You could double that number to account for the "fraud and error" spend at DWP: I would presume that further spending in this regard is dedicated to other departments.
Sure, or you could halve it since much of it's admin for pensions, and stuff like disability allowance and housing benefit you don't want to eliminate unless you're cool with UBI leaving people immobile or homeless, and you can't do payments to 36m working age people with no admin. Either way, it's still an order of magnitude or two less than UBI costs.
Sure, you can fire a few low paid Jobcentre employees if you're convinced retaining that sort of admin offers no actual benefit to anyone attending, but it turns out that paying 8 million people who are neither in employment nor willing/able to ask for appointments at Jobcentres a livable income isn't cheaper
I would count coordination here as a deep technical skill, which requires a depth of study and/or experience. You are selling your coordination skills.
Requiring "means testing", i.e. excluding people who are not in need, is often shown to cost more money than it saves.
(and allows some people who don't technically qualify to fall through the gaps)
If you receive an extra $10,000 that you say you don't need, you could receive it and be in a tax band which gets taxed an extra $10,000. That's more straightforward.
I think the video evidence people wish to collect is exactly the evidence that you are wrong - that people get arrested (or perhaps brutalized, or killed) despite being wholly respectful.
I would wager that "Reject All" does not, in fact, opt you out of "Legitimate Interests" - sites are using the language "Object to Legitimate Interests" for this.
Being overweight/obese might be (and might not be) a side-effect of the things you list, but it also that causes its own further side-effects and is worth dealing with in its own right.
I’m inferring it because it’s basic knowledge that search engines use algorithms to show good stuff and avoid spam. There’s a whole seo industry dedicated to gaming the engines.
Inference almost feels like too big a word there. Anti-spam is fundamental to what search algos do.
The point of the link is google says this:
>“ While we recognise that the Government has made tweaks to this provision, it’s still not feasible for Google or consistent with our ability to offer quality services. We make thousands of algorithm updates every year, so providing 14 days’ notice of any significant changes to algorithms or “internal practices” in the way the Code prescribes just isn’t workable. This provision also continues to put every other business that relies on Google Search at a disadvantage, all to benefit one group of businesses—news publishers.”
They’d prefer not to say “we’d be overrun with spam if we made this change” but it’s part of why it would be unworkable. The tweaks google makes are part of the cat and mouse game with spammers and gamers.
Security by obscurity replied to hacking. You don’t hack google. You’re analogizing from the completely wrong situation.
The closer analogy is stock trading. Prices move on news. If you have advance knowledge of news, you’re rich. If you learn, for example, that google will soon start favouring links from aged domains, then you buy as many aged domains as you can.
If you learn that google will devalue links from aged domains, then you have two weeks to rid your network of such links.
And if you are a spammer who gets this information from australian news insiders, then you can beat your competition by moving faster.
When the algo changes are released to everyone at once, it’s like how stock markets function: everyone learns the same thing at the same time.
As for why they don’t mention it, perhaps it is too complex to explain in what is clearly a complex topic. Most people who don’t build websites have no idea of the cat and mouse that goes on with seo.
Are you seriously denying that spammers game search engines and try to keep up with algorithms? Look up the black hat seo industry.
It’s on par with denying programmers use keyboards or something. You’re trying to deny a fundamental fact of reality.
Or watch some of Matt Cutt’s videos. He was the public face of googles rules and algorithm changes. His role? Head of webspam
....I wasn’t saying security by obscurity only applies to computers. I was saying it’s not the right concept for webspam.
Once an algo change is put into practice, it’s fairly easy for the seo industry to see what it is. It is no longer obscure!
But if you have advance notice of a change, you can react in advance, much like you can trade in advance of stock price moves if you have insider information.
Neither stock pricing or search rankings should be seems as a game. Your perspective is adversarial. Please, for the sake of humanity, let's try to be more ambitious than this.
Stock pricing should, in its core, be about valuing an asset.
Search rankings should, in its core, be about providing most relevant material to a query.
People absolutely are adversarial in these situations. Google rankings are valuable, so people try to game them, and google tries to fend them off with algorithm changes.
You can’t wave a wand to stop that. I’m describing the world as it is, not advocating how it ought to be.
I am not clever enough to understand this analogy, at all.
Why would Google be opening a coffee shop? Could you please translate this analogy into the factual situation, so that I can understand your point of view?
You are google in the analogy. Your friend is someone using google. The coffee shop is the newspaper.
Your friend (the searcher) asks you for a cafe recommendation (searches a current event on google) and you tell them the main street cafe is great and you should buy something there (google says the nyt is trustworthy and you should read their page)
The australian law says you should pay the cafe to send them customers (says google should pay the nyt to send them readers)
It’s really dumb. The cafe wants referrals: why should you pay them? Dunno australian news so I used the NYT as an example.
Thanks for breaking this down for us. I wouldn’t say it’s dumb on the surface though - I’m kind of curious to what logical extremes this approach to Google’s business model would look like. It definitely is a very different paradigm. I’m wondering how free market forces will influence rankings when business can set prices for referrals.
The market price for a referral is negative. Businesses would normally pay to seek them out.
The australian law seeks to flip this on its head and make you pay to recommend, and forbids you from declining to recommend.
Right now it only applies to google but the principle is insane. People actively pay google to recommend their sites: it’s the entire basis of google ads!
> The market price for a referral is negative. Businesses would normally pay to seek them out.
By threatening to withdraw from a national market, Google seem to be saying that its business model depends on getting its own users by this mechanism.
As such, it's reasonable to believe that the true market price won't remain negative.
> By threatening to withdraw from a national market, Google seem to be saying that its business model depends on getting its own users by this mechanism.
This is not complete, I think. This law would FORCE Google to continue linking to these sites and paying them for as long as Google did business in Australia.
Google threatening to withdraw isn't a sign that these links are valuable to them, because they have to choose between paying to link or not doing business at all.
That this is going to be kind of a difficult choice shows that the value of THESE links is basically zero to Google. If they could keep operating in Australia while not providing links to Australian news, they would.
