Having a standard of living is a status marker? If you want to live in a commune, why don't you convince 10 other people to go live with you out on a farm?
Arxiv is by its nature open access; Arxiv does not charge for access.
On the other hand, the articles that this site hosts require payment to access. The journals typically charge $30 / article, or roughly $2,000 / year subscription.
Note that for both the open access or paid journals, researchers do NOT receive any compensation when users download articles. That is, despite the research being mostly paid by taxpayers, a PRIVATE company receives compensation for the work done by the researchers. Not only that, but the researchers have to PAY a publication fee, and that fee is higher if they want to allow open-access.
Not only the researchers do not receive any compensation, they actually need to PAY the publishers hundreds of dollars minimum to get their work published.
Because the arxiv is a place that hosts free pre-prints. By contrast, sci-hub is a way to get normally expensive articles for free. Arxiv stuff is already free.
Can confirm this is widely known within music pedagogy.
However, quite a few of my peers thought it was "stupid" and just practiced the same piece over and over, at the same tempo, without ever stopping and working on the hard parts.
After several years of music, there was a pronounced difference between those who practiced effectively and those who merely repeated their mistakes.
Perhaps a study like this could convince future students that it's worthwhile.
They do and they don't. Flashcards and SRS are great for very discrete bits of information. They're a pretty good for things like getting a faster start with the most commonly used 500 nouns, remembering verb tables or memorizing Chinese characters.
They're pretty bad for language acquisition in general, though. They chop the language into decontextualized bits. Time spent doing vocab flashcards is time not spent learning how words fit together. Time spent on sentence flashcards is time not spent reading books and absorbing cultural stories and background.
tldr; use flashcards to drill the basic phonics / alphabet of a language and maybe the most common words at the beginning and then focus on extensive reading + listening and having conversations with actual people about what you're learning.
Would it be possible for a cross between Git and Torrents? Rather than having a central server to pull/push from, instead the server would provide a list of clients. If the server goes down, the list is still available, and so people who depend on it would be able to communicate.
This is a tragedy of the commons problem. If there are 100 individuals, then if one individual stops working, average UBI payout would only decrease 1%. So, a rational actor would stop working.
Similarly, if 95 out of 100 stop working, then the other 5 have little incentive to work, because their income is basically funding everyone else.
I'm not sure which of the two cases you're addressing; I'll respond with one comment assuming each.
If you are talking about case 2 (fixed UBI, fixed tax rate, making up the difference - when there is one - by printing money or borrowing), then when one individual stops working the UBI payment does not decrease. If productivity falls when that worker stops working (presumably the case for most workers), then we would expect to eventually see some
inflation. It may work out to 1%, with the proper assumptions; I'm not certain.
Still I don't see why it follows that "a rational actor would stop working" - some may, but only if they decide the small decrease in UBI and large decrease in earned income is worth it.
At sufficiently high UBI level relative to earned income, that's pretty likely to be the case. At sufficiently low UBI level ($1?) that's pretty unlikely to be the case.
> Similarly, if 95 out of 100 stop working, then the other 5 have little incentive to work, because their income is basically funding everyone else.
The same chunk of their income as ever is going directly to fund everyone else. A bigger portion of their income is being diluted by the money printed to make up the rest of the UBI. But as the currency devalues, presuming they are doing things people want, they are able to demand more money for their production. The UBI is diluted toward meaningless. At some point, other workers decide to get back in the game, because the (nominally constant but really much lower) UBI will not fund the lifestyle they want, slowing the inflating.
I'm not sure which of the two cases you're addressing; I'll respond with one comment assuming each.
If we are talking about case 1 (a fixed BI tax rate with all proceeds distributed), then when one individual stops working the basic income goes down by 1% as you say.
> So, a rational actor would stop working.
I don't see how this follows. A rational actor weighs the 1% decrease in BI plus the 100% decrease in earned income, and whatever that means for quality of life, against their preference not to work.
> Similarly, if 95 out of 100 stop working, then the other 5 have little incentive to work, because their income is basically funding everyone else.
This is not case 1 anymore. In this scenario, one of the other 5 quitting reduces the BI by 20%... of the remaining 5% of the original level. It has no effect on how much any individual is paying in. Meanwhile, with the BI amount being 1/20th its original level, some of the other potential workers are probably getting interested in working again.
It depends on how generous BI is. And if we tied it to the revenues it is funded by this percentage would balance out.
Additionally, remember this amount is enough to live on with 6 roommates and eating beans and rice. It's by no means extravagant. Most people like having stuff. Especially more and better stuff than their neighbors.
It's none of the cases dragonwriter described, but what seems to be closest to what you're analyzing:
If you have a fixed UBI, paid for with a variable tax that splits the total burden of the UBI across all workers in proportion to their productivity, then you would see dynamics like you describe. This is, indeed, the opposite of a negative feedback loop. Don't do this, either.
If UBI is set high enough that more people drop out of the labor force than we can manage, the (real) UBI must fall by some mechanism.
