Not sure about now, but I was a musician with a variety of instruments for about a decade in my youth. In my experience, private instruction was always locally advertised. For instance, I had lessons on oboe, violin and piano. The piano teacher was a friend of my mothers, oboe and violin I had a class at school where the instructor suggested where to get tutors, typically either former students in the local orchestra or students at the local college music program.
To me, an app would have to improve upon this relatively convenient method of finding instructors. Typically these instructors come with the implicit approval of a trusted person as well.
A tunnel would need to be large enough to be maintained by humans when all the pallets crashed into each other and someone had to unjam it. We'd have a new kind of plumber
It accomplishes little. The tests are a subset of the things the students should have been learning anyway. The idea was that by measuring performance teaching could be improved where needed. The actual result was that the "help" given to classes with bad scores has been to overtrain some tiny neural nets to respond to very specific stimuli without teaching them anything beyond the specifically measured behavior. Even the students that pass often haven't mastered the material. They just can take the test. We opted to replace accountability with process and reaped the usual results.
This is such a hard thing to measure, since programming isn't about how many widgets. Even how fast you complete a project. Often the team is making decisions about interface and data design that impact the project down the line. With 2 teams working, you would get 2 different products and I think it would be hard to see which is the better product without significant time. You could also have the exact same team make the same product 5 times and get 5 different products. Experiments with humans are hard
Its really the density argument. Do you go for public transport and hope the density then follows to make it more worthwhile? The alternate of getting a dense place and then trying to add good transit options seems just as likely to fail. I'm sure theres some middle ground I'm missing. But busses using the same clogged roads, or trying to find space for more rail/bus/bike lanes in already overcrowded areas seems like an expensive problem to fix. I obviously don't know the answer either way. I gotta think that we can't just do sprawl forever though.
Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but only if the poor person makes certain decisions. As far as total impact, you can do more by just giving money, and not spending any of it policing behavior.
To me this is just throwing money at a poverty problem and hoping it will fix itself.
It will never work, UBI will inevitably raise prices of things so people will need more basic income to get what they want. That means having to either give out more UBI or have the program become irrelevant because it doesn’t keep up with standards of living.
A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. And you don’t have to give out more house to each person over time.
It seems to me that we need better systems for administration of free goods. These are problems we can solve, permanently.
> A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses.
What about houses that are damaged or destroyed? Will your "trivial" system repair or replace them? What if the occupant is responsible for the damage or destruction? What if this is the second or third such free home they've destroyed?
And how will people move? Can they move? Can people trade homes? Can they still buy and sell them? If a person sells their home will your system give them another one for free?
Why do you think a free home must come with some restrictions? It’s very simple. It’s yours, free and clear.
Do whatever you want with it, even destroy it. But you’re not getting another one. And if it’s damaged you need to repair it. Buy insurance if you can. If you can’t deal with it get a free condo or apartment instead not a SFH. If theres a big natural disaster and your home is affected apply for aid or perhaps a new home for these special cases.
> If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check.
You'll also get rid of all the public sector workers which represent a significant population cohort that is directly and personally invested preserving the rulling regime and also the status quo. Once you lose that, you destabilize a whole society.
