Rents will probably go up […] and what’s left won’t be enough to save for any kind of down deposit.

It’s the same capitalism we have now.

Whatever it does to home and rent prices, as well as inflation generally, would be temporary until the markets adjusts. That can be softened by slowly phasing it in, maybe $100/m each year. The standard supply, demand, price balancing act at play. This time with the income floor not being at $0.

It’s the same capitalism we have now; Accept the bottom income level, isn’t zero anymore.

Who would be in what Cast?
Where do you draw the lines?

Several reasons.

1. The US is largely responsible for defining what 1st, 2nd, and 3rd World countries are.
2. It has the largest economy in the world.
   (I think? That may have gone to China by now. Not sure. But it was true recently.)
3. Even with everything you said being true. It’s still the wealthiest country in the world, by a large margin. Epically when you compare incomes, lifestyles, and infrastructure to actual 3rd world countries. It’s not even close.

I’ve heard people say a UBI is easy to exploit before.
But I don’t see how.

If everyone gets the same payment, with the only qualifiers being citizenship and age; How can it be exploited?

Clear Data should reset the app to stock defaults.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

None of the major Fediverse projects have real monetization.
Why single out PeerTube?

Why would you expect monetization at this point?

Do you think it should be monetized, or are you just surprised it hasn’t been?

What form of monetization are you imagining?

The simple answer is: Because they aren’t the same people.
It’s unlikely you’ll to find a single individual complaining about both of those things. Some individuals will complain about one, and other individuals will complain about the other. You’ll then even have 3rd subgroup who will complain about any minority actor in a lead roll at all; But that’s a different complaint than the two you’re talking about.

I’m fully aware, and disagree.
Someone else called it a Slippery Slope. That’s closer, but still not quite right.
It’s actually Reductio ad Absurdum.
Which is a useful thought exorcise when analyzing many ideas.

Is it?
Are you saying you would support bad people under the right circumstances?

It’s your idea.
All I did is assume all good people agree with you.

Do you think they’d stop being bad people if they couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?

Do you feel better knowing they aren’t getting your money? Even at the cost of them ever doing anything good for anyone?

Is it harm reduction if all the bad people couldn’t make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were living on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?

I’m sure a few bad people make a living maintaining it, and all the roads you depend on everyday.

Bad people are everywhere, doing all sorts of jobs you appreciate.

It sounds like you’re arguing that bad people shouldn’t be paid to anything good.

65million was the number I learned as a kid born in 1980.

Sometimes terrible people can do good things.
Those good things should be supported.
Judge a project on it own merits.

People still use the Autobahn.

That is me. Numerous people have called me “The most literal person I know”.

I wrote only exactly what I meant.

I would TALK to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.

And literally… Advocating Talking about something, is not advocating Doing that thing.

“She not gaslighting” was the first paragraph.

Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move, or anything about abuse at all.

My second paragraph recommended a conversation. One which I’m sure would illuminate more of her thoughts; Possibly exposing inconsistencies in her logic, if she is genuinely being manipulative and abusive.

Or possibly we’re both wrong, and reading things that aren’t actually written. You’ve certainly proven a tendency for that with what I’ve written.

Sure all of that is true. But also outside the scope of the direct question.

Because he’s so much more elderly than trump.