions as I come up with new ideas - should I register it as a security before I can sell my book
Is there an expectation of profit in those buying your book? No? Then it’s not a security.
It’s a multi-prong test. Investor protection laws are substantial; everything is constantly being challenged in courts as a security.
How about, say, Pokemon cards? Lots of people buy them with an expectation of profit, which relies on the efforts of The Pokemon Company (among others) to continue to grow the player base.
They very well could be. I'm knowledgeable enough to answer.
I also wonder how does it work with one-of-a-kind collectibles, such as old letters written by famous people, paintings, rare/unique coins, ..., and NFTs.
The development of Ethereum is more decentralized than the development of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is primarilly developed by Bitcoin Core while Ethereum has multiple client implementations.
Anyone can join the Core Devs meeting and discuss new features and push back on ideas. You can also propose these features outside of the core dev meetings and never attend that meeting if you don't want to.
New ideas aren't centrally proposed and are handled by raising an EIP and getting support for it, just like BIPs in Bitcoin.
For example, EIP 1559 was dead for years until a community member decided it was time to push it and worked with many different people to present it in a way that convinced multiple teams to implement it in their client.
The validators can always reject a change just like Miners can reject changes to Bitcoin clients. The big difference is that Bitcoininers don't have many clients to choose from, so they have to be more willing to accept whatever Bitcoin Core implements.
The bug difference between BTC and ETH from the SEC perspective is the initially issuance being an investment of money, and whether PoS is a return on investment or if running a node is similar to running a PoW node and you're providing a service and not simply expecting a return. In other networks, you can "stake" without running any hardware and that's clearly different than Ethereum's PoS model.
The crux of the problem for ETH is its first few months after launch where they indeed raised money. So ETH was a security at first (according to the Howey test) but now probably not anymore.
For prices to go down, it doesn't really matter who gets to live in these apartments, as long as enough demand is taken off the market.
And usually, with few exceptions, socially acceptable jobs are the ones which pay little compared to the effort they require, and also compared to the (non-monetary) value they bring to society. You also want these people in your city because sure it's great that you have tech workers, lawyers and bankers, but who is going to be in the hospitals?
That would be a payment, just not with money, right? So why it's better than just paying this money directly and letting the person decide, rather than introducing an extra step by putting the money into a development and then giving the property instead? The direct payment looks more efficient to me.
If you have a thousand people competing for 700 apartments, prices will adjust until 300 are priced out of the apartments. Giving the 200 of those people with socially recognized jobs enough money to not be priced out any more will still mean that 300 will be priced out, it will just be different people.
In other words, rents will just increase. The solution is to build 300 more apartments, and make them available at the bottom of the market, not the top.
But it's highly unlikely that all 200 of those people would choose to spend that extra money bidding up those apartments, and that's the whole point. Distorting another market as a proxy is worse than directly addressing the compensation issue.
The real estate market is extremely distorted by local governments, through imposing restrictions on where houses can be built, how large they can be, etc. To some degree this makes sense, because you want people to be able to enjoy nature or the city wants to be able to plan which roads to build out, but on the other hand, the focus on SFH urban sprawl plus the prospensity to avoid density increases leads to extreme price increases and losses to quality of life. There is huge demand for walkable high density neighborhoods, but the market cannot meet it because government.
Speaking about historically, that was implemented in Soviet Union, and I don't think it worked well. Though it certainly gave extra tools to the government to control the people.
