What makes the difference between an experienced engine developer, like CryTek and Unreal, and a hobbyist or a company who does it for the first time, is mostly that while both of them will definitely build a game with the engine while creating the engine, the experienced team will actually produce a re-usable, well designed engine, while the inexperienced team will produce a hunk of junk that doesn't fit together and doesn't extend past the game they were trying to develop.

Blockchain is like a solution without a problem. The only thing that can be done with blockchain that can't be done without (i.e. decentralization) is something that mostly has no application in the real world. And there is no need for it because the technology for that exists since over 2000 years. If it was needed, someone would have done it already long ago.

But who knows, perhaps at some point in the future a use case will emerge.

This seems to be just like Ethereum without the blockchain. What does "building directly on the internet" even mean? What do I ever need distributed, cryptographic consensus for? The use-case escapes me completely, this even seems more useless than Ethereum, where I can see at least some applications thanks to the blockchain. But that thing without the blockchain just doesn't make any sense. But hey, it got WASM, so must be cool.

Now someone wants to frame you, perhaps because you are a celebrity or a person with money to extort from. So they claim that they saw you murder this person.

Normally, this wouldn't hold any water and no jury would convict you, we are not in the medieval ages anymore. There would be no evidence of you around the crime scene, because of course, you weren't there.

Now imagine that they are able to produce audio recordings of a conversation you had with the victim, screaming at them and saying "you are gonna pay for this". And then they also happen to have video evidence of a smart phone camera that happened to capture you stabbing the victim.

Now tell me, if the jury sees all this and then it gets dismissed, because of "deepfake" claims or whatever, how will it affect the outcome of this trial?

If you are truly innocent, this might still work out alright, unless you are not white. But imagine there is even the SLIGHTEST connection to the real world. It doesn't have to be completely fake. Maybe you had some fight with that victim earlier, or there are witnesses who testify under oath that you had several heated arguments with them, etc.

Deepfakes can change the entire outcome of trials, by biasing the jury and proceedings against you. That's why any audio and video evidence essentially needs to be rejected without a very very thorough forensic analysis of its authenticity. And even then you would still not know for sure.

Oh and they accept it for their own hiring. That's really good, except that Google, like many other big companies never gave a damn about education anyways. And that's a good thing, to be sure. But they still care about technical skill. So unless they are aiming the shotgun at their feet and teach people how to game their own interview process (which at least in case of Google is doubtful, since their process was quite elaborate a few years back), I just hope they offer these courses for free, because you ain't gonna get hired at Google with this. Seems more like a marketing stunt.

Technically, does it even matter how fast we eject? Shouldn't relativity allow us to reach speed of light with any positive thrust velocity? If the speed of the shuttle was of any concern, that should directly invalidate relativity, since passengers would suddenly not perceive any acceleration anymore, even though nothing about the spaceship and its physical reaction has changed.

LOL there we go again. The US is the center of the universe. I mean there are actual reasons why you don't want China or Russia dominate the world (well, in times of Trump that is actually questionable what is the bigger evil here), but you have to bring the most ridiculous one: We are the US, and someone is challenging us, can't have that.

And that doesn't pair well with children's insatiable "why" requests, even if they don't utter them. Teaching children is actually harder than teaching adults, because most adults largely gave up on the "why" and just settle on "I gotta remember that, if I want to pass the next exam" (school did a good job with them I guess).

So why 1+1=2? There is a lot of depth in that that is left unanswered and children are forced to memorize the answer. From then on, a sharp decline of cognitive ability follows as they "graduate" through our excellent school systems...

Actually, this already falls flat in the first section. At least 90% of adult fail on that one. How are they supposed to teach something to their children that they themselves don't even understand? And teaching is usually much more difficult than understanding something yourself.

Which brings us to "school should teach that". But schools are not designed for that and teachers are not qualified for that. Hell, it's already an exception to meet a teacher who can properly convey the meaning of "1+1=2", not to mention a teacher who can teach children, who are not their own, how to process difficult emotions. Good luck with that

This is a really good point. But it will apply to the government program as well. Just because we have such a program at full scale, doesn't guarantee anything.

* The UBI might not always be above the poverty line

* The UBI might be terminated at any time, or after an election (That can be partly covered with proper laws, but nobody would go that far without trying it out in the first place)

* The UBI might get strings attached, like "needs to work parttime", etc.

All in all, it's a chicken egg problem. The thing is: If I have saved maybe a million in cash, UBI would encourage me to just stop working. Period. UBI will cover a good chunk of the basic living expenses (especially if you don't have to live near hotspots due to work anymore) and then the investment winnings of my savings would cover me for life.

That of course is still possible without UBI, but UBI just makes it that much more approachable, since you don't depend on investment to stay afloat. I.e. "I need to win with my investments for this to work" becomes "If I want to buy me something besides food and rent, I need to make good investments". Those two are like day and night.

I am not convinced that UBI will result in overall improvements. I would love UBI and it would enable me to stop working more quickly. Will I still provide value to humanity? Very likely, I have lots of ideas for what to do. Will I still provide value to the economy? Not nearly as much as before. That alone tells me that UBI is probably not a good idea, because it empowers the middle-class to retire early, doesn't do much for the poor (instead of a shitty job, they can now do nothing, except paint and sing perhaps, i.e. being creative; but they will still be poor nontheless) . It also doesn't do anything for the rich.

Besides that, entering card info is a chore. Same as I don't want to signup for every app (which is solved by apple login mostly), I don't want to enter payment info for every app (and update it whenever the card expires lol).