🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@lupyuen

done

@PINE64

@lupyuen

If i had even a moment of free time right now I'd happily help. Maybe in a few months when ive caught up with my other obligations

I still have a custom circuit board sitting on the shelf I really need to solder up

@PINE64

@lupyuen ill check out those specs when i have a minute.. is the intent still to make it into a watch?

@lupyuen Wonderful, is one of those the watch project? I am really curious about that one but havent caught up in a while.

One mask is 70% efficient, three masks is 90% efficient, cover your whole face in plastic wrap (no holes then it wont work!) and its 100% efficient!

@lupyuen I see your doing the hard-hitting science today :)

How are the projects coming along by the way?

@lupyuen I read about this from a few sources.. concerns the hell out of me and im not even there :(

@Hyolobrika yea thats understandable, the cutting makes it hard to piece it together.. but you can see the barriers in place when they are beating the guy and the people behind it, which after cutting you seem them trampling. so the continuity, while not the clearest, seems to be easy to infer, at least to me.

@Hyolobrika the article itself is about a different topic, it was shared because its the only source of the video.

The video however does clearly support it, did you watch it all the way through? You can clearly see towards the end 2 officers beating a handcuffed man they pulled from the crowd while the crowd is still (at this point) contained behind the barriers.. you then see later on, after the crowd chants about the officer beating the dude for a bit, that the crowd then overruns the barriers.

So the parts I described seem plainly visible in the video, even though the article was not about that.

@Hyolobrika the answer is.. dont, sorta... not saying dont read the news, but just assume it is completely not credible in any sense by default, look for the sources they mention, go to those sources, if it is another news agency, rinse repeat... eventually one of two things happens

1) you wind up at anonymous sources or claims that can not be verified, in this case presume the story is a complete lie or atleast just gossip, discard

2) you wind up at a primary source such as the text of a bill being passed, the claim of a vote at a senate meeting , etc... make sure you read the actual text of the bill you watch the video of the vote, and if you dont understand any terms, LOOK THEM UP.

If you cant find a reliable first-source for the claims, then it aint news, if you can, then its reasonable to assume its true.

@hansw@mastodon.social It doesnt matter how many times you see it, eliminating minimum wage can fail 1000 times over but as long as every time it is without the other 2 components then you can not say it is due to minimum wage

Its a bit like trying to cure an alcoholic.. if all you ever see is the fact that when they stop drinking they get sick (and perhaps die) you might believe wholeheartedly the solution is to give them more alcohol.. but even if you see 1000 alcoholics die from abruptly stopping drinking that doesnt mean your observation is valid because it ignores the whole picture. there are other elements needed for an alcoholic to succeed and without those, then yes, an alcoholic will die or get sick, but that is not an argument to solve their problem with alcohol.

Same here, you are looking at minimum wage, which causes more damage, but by itself acts as a buffer to other problems.. so its making things worse over time but looks beneficial from the perspective of anecdotal evidence removed from consideration of the whole solution. But the second you introduce an actual solution, with free education and strong welfare, and then do away with minimum age safely, then the problems you saw so many times in the past are no longer there and you find actual solutions are the result.

@hansw@mastodon.social I know thats what you meant.

My point is you only seperated out minimum wage and evaluated it seperate from the whole. Yes eliminating minimum wage while not having the other two components in place I mentioned will have things go bad... the poor wont suffer as much, but others will suffer more (the middle class and marginally skilled suffer more without minimum wage alone).

As I said you can only consider minimum wage in relation to the whole, that is, welfare, and job training, talking about things going bad when you dont have one is self-defeating when you also dont have the other two.

so yes you saw things go bad without minimum wage, but that wasnt because minimum wage wasnt there, it is because you were missing the 2 other components i said were neccesary for the solution to be fixed, you must eliminate minimum wage AND enact strong welfare and free job training and education...

If you dont have all three then you will be in a bad situation, it wont make things better. so saying that you saw bad things happen when there was no minimum wage, no welfare AND no free education... well of course, you would, but to conclude that is due solely to the lack of minimum wage is incorrect.

On the flipside if you had seen no minimum wage, but with strong welfare and free education, and things still went badly, then youd be considering the whole, and youd have a good argument that minimum wage should be part of the solution.

@hansw@mastodon.social

> I tried to explain that I see things go bad when a minimum wage is not in place.

My point is that is separating parts... you saw things go bad when minimum wage was in place.. but was there free education and a welfare system that provided ample financial support in those situations too? No... so you were separating out the minimum wage from the other two components I said were necessary.

@hansw@mastodon.social

> You know I value these discussions, otherwise I would not participate in them 🙂

I am glad, and I of course feel the same

> My point is just that I have seen enough things going bad when a minimum wage is not mandatory.

You would, but you have to be careful of falling victim to logic where you look at components in isolation and then draw conclusions about the whole.

The truth is if **all** you did was eliminate minimum wage and nothing else then you are right, things would and do go bad. Notice my solution is very careful not to do that, it doesnt just propose minimum wage be done away with but is careful to point out that it must go hand-in-hand with 1) strong welfare to support those who can afford a reasonable living wage and 2) provide free education and training to people along with the support of #1 to help ensure they get out of a welfare situation

Without points #1 adn #2 then simply eliminating welfare would be a disaster, but with points #1 and #2 then we fix the problems with welfare and replace it with something that works.

It is always important to understand the whole and not separate it out into its fundamental parts and fall into a fallacy of composition.

@FailForward

There is sadly, always going to be different of opinion on political subjects, 99% of those will be on an extremist side of the political spectrum arguing for an absolutist solution.

But the individual facts there is little doubt. and the two key ones here are that 1) while moderate increases in minimum wage does not decrease the net unemployment 2) it does shift the unemployment burden to the least skilled and most poor portion of the population at the benfit of more skilled and least poor people.

Some often use trickledown economics in its liberal form to argue for it, that by making those whoa re already well to do richer they can use that money to boost the economy and somehow help the poor or ultimately got screwed in the decision...

Frankly I find that bs and the data doesnt bear it out and needs to be pretty manipulated to support that argument.

Likewise the right is just as rediculous wanting to abolish all welfare and minimum wage all together and figure somehow it will all fix itself.

You will find very few people actually looking for a real solution that isn't at the extreme ends of propaganda on the political spectrum. The lack of suck people is the very reason we dont and arelikely not to see a solution, not in the USA, not in the EU.

@hansw@mastodon.social

@hansw@mastodon.social I have no complaints about the conversation or us disagreeing. I look at all the sides too, which is why I am not proposing a solution that lines up with anyside.. if i were right-sided id be against free education, welfare, or any real investment in a solution.. if i were left-sided id be parroting pro-minimum wage or even UBI as a wonderful solution.. instead i find a solution that considers all the sides and input.

@hansw@mastodon.social Not in the least. i never said people who are underskilled should take the underpaid jobs... Obviously what they **should** do is take the offer of free education i mentioned, become highly skilled (and get enough welfare to live well why they do it) and then take a high paid job.. no one is requried in the system i described to take a low paid job, thats not accurate at all.

what it does mean, however, is that if someone **wants** to be lazy, do a minimal effort job that takes no skill, is perfectly capable of learning a skill and can learn one for free but simply refuses to do it out of laziness, then that person at least has an option to get a low paid job if thats what they WANT, but there are other options for them.

Moreover, as we covered, when most of the people gain skills and move to high-skilled work that means there is a much smaller pool of people willing to do menial labor, that means supply demand curve **raises** their wage (as there is now higher competition to hire them) and in turn they dont make a menial wage.

Effectively my solution allows for the lowest wage to increase naturally and fairly without the consequence of everyone loosing their job.. the minimum wage solution just artificially attempts to inflate the minimum wage without effecting the supply-demand curve and the consequence of which is all the people who need jobs the most loose them.