evanphamilton

Some funny metaphors and descriptions in the article. Seems like the author is grasping a bit to make programming relatable.

"The coding and the analytical skills on display at such events were like the Force in the “Star Wars” movies: it could be used for the light side, or for the dark."

"He spoke about the Stuxnet code in the way that an art historian might discuss “The Night Watch”: it was “elegant,” “precise,” “sophisticated.”"

"The malware consisted of rows of seemingly random letters and numbers flowing down a page, in pairs. In the margins were some recognizable English-language words—“Windows,” “everyone”—connected by cryptic punctuation. Choi could fluently and sensitively parse all this."

Am I correct that unlike owning a physical piece of artwork, "owning" the registration of a work on the blockchain only proves that no one else "owns" said work -- I suppose what makes this a trade-able financial asset -- but nothing is stopping someone else from seeing the work?

" The report says the fund could help people: "A low-skilled worker might reduce their working hours to attain skills enabling career progression.

"The fund could provide the impetus to turn an entrepreneurial idea into a reality. It could be the support that enables a carer to be there for a loved one." "

I'm skeptical of the long term implications of this logic, and this reads as a very neoliberal solution. 416 pounds a month for two years is not a lot of money. Job training and child/elderly care are difficult, time consuming, and expensive. This seems to be why they are prime tasks to be run by the state. Giving people a small cash sum, and telling them to teach themselves new skills so that they're ready for the economy of the future feels ignorant and wasteful.

If you're working a part time retail job that is about to be automated, what type of "job training" can this realistically provide. Or, if you're taking care of an elderly parent, or a young child, this is far from a replacement for more robust social services.

I truly want to believe in a UBI in some form, but I find the language of "entrepreneurial idea[s]" to be a little repulsive. Not everyone can be a successful entrepreneur. Not every poor and middle class citizen can become a successful start up founder and small business owner. UBI could be fantastic but is not a replacement for the once robust social safety nets that are being chipped away at (or decimated) in the US/UK. I am not saying it is the case in this article -- I know little about the Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures and Commerce -- but anytime I see someone advocating for UBI I think it is worthwhile to interrogate their positionality and their imagination of the future. The silicon valley libertarian billionaire dream of a UBI seems different from someone with a genuine commitment to improving the quality of life for everyone.

There are no quick fixes to poverty, skill gap, and the problems wrought by automation. Looking towards UBI as a panacea feels dangerous in that it can prevent addressing the more structural problems at play.