We have the same problems in America, but with deer, and the same solutions to that problem.

But those same nutjobs who want to ban roo meat also want to ban deer hunting. Because they are idiots.

Government performs services, and acceptd payment for those services in the form of taxation. The thing that is missing is the recognition that the powers exercised by government are possessed by We The People. We own those powers. We “invest” those powers in the government, who uses those powers to provide paid services to its customers.

We are each owed a return on our “investment” of political authority. Our political authority should not be given to the government freely. We should be individually compensated for it.

We are shareholders.

Universal Basic Income is one possible method of compensating the citizenry for the use of our political authority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag_limits

Increasing the bag limit on “billionaire” to something greater than “0” would have a much more appreciable effect on the climate than a thousand families forgoing children.

Fuck that. First come, first serve. Get it if and while you can.

Open source with profanity in comments is statistically better than code without it

For your web browser, Add this to your uBlock Origin block list:

lemmy.dbzer0.com##.title:has-text(/nytimes.com/)

You can add additional sites, separated by pipes like this::

lemmy.dbzer0.com##.title:has-text(/nytimes.com|theverge.com|404media.co/)

(Change the leading url to that of your own instance)

This will turn this:

into this:

So you don’t accidentally get interested in a bullshit paywalled article.

History is written by the victors.

Smaller charities tend to do much better in my experience.

UBI is not charity. UBI is what the nation owes you as a shareholder of USA, Inc.

Giving people money doesn’t teach long term skills that lead to success.

Exactly. Which is why the children of rich people so often become homeless. All that money they had when they were kids kept them from learning long-term skills that lead to success. It stunted their financial growth, rendering them particularly susceptible to poverty.

The children of the impoverished, on the other hand, were forced to learn money management skills for their very survival. The superior money management skills of impoverished kids practically guarantee their future success.

This explains why self-made millionaires are so common, and generational wealth is so difficult to maintain.

Right? That’s how it works in your head, right? The people with easy access to money never learn how to manage it and ultimately squander it, right? The people who have to fight for every dime are the most successful, right?

Right?

I also think it would be better to have private organizations that have less bureaucracy.

Agreed. And an organization doesn’t get smaller or privater than a single individual. We can cut out 100% of the bullshit bureaucracy and give it straight to the individual, directly, or their caregiver if they are not qualified to maintain their own affairs. Remove everyone else, as they don’t add shareholder value.

Indeed.

Each of the issues you described is mitigated - if not cured - by steady income. And each is greatly exacerbated by a lack of such income.

What is really important is that the family and friends of the people struggling with these conditions aren’t also impoverished. The outcomes of each these conditions are vastly improved when the sufferer’s caregivers have the time and resources to attend to them.

UBI benefits everyone involved.

For the cases where the individual is not capable of managing their own money, it is still better for their caregiver to receive and manage their money on their behalf than to periodically send them crates of cauliflower and tomatoes.

Turns out that money is one of those things that the less you have of it, the harder it is to manage.

Way I see it, if I’m over 1:1, I’m owed more than I owe. You’re welcome, and/or, where can I pick up my check?

was just a standard residential setup,

The distinction is important because we are discussing IPv6. A “standard residential setup” with IPv6 would provide the user with an entire subnet rather than a single IP address. We still need a router to pass traffic from the ISP’s network to our own network, but we no longer need NAT.

It’ll take you public IP and translate those packets to use your internal one.

That is NAT, yes. But that is only one small function that a router can perform, and not all routers have NAT enabled. You only need NAT if your ISP only allows you to use a single IP address.

If your computer has an address that starts with 169, 168, or 10 there is a NAT somewhere in your network.

That’s not actually true. I can create such a network without connecting it to the internet, no NAT. I can create a second network, again, no NAT. I can then use a gateway router that allows any node on the first network to reach any node on the second. That router is still not doing any NAT. It’s just passing traffic between two networks.

Glad I’m not alone on that. I love reading about him, but I can’t watch his videos.

Every single one of those temporary IP addresses has the same prefix, which traces back to you.

Its about as anonymous as adding an apartment number to your own street address.

i would say you want to route through as many jurisdictions as you feasibly can. For example, US investigators arent going to get any cooperation from Iran or North Korea; any trail that crosses into their borders is going to be a dead end for their investigation.

Dick cancer is better than almost all the existing ones.

Never used plex. Finally got around to installing Jellyfin. Very happy with it.

All use is fair use. Copyright should not exist.