The minimum living wage should be driven by local housing costs. Many sources of financial advice recommend spending no more than one-third of your income on housing costs. By that rule, the minimum living wage should be three times the cost of a mid-tier one-bedroom apartment.
For those who would claim that's too much to pay for a "minimum wage job," I have another question: Should a job that does not pay enough for someone to live be allowed to exist? We have those kinds of jobs today, and the companies with these jobs have whole departments teaching their employees how to gain social support such as rent assistance and Medicaid.
> the minimum living wage should be three times the cost of a mid-tier one-bedroom apartment.
I would argue very-low-tier even if I were taking your position, or even low tier with roommates
> Should a job that does not pay enough for someone to live be allowed to exist?
I don't know, probably. For local service jobs like janitors, demand is inflexible, and they'd probably end up just getting higher pay. I worry about what happens to any job that could be done for cheap, remotely, in a foreign country. Manufacturing already happened this way, and with a high enough minimum it would happen to landscape architects, middle managers, accountants, etc. In the absurd case it could be cheaper to ship overseas your HVAC or even your car for repairs, instead of paying a mechanic. It could be cheaper to telephone a foreign doctor, food costs could be dwarfed by labor costs to the point that fast food is luxury, it could be cheaper to ship your dog across the border to go to a vet. It seems like we'd be putting a whole lot of people out of jobs and business, with their customers going remotely to a sweat shop.
Now if we pair the minimum wage increase with suitable tariffs so that people aren't shipping their cars for repairs, sure, but that is never brought up.
Organized as in they have meetings, serve cookies, and coffee? Most likely not. These anti-ice groups seem to be extemporaneous meetups.
Define obstruction. Everything reported, blowing whistles, encouraging businesses not provide service to ICE agents, and recording from a distance is not obstruction. It's a First Amendment right to keep government forces in check.
There are many anti ICE activists that are organized. ACLU and Indivisible are two such groups. There are many instances of people obstructing federal agents by anti ICE activists and protesters.
You claimed organized crimes; not simply organized resistance. What crimes are they organizing?
Resistance itself is not criminal, especially when many of the actions they are resisting are themselves illegal. In fact, it is our civic duty to resist illegal or immoral actions by the government.
If you don’t believe the criminal activity is organised, you can find the PDFs distributed in the Signal groups which contain instructions on violating the law.
No, this misses their point. They are organized and some within the organization commit crimes, that does not mean the crime is organized. Hence asking about whether you consider ICE to be such an "organized crime" group because they can be described as (1) an organization (2) some members of which have committed crimes.
> If you don’t believe the criminal activity is organised, you can find the PDFs distributed in the Signal groups which contain instructions on violating the law.
What PDFs can be found and what criminal activity do they refer to?
That's not a PDF file from a Signal group, it's a video in a tweet. Do you have an actual PDF and can you point to where that PDF instructs people to commit crimes?
> Comment above mentions laws.
Yes, and a list of laws is a non sequitur. I was asking for evidence of your claims, which you've yet to provide. Does it even exist? Perhaps. Does it contain instructions to, er, bite off fingers? Doubtful.
Edit:
Reading the table of contents from the file depicted in that video, nothing jumps out as something which might contain instructions for committing a crime. There is no such PDF being distributed in 1000-member Signal groups which instructs its readers to commit crimes.
> That's not a PDF file from a Signal group, it's a video in a tweet.
Of a PDF file from a Signal group encouraging people to violate 18 U.S.C. § 111 which makes it illegal to forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers.
Maybe finish this conversation on your own. I’m out.
If this were true we would have a lot more violence from the left on our hands, but time and again the more violent acts seem to come from the right - see the sibling comment for references.
The left surely is not without violence, however it’s often (from what I’ve seen) reactionary or in self-defense. It’s rare to see left-leaning actors committing large-scale violence like school shootings, theater shootings, family massacres, plotting to kidnap elected officials, attempting to overturn elections, etc.
The only thing remotely similar from the left I can think of, in America, was the Weather Underground and they tried to ensure the buildings they bombed weren’t occupied, though iirc a night security guard they didn’t account for died in one (and from what I’ve heard from one of the leaders was that he was incredibly remorseful).
>comments like that just make me thing people on the left are just good at violence
That's as may be, but it's not for a lack of trying by the right. In fact, the overwhelming majority of political violence comes from the right[0]:
"There were about 300 acts of political violence in the United States from the January 6 attack to the 2024 election.[46][45] According to the research, that was the largest surge since the 1970s.[45] Political violence during the 2024 election was also at its highest since the 1970s, and most recent violence came from right-wing assailants.[46][2]
As of 2023, political violence comes "overwhelmingly from the right", according to the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, and other research.[3][41][48] The Anti-Defamation League found that all of the 61 political killings in the U.S. from 2022 through 2024 were committed by right-wing extremists.[49] A Princeton University study reported that the number of cases involving harassment and threats against local public officials had increased 74% in 2024 compared with 2022, totalling 600 cases.[50] Serious threats against federal judges doubled from 2021 to 2023 according to the U.S. Marshals Service.[25]"
The camera would have to be on private property, or someone would have to hold the camera/take shifts on a public street corner in accordance with loitering laws. Even then, they will harass and intimidate you for standing there with a camera.
I use Harvest to track hours and expenses and to invoice my customers. Bending Spoons apparently bought them a while ago and just eliminated the shell company around Harvest.
Based on my experience with Evernote, I don't trust Bending Spoons, and I'm wondering if I should look for a different time-tracking and invoicing system.
I've been in the same boat as you and replaced it last year but still pay for harvest (grandfathered pricing) until I can be sure I don't need it. I'm almost up to renewal and haven't used it at all since trying app.solidtime.io
I'll be honest it's not as good as harvest. The mac app is a bit buggy, it's not as easy to add manual time, and you need to pay for pdf export. But having said that I've found the free version to cover 90% of my use of the paid version of harvest
I use Harvest for my freelance invoicing and started seeing the huge notice at the top of the app and was wondering how this was going to impact my stuff going forward. I'm also very leery having gone through a horrible Evernote experience.
If anybody has any good alternatives, I'm all ears.
> What they care about are authors' moral rights. If the model was trained without obtaining permission from the authors of every work in the training data, they think using the model to create art is immoral.
Art is not created in isolation. It is a result of the artist's exposure (aka training), both intentional and incidental. If an artist wants an AI model to get permission before training on their work, then the artist should get permission from all the artists they were exposed to that shaped their artistic expression.
In what way? It certainly does not mean the same thing to a developing artist as it does in the context on an LLM, so I do not even know why people bother with this wordsmithing.
The problem is that if this argument is allowed to stand, art, as a human endeavor will shrink 99% or maybe even 100%.
Oh and this happens in a very underhanded way. Courts, governments and companies (including OpenAI and others) demand copyright is respected by humans. They impose great penalties when humans cheat, and then this happens:
If these companies were forced to abide by the rules courts impose on humans, they would have to buy billions worth of books. But of course, "that's not how copyright works". Of course, these companies ARE using copyright to avoid reciprocating:
So this is yet another "rules for thee, not for me" situation involving companies worth billions of dollars. A situation that's really hurting people's livelihoods ...
I can't disagree with your AI doomerism perspective. I firmly believe that AI companies should buy one copy of whatever work they use for training. While this won't provide the never-ending royalty stream on copyrighted material that corporations strive for, it would foster the mindset that AI companies must pay society in some way. And I truly think that if AI companies are going to train on all the knowledge in the world, their profits should go back to everyone in the world. i.e., LLM models are a public good.
I have an almost unshakable conviction that LLM-type AI systems should become a repository of all human knowledge. When LLMs give you an answer, you should be able to ask, what are the sources behind your answer? People won't do this, but curious, wanting-to-learn people will. Which leads to one of the important questions. How do you keep people curious?
But all these companies violated that on a massive scale. It's done. They're not paying. Oh, and when asked what the consequences are for people doing illegal downloading, ChatGPT helpfully answers:
> About $750 to $30,000 per copyrighted work
> Can go up to $150,000 per work if it’s considered willful
... it was definitely willful. And these are amounts that would bankrupt even OpenAI. But I guess only you and me will have to pay these sorts of amounts, not big companies ...
I don't disagree with either of you regarding the doomerism, but Anthropic just paid out the largest US copyright settlement ever, based upon their exposure to the liability of $150k per copyrighted work they faced.
I haven't gotten my $150k for one (like a lot of people, I wrote an IT book that chatgpt can 95% repeat sentences from), and nobody I know has gotten theirs either.
The settlement is for $3k per protected work of class members. Are you a class member? You should've been contacted by your publisher if you were. If you weren't in the shadow library, then you are not in the settlement.
People would say: I love when a person does that, it's cool to see someone's inspirations and participate in the process and journey of them developing their artistic talent. And I don't really care to be involved in an AI doing that
If you want to get even more divisive, try converting people to metric baking measurements. Baking bread and cakes is much more repeatable if you use mass rather than volume to measure ingredients.
The results from this recipe were never consistent when I used volume measurements. I converted to mass in metric and now I get consistent results.
- 227 g unsalted butter (2 US sticks) unsalted butter (The better the butter, the better the results. In the U.S. market, Kerrygold yields the best results, followed by Cabot, and "well, it's still brownies" Market Basket house brand.)
- 400 g dark brown sugar
- 2 large eggs
- 5-10 ml vanilla extract
- 150 g mashed bananas (about 2-3 large, brown bananas)
- 156 g all-purpose flour (I prefer King Arthur All Purpose Unbleached Flour)
- 60-70 g cocoa powder
- 2-3g teaspoon salt
- 280(ish) g chocolate chips (I prefer Ghirardelli Bittersweet 60% Cacao Baking Chips, use 1 bag) )
### Instructions
- Preheat the oven to 350F degrees (180C or 170C fan forced). Line a 9x13 inch (23x33 cm) pan with parchment paper or aluminum foil leaving an overhang around the sides. Alternatively, lightly grease the pan.
- Melt the butter in a double boiler. Add in the brown sugar, stir, and let it sit in the double boiler, stirring occasionally until the mixture has a nice caramelly flavor.
- While the butter-sugar mixture is cooking in the double boiler, combine the dry ingredients.
- Sometimes cocoa powder is lumpy, and you may need to sift it. The alternative I use is combined flour, cocoa powder, and salt, and use a whisk to mix it all together and break up any lumps if there are any.
- Take the brown sugar butter mixture off of the double boiler and mix in the mashed bananas and vanilla.
- The bananas usually cool the mixture enough that the eggs won't cook when you put them in, but if the mixture is hot, add some flour, add some of the dry ingredients, and that will cool it down enough to add the eggs safely.
- Stir in the chocolate chips.
- Pour/spoon the batter into the prepared pan and bake for about 35 minutes, or until an inserted toothpick comes out clean or with a few damp crumbs.
- Cool fully (about 4 hours), then slice. Store brownies in an airtight container in the fridge for up to 4 days. (Never last that long in my house)
I use volume measurements for baking and I get consistent results all the time. Perhaps your recipe is especially gnarly, but that isn't true of all recipes.
Volume measurements work acceptably in cooking only when you use some volumetric spoons for quantities corresponding to a completely filled spoon.
Otherwise, if you use a vessel with markings for various volumes, you waste a lot of time to ensure that the quantity in the vessel lines precisely to a marking and its surface is perfectly level, in comparison with weighing the same ingredient. Moreover, you have one more vessel to wash.
I eat only food that I cook myself and I use only 2 kinds of volume measurements. I use a set of volumetric spoons for measuring various kinds of powders used in small quantities, e.g. salt and spices. I also use a graded beaker for water. For any other ingredients, it is much faster to put the vessel in which they will be cooked on digital weighing scales, and pour there each ingredient until the right weight is reached. Besides being faster, this also avoids the need to use additional vessels, which would need washing. The graded beaker is better for water only because it must be taken from the tap, where I cannot put the weighing scales.
For example, this includes making bread, when I pour water in a bowl that will be used for kneading with a graded beaker, then I pour the flour while weighing until the desired weight is reached, then salt is added with a small volumetric spoon.
Regular results from volumetric measurements are due to the process. For example, sifting the flour every time gives you a degree of consistency approaching that of a mass-based measurement. Mass-based measurements make it easier to have that precision in the baking process.
Very possibly, I don't remember the event clearly. This was an opinion my partner expressed about my dishwasher loading habits. Although I did make the mistake of saying, "You've got it wrong, sweetie. I'm not the raccoon."
So now, I keep my mouth shut, rearrange the dishwasher after she's loaded it, and add more stuff into the dishwasher because there is now room for additional dishes.
Your point about developing markets resonates for me in a different area. Instead of layering mobile phones on top of landlines, many developing markets went straight to mobile phones. Another thing to consider is that solar/wind is an incremental expansion of power capacity, versus the "big bang" expansion of nuclear capacity.
To your point about the fossil fuel cliff, I think it was either a Bloomberg or Forbes article that discussed how China's deep involvement in the EV/battery/solar/wind Expansion in dozens of countries around the world gives it a chance to put a serious dent in oil consumption as well as locking American interests out of developing markets.
By the time a nuclear plant comes online, Renewables have incrementally added 400 gigawatts. Granted, nukes generate 4 to 8 times more energy, but solar can significantly improve crop yields and soil health. They also make it easy to raise sheep and cattle. It's a good thing I like lamb (yum).
For those who would claim that's too much to pay for a "minimum wage job," I have another question: Should a job that does not pay enough for someone to live be allowed to exist? We have those kinds of jobs today, and the companies with these jobs have whole departments teaching their employees how to gain social support such as rent assistance and Medicaid.
reply