A white hat would not have used a real bitcoin address in the message. This was a gray hat, at best. I'm curious if anyone actually fell for the scam.
Considering the millions of people who follow the collective accounts effected, even if 1% were stupid enough to be dupped (and yet know how transfer bitcoin), that might have been quite a windfall for the hacker.
Contrary to public opinion, Twitter is not the center of the known universe. Democrats and BLM activists routinely post things like that (death threats, "kill wheety", "republicans must burn", etc), and despite many left wing radicals actually committing acts of violence, little wide spread action has come of it.
A hack to Trump's account might cause a little havoc, but as the vast majority of Americans do not use Twitter, and get their news elsewhere, I doubt it would cause much harm beyond what we already see on a daily basis. The White House and other real news outlets would just issue statements publicizing the hack and that would be the end of it.
>I hope they apply it more widely to things they don't necessarily ideologically agree with.
You mean like Roe v Wade? Under this ruling, if precedent doesn't matter, only correcting past injustices, Roe v Wade should be overturned immediately.
>To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.
Interesting logic. Now do Roe v Wade. Are they going to overturn that too because it allows the injustice of the murder of millions of unborn Americans? Probably not. Funny how Stare Decisis goes out the window when it's an issue the justices care about, yet conveniently reapply it when present day utility outweighs historical injustice.
You're using the same word -- Justice -- to mean two things.
The court means justice as a violation of the law.
You mean it as a violation of your opinion of what is right and wrong.
Whether your like it or not, Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton are the settled court cases, and legal justice is what flows from that. Calling what is legal "unjust" because you disagree with it further reinforces the need for this decision.
>So this isn't universal basic income, as it's means based, but this article keeps calling it that for some reason.
Yeah, I received "relief income" from the government, i.e. my own tax dollars, even though I'm not unemployed, and am actually saving money by not having to commute.
If this is "universal income", I fail to see how creating a massive government bureaucracy to take my money and then give it straight back to me is beneficial to anyone except bureaucrat middlemen performing glorified ditch-digging jobs.
Huh? This whole program was put together and executed in a matter of days, and mostly via the bureaucracy of the IRS as I understand it.
The point of a UBI is in part that it is explicitly not means tested to avoid "welfare trap" incentives, and it's tremendously cheap to implement relative to, say, food stamps or what's left of cash welfare in the US.
"Means-testing"—as in welfare programs—specifically refers to payouts that have cliffs, that create bad incentives like people choosing to not get jobs because they'd lose access to the welfare payment, and end up with less money than they get with no job.
Progressive taxation has no cliffs; there is never† a tax-related reason to refuse to take a higher-paying job. You'll always be able to keep some of the additional pay. Thus, it's not "means-tested."
† Unless there's a 100% tax bracket. But I don't think there's any country that bothers with these, because of the clearly-wonky disincentives.
> '"Means-testing"—as in welfare programs—specifically refers to payouts that have cliffs...'
means-testing doesn't imply cliffs, only checking (e.g., 'means' of otherwise survival) before providing.
progressive application is simply the continuous form of means-testing, rather than discontinuous cliffs (which are conceptually simpler, but create adverse incentives).
frankly, every fiscal program should phase in/out with income/wealth over the whole range (i.e., be universally progressive), rather than discontinously and/or regressively (e.g., payroll taxes).
in this regard, UBI simply says that instead of just being continuous, let's also make the payout function a constant.
> there is never† a tax-related reason to refuse to take a higher-paying job
This is usually true but not always.
Where I live, if you as a self-employed contractor make revenue over the VAT threshold you must start charging VAT.
If the clients are VAT registered business, they won't mind, they can reclaim it. But if they are not VAT registered, or if they are regular people not businesses, your price will effectively increase by 20% for them.
To avoid losing business with the people who cannot reclaim the VAT, you may decide to lower the prices you charge to compensate.
That's a cliff. You can be better off turning down a higher-paying job (such as a 3 month contract) that would put you over the VAT threshold, if you are close to it and would have to lower prices to everyone else to compensate, depending on your line of business.
This is quite an uncharitable and inaccurate description of how UBI is paid for, least of all because of the implication that you'll be taxed the same amount that you'll be paid. Some folks will be paying in much more than they'll get back (i.e. rich folks), as they should be. Some (i.e. the poor) will be paying little to nothing, as they literally cannot afford to. That's the entire point.
Slightly misleading headline. The study tested how much a lie persists in someone's mind even after they're told the truth.
The study found that facts do indeed change people's minds, just not as much as we'd like, because the initial impression sets expectations. Caldini talks about this in some of his books on persuasion.
This takedown was presumably automated, which seems to be a bulk of the complaints. The algorithm to automate "objectionable content" seems to be horribly inaccurate. A better approach might to be to disable all automated takedowns, and don't take down anything except content manually flagged for illegal content, which are then manually reviewed.
And before you say this won't scale, this is how Reddit moderation works, and seems to work for millions of posts made every day.
Also, some sort of public log of takedowns and reasons in some form we could verify might also be nice. It's super creepy seeing someone "disappeared" from the Internet without so much as a peep from Youtube/Google.
