This is not a new philosophical problem. We already know what the inherent tension is here. Do we value the sanctity of a human life over the greater social order?
Of course both answers to that question have very far reaching implications, and to answer one way or another almost always reveals oneself to be a hypocrite in some way. But instead of actually engaging with these hard questions we equivocate and try to build logical defenses that allow us to have our cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately with modern science and medicine we will be forced to reckon with the consequences of these unspoken choices soon or later. I don't pretend to know what is correct here, and I don't necessarily pass judgement on those who would answer these questions differently than I, but I do have large amounts of contempt for anyone who tries to ignore the realities of their positions and even more contempt for those who think the answer is obvious and self explanatory.
Yeah some pretty clear propaganda going on... from reading the released summary of the study the vast majority of dependents that did not find employment seem to live in job deserts and economically depressed areas. Obviously UBI won't increase employment if nobody is hiring.
Did you even read the article or the study? One of the only conclusive statements from this study was the UBI experiment as enacted here encouraged dependents to take up "fulfilling and meaningful jobs /w low wages"
FTA:
“Some people said the basic income had zero effect on their productivity, as there were still no jobs in the area they were trained for,” said Prof Helena Blomberg-Kroll, who led the study. “But others said that with the basic income they were prepared to take low-paying jobs they would otherwise have avoided.
...
It also encouraged some participants to get more involved in society, by undertaking voluntary work, for example. “Some found the guaranteed income increased the possibility for them to do things like providing informal care for their family or their neighbours,” said one of the researchers, Christian Kroll.
“The security of the basic income allowed them to do more meaningful things, as they felt it legitimised this kind of care work. Many of the people who performed such unpaid activities during the two-year period referred to it as work.”
> There was no clear indication that basic income encourages people to find jobs. You can scratch that one off the list.
You clearly didn't read the study or even the guardian article. There was clear evidence that basic income encourages people to find jobs in many cases, just not conclusively in every case (which no proponent of UBI argues).
> There was a pretty big and important hypothesis that the study was trying to pin down: is UBI profitable? Do you give 500 EUR and get more back?
That wasn't even close to the hypothesis that they were trying to disprove. You made this up off the top of your head. They were trying to develop a simpler, less bureaucratic welfare system that didn't have the pitfalls of the existing system while measuring dependent's wellbeing.
> And the answer is: there is no trace of that.
Again, not true. There was plenty of evidence that a UBI (as enacted in this study) could have positive economic effects, just not in every single case, and not conclusively.
Pretty much the only conclusive result from this study was that the dependents had a better sense of well being on average from the control group. That's it. I have no idea where you got these made up factoids from, I cant find any kind of review or analysis that shares your opinions or statements.
I know a bunch of people who went to RSA in Vegas that got a mysterious flu that was extremely similar to Covid. Given the Vegas mayor's recent publicity it wouldn't surprise me that Vegas was fudging the numbers.
Most people who work in customer facing roles in Vegas are already extremely paranoid and careful about hygiene. Gloves, constant cleaning of commonly touched surfaces, etc. Being a low level casino/hotel employee teaches you very quickly that humans are just sentient germ dispersal machines.
Also, people with the flu probably wait to get home to seek care, so Vegas may only be able to account for its own population, and any severe cases that couldn't travel home first.
During a training, demonstrating how to do geo searches on license plate data from ALPRs, a detective insisted we look up their car.
The hits were all more or less expected, a bunch around their home and the precinct, local supermarkets, etc. But then a weird grouping way out of town. Detective insisted it was a mistake and wanted more data, thinking someone stole his license plate (insert eye roll here).
Anyways, zooming in and looking at the highest density of hits, it ended up being a strip club that he frequented. He got bright red and his buddies didn't stop giving him shit for it all day.
This right here is a great argument for why "helping them use [the data they already have] more effectively" (as you've said) is probably not as great a mission as you're making it out to be.
The "is it doing X before we run out of money?" question is way overblown in startup land, usually by product people to skew developer time towards more features instead of much needed foundational work.
In reality, this question is almost always instantly answerable. You're either still building out your MVP and desperately need customers to validate your idea, in which case the answer is "No", or you're an established startup with runway and a growing customer base, in which case the answer is "Yes".
This doesn’t line up with my experience in startups. Security is never taken anywhere as seriously as all of the best practices (including this one) suggest. Same for cicd, etc.
Best practice is the "best" practice, not the "most common" practice. The thing that sets "best practice" apart from "common practice" is that most people haven't actually done best practice; if they had, they'd just do it again, because it's much quicker and more likely to succeed if you've done it before. And money has nothing to do with implementing things the right way.
I think it's best startups are provided with the most tools/options based on their priorities -- including the underlying lessons this book attempts to deliver - is the right path. Then it's up to their values and priorities.
Ignoring my startup experience (as they are all security-related and therefore took it serious), I believe startups that are handling any amount of customer data should be looking at security very seriously.
Now whether or not they do take it seriously is another problem, that doesn't mean the opportunities and advice shouldn't exist.
Not to be dismissal - but your experience is anecdotal and from the security industry and has no bearing on the reality of running a startup whose business is not security.
>I believe startups that are handling any amount of customer data should be looking at security very seriously.
What you believe has no bearing at all on the cost/benefits of running a business. In the current regulatory environment, leaking customer data in the US costs less money than losing one big customer for a b2b startup. Guess what that means when it’s time to decide to work on a feature for a specific customer or to do a full source code audit of all dependencies for vulnerabilities?
I disagree. There is a valuable question of "how reliable does this system need to be?" and for startups, the answer is often not 5 9s of uptime.
99% uptime is 14 minutes of downtime per day. There are an awful lot of processes and even whole businesses that can eat 14 minutes of downtime a day. Especially if it's not a full outage.
> RSA 2048 keys are unbreakable for the foreseeable future, and using 4096 bit keys are just being paranoid with no gain
This is only true if you consider pure brute force as the only way to "break" RSA 2048. While as of right now there is no hard evidence there has been plenty of hearsay that some of the 5 Eyes have had tools for years that can drastically reduce the brute force complexity needed for RSA 2048 keys.
There is also really no such thing as being "paranoid with no gain" when it comes to computational security, since digital assets can be stored indefinitely and compromised in the future with more advanced computational power or techniques. On the contrary, given the computational power of your average laptop/server these days there's really no reason to _not_ use 4096 keys, unless you are operating on FAANG scale.
Of course both answers to that question have very far reaching implications, and to answer one way or another almost always reveals oneself to be a hypocrite in some way. But instead of actually engaging with these hard questions we equivocate and try to build logical defenses that allow us to have our cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately with modern science and medicine we will be forced to reckon with the consequences of these unspoken choices soon or later. I don't pretend to know what is correct here, and I don't necessarily pass judgement on those who would answer these questions differently than I, but I do have large amounts of contempt for anyone who tries to ignore the realities of their positions and even more contempt for those who think the answer is obvious and self explanatory.