HamsterRage

I'm not so sure. The rest of the world is working as fast as it can to extracate itself from any depedence on the US. Here in Canada, we are actively finding new markets for our products and so is the rest of the world.

By the time that the US does implode, nobody will care, and hardly anyone outside the US will notice.

This is, of course, a perfect example of D-K in action. This dude is writing his own email server, FFS, and he characterizes himself as, "at least somewhat knowledgeable".

I've read a bunch of the old RFC's for email services years ago, when you needed some of that info in order to do interesting things with sendmail. I figure that might have put me in the top 20% of programmers/admins/techies back in the day. But to actually consider writing an email server - no way. That's a different level of "at least somewhat knowledgeable" .

The question implies that the OP wants to create one giant filesystem with all of their data on it. This has its own issues, especially if it is in /home. For one, as someone else pointed out, it's fairly difficult to run your system without /home mounted, and that makes it difficult to resize. Sure, you can set up an admin account with it's home in the /root filesystem and then log into that - but that seems to be a lot of work in itself.

If it was me, I'd set up mount points for file systems that make sense. Maybe /data/Photos, or /data/Music, or data/AppData, or whatever. As much as possible, I'd just point whatever software I was using to those new directories to find the data. If that isn't feasible, for whatever reason, then a symbolic link from /home/Photos to /data/Photos will work seamlessly in most cases.

As far as I'm concerned, after administering enterprise systems using Unix going as far back as the early 90's, symbolic links are a key tool in managing disk space that you shouldn't just dismiss because it's "an unnecessary layer of complexity". Having smaller, purpose designed, file systems allows you to manage them better. Sticking everything into /home is probably not the right answer for anyone.

Resizing partitons is often not necessary. Use a symbolic link to relocate a subdirectory to another file system. For 99% of use cases this is indistinguishable from expanding the partition.

In all truth, I've probably seen more sphinxes than foxes. There are literally hundreds of them in Egypt, although they are quite small compared to the one near the pyramids in Giza. They also find their way into museums around the world.

I've only seen one or two foxes, in the wild. A few more in zoos, I suppose.

I guess they figure that Linux users already know what they are doing when it comes to security.

How did you get that far? The wife and I lasted about 5 minutes.

Except that the amount for a couple in the article was 24K, which is 8K less than individually. You even quoted the 24K and disregarded it.

If you have 60K employment income, then the UBI would push you to 76K and the UBI would effectively be taxed at the highest rate. If your only income was UBI then you would exceed the basic personal exemption, and would pay zero tax.

Everyone gets the same UBI, but some people pay more tax on it if they have other income.

If you did work in some reasonable proportion of married couples, it might get close to break even. Then remember that CPP, OAS and EI all disappear, and whatever funds they have would contribute to UBI. CPP at max draw by itself is almost as much UBI.

Then, for people that also have some other form of income, some quantity of the UBI would be taxed back.

I'm not saying that it really does scale up, but your analysis is overly simplistic.

That's what I was hopingmthe plan was. We'll have to wait and see.

I would like an ad-blocker that blocks the "Please enable ads pop-ups"

My BIL still gives his weight in "stone". As in, "I'm 12 stone, 7 lbs and 3 ounces".

I joke with him that only makes sense to people who are comfortable with Pounds, Shillings and Pence, too.