One way to fight a coronavirus recession: $1k for every American - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-recession-direct-payments-americans-ubi-c3393d14-33ad-47c2-a739-f2fec150b212.html <comment><USER2> Am I way out of band or does that seem like a comically small amount of money for the average American?

I live in an extremely low COL area and live well within my current means. Assuming my work dries up and I don't have any savings, 3k$ would buy me two months tops.

Just to give you an idea of how cheaply I live: Mortgage is ~800$/mo, Car is a paid off 2006 Toyota Highlander, Student loan minimums of ~400$/mo, My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we all still need to eat.

The average one bedroom rental in any given metro area, even in mid sized cities, probably lands somewhere around my basic monthy costs. So, if you're a single person in the city you might get one month out of 1k$.

And I am VERY lucky to have a bunch of cashed packed away. I assume at least a large portion of this country is living paycheck to paycheck.

<comment><USER3> I think this is a profoundly bad idea. It's just as dumb as the fed trying to prop things up. You're not going to solve this problem with money, but with a strong response to the root cause, the pandemic. That said ...

> My wife and I have a newborn, which currently isn't very expensive but we > all still need to eat

I imagine you would get $3k since there are 3 of you.

<comment><USER4> People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot afford to take unpaid time off. So they go to work and spread the virus. Providing them and others with enough money to at least cover their most dire bills reduces that need to go to work sick. If money is not provided to these people, the odds that they are soon homeless if their work closes down is very real.

~40% of America cannot afford a $400 emergency, all of those people are at real risk of hunger and homelessness.

Giving everyone cash allows the country the freedom to implement programs that run a real chance of preventing the spread. It also goes a long way towards preventing societal chaos as people without savings and suddenly no income are now provided a way to continue living and feeding their families.

<comment><USER3> > People working many hourly jobs net less than $1,000 per month and cannot > afford to take unpaid time off.

Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance.

Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it. That's just redistribution of wealth by another means. Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic.

<comment><USER4> "Absolutely and those people should receive assistance through the regular channels we have available. Unemployment, charities, welfare, churches, synagogues, etc. and frankly, good old fashioned neighborly assistance."

This probably works well in upper class neighborhoods, but a good portion of the US don't live in communities with much to spare. People unable to afford a $400 emergency or who rely on schools to ensure their children have at least one good meal a day generally dont have much to share with their neighbor. Most of the community organizations that serve those communities are in the same boat. Your suggestion also removes a good portion of people who don't attend religious services. Charities are limited in what they can provide.

Unemployment is difficult. For example to be eligible, Florida requires "You must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work. This includes being able to get to a job and have child care if necessary." Not many people hiring in the middle of a pandemic and further complicated by the closing of schools.

"Not by throwing money at everybody, most of whom do not need it." ~75% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and 40% of US citizens cant afford a $400 emergency meaning that most of them do indeed need it.

"Don't shove your political agenda down people's throats in the middle of a pandemic." \- You seem upset which I can completely understand in this stressful time but please note; looking to ensure that people, especially children have food to eat and can afford their most basic of bill should not be seen as a political agenda, its simply trying to be a good human.

<comment><USER3> Your point is absolutely valid, but there is no reason why the same doesn't apply to this new scheme as well. You would need to distribute the money and the same distribution problems apply. People are people.

Give everybody $1k? Who's everybody? If you're in this country illegally, do you get $1k? What about people who got stranded here due to border closures? How are you going to identify people? How will you stop fraud, double dipping, etc?

Maybe instead of creating a new bureaucracy in the middle of a crisis, use the existing systems that are already in place and just pump more cash into them?

<comment><USER4> I think focusing on 1, 10 or 100 people double dipping or potentially getting funds they should not have is besides the point. We implement this to keep people from starving and going hungry. Plenty of time to track down people who abuse the system after the crisis. As far as distribution that's not an impediment. The IRS already has a list of people and addresses and we can mail them a check. Is it complete? who knows but its a start and probably covers 95% of people. Not doing anything because of bleeding edge cases is not a solution.

The existing systems you mentioned before are not setup for mass distribution. There is no way the local unemployment office can scale up to 100x. In addition we are not going to just give money to the other private entities to distribute as they are not equipped to do so.

<comment><USER5> This. The purpose of the money is to address the immediate demand shortfall. We have until December to figure out who might have gotten more than their fair share and claw it back. Hell, even if a fair chunk is wired to Central America it will mean _those people_ won't starve.

We need to be A-10 Warthogging cash now and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is how we should manage the money supply, and it should be monthly. Direct, debt free issuance of a citizens dividend to every US citizen. Coupled with a wind-down of the debt bubble. Maybe take Steve Keen's idea and require that a certain portion of the payment be used to extinguish any debts.

Unfortunately whenever a president starts talking about this, he has a tendency to be shot.

<comment><USER7> > Direct, debt free issuance of a citizens dividend to every US citizen. > Coupled with a wind-down of the debt bubble.

There are three ways to make it possible: 1) issue government debt to pay for it 2) increase taxes to cover it 3) print money to cover it.

Number 3) will cause significant inflation, so it will effectively be paid for by tax on cash savings. High inflation is really bad, it's a terrible idea.

1) has the problem of only working temporarily: you cannot indebt yourself indefinitely, at some point the service payments will become simply untenable.

2) is the only one practical, but the only way to make it work in practice is to increase taxes all across the population. In result, this will be $1000 monthly only for the very poor. For people around the median, this will balance out to zero or negative.

So, the only way this destroys debt bubble is by 1), inflation destroying cash debt. This is _terrible_ : businesses will not have access to debt to finance operations, mortgages will not be accessible for people without significant savings to buy houses, etc. All around, a terrible idea.

<comment><USER8> You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy. Those (many of us on here) who won't use it for goods and services, but instead to further prop up your asset bubble of choice. Ie not improve the economy much, but make the appearance of improvement via higher asset pricess.

Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed. Both back in September, and again last week, and why yet again just 30 mins ago. While we call them short term loans, they still haven't been paid back since the start of the GFC. And not only have we continued printing more via the Fed, when the fed finally tried to get some companies to pay them back a year ago the repo market siezed up last fall. The fact that there was a flood of Treasury Securities on the market to pay for item #1 (it increased supply by 50%) likely had a lot to do with it.

If you want the economy to function, then get money in the people who will spend it. What's the factor? For lower incomes every extra dollar they have, introduces 1.5x or 2x or something into the economy. And for every dollar given to middle-high and high incomes only 0.4x or less actually goes into the economy.

Propping up assets isn't a functioning economy.

<comment><USER7> > You act like these are wild approaches. But during this this current term > we've already done #1 via the 1Trillion tax cuts to mostly the wealthy.

$4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans is much wilder than $1T of tax not collected over 10 years, yes. The former number is 40 times larger than the latter.

> Then we've done #3 via re-introducing QE via the fed.

No, we've done only small part of 3) via QE. QE over its history had bought around $4T of assets, which is a far cry from what's required to pay every American $12k/year. QE also doesn't directly "print money", and so Fed buying $4T of assets has much smaller inflationary impact than actually printing $4T and giving it to the government or people.

What I want is for people to be honest about how much basic income actually costs, and where will that money actually come from. Quite simply, you cannot double federal government spending overnight by some clever accounting trick or increasing taxes on "the wealthy": there aren't nearly enough wealthy people to cover that.

<comment><USER8> > $4T a year, required to pay for monthly basic income of $1k to all Americans > is much wilder...

"one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria."

You're arguing against something nobody proposed. Please compare the numbers with whats actually being proposed.

<comment><USER7> Nobody, except the commenter I directly responded to:

> This is how we should manage the money supply, and _it should be monthly_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm sure there are many Americans for whom this would be insufficient. However, for my partner and I, and our immediate family this amount would allow all of us to keep our heads above water without catastrophic financial fallout, until society has restarted. I may be laid off this week. If I am, and if unemployment is less than 50% my expected take home, and lasts more than two months, then I am going to have to make decisions that will adversely effect my credit through no fault of my own, except not having a sufficient emergency fund built up. 1000/mo, even just for my entire household would allow us to stave off entering arrears indefinitely.

</comment><comment><USER10> i just don't see how UBI survives a highly polarized, segregated society pumped out by the US media. imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc.

in a weird way it dangerously exposes people as, according to "the economy", particularly not valuable. the framing will go: these people are literally doing nothing and we're supporting them financially, no questions asked. that will draw a fair amount of outrage, i assume, given that the US can't even get that done for older and poorer people.

that's why i think if you buy in to UBI, you sort of need whatever else Yang brought with it - measuring societal value differently, etc. otherwise you are looking at a situation where certain persons are going to be portrayed as truly valueless, bc in the US the economy dominates so much. and i don't think that bodes well for those people.

<comment><USER11> _imagine the headlines by Fox News as soon as they find 4 people living together playing video games all day. or smoking pot. or etc._

You're right that it'll require a pretty fundamental shift in attitude. Some folks will still think people like that are losers. That's fine. But maybe we'll get to a point where they won't think such people, losers that they may be, are doing anything they're not entitled to be doing. That's the kind of shift in perception that's required to make it work.

We're never going to agree with everyone else's choices. We need to agree that they're entitled to those choices.

<comment><USER12> This comment is very weird to me.

The hypothetical group of stoned gamers being discussed are certainly entitled to choose to spend their time smoking weed and playing games. I don't see how it follows that they're entitled to me subsidizing their choices with my tax dollars. I think people who are capable of holding a job / productively contributing to society but choose not to are indeed losers, and I will continue to think that way because it seems to me to be an obvious truth. I truly hope that does not change.

Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I'm genuinely curious. I realize this is just a hypothetical but I can't imagine anyone having any sympathy for those people. There's also an argument to be made that enabling them is hurting more than helping, but I'm leaving that aside entirely for the moment.

People have choices, and choices have consequences.

<comment><USER11> _Can you explain why I should think otherwise? I 'm genuinely curious._

Others have made the case far better than I could here. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or against it, just noting that 1) social perception of "freeloaders" is indeed a barrier to acceptance of UBI (as you succinctly demonstrate); but 2) relatively small shifts in perception could open a path for it, anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I too think this is silly. Everyone wants to use this disaster to achieve the policy goals they wanted anyway. Republicans want to use it as an excuse for tax cuts. Democrats want to expand public healthcare and benefits. Everyone is trying to attach riders for domestic violence victims or pork spending or whatever pet issue they have.

And now the Ubi folks want this.

Nothing changes. Same BS.

<comment><USER14> This is hardly a UBI. It's also been done before, for example in Australia during the GFC.

The idea is to get money into the hands of people who will actually spend it - the poor will tend to go buy their kid a desperately needed new pair of school shoes, for example, whereas the rich will just throw it in with their other savings. Only one of those stimulates the economy in the short term.

<comment><USER13> While I agree it isn't UBI, I think it's UBI-light.

I am not necessarily saying it's a bad idea, I am just jaded that solutions always follow existing political ties.

I am sure there are logical arguments for it. But there are also logical arguments for tax cuts right now.

I am just an idiot on the internet. All I can say is I get skeptical whenever an idea purports to solve any situation that arises.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard put a bill last week on the house.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house- resolutio...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house- resolution/897/text?r=5&s=1)

</comment><comment><USER16> Hong Kong will distribute HKD 10,000 to every citizen (about USD 1300).

USD 1000 for every American (while low) strikes me as a sensible, effective, efficient, fast measure that helps the poor more than the rich. As such, unlikely it will come to pass in today's USA.

</comment><comment><USER17> Simple, direct, democratic. $1000 is a good amount - for those in need it can be stretched to go a long way (just imagine the status quo alternative). For those who are more comfortable, it's an easy amount that can be saved, donated, or spent on discretionary items, all wins for us.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can someone please answer this for me:

Why not simply _not tax_ individuals? Suspending mortgage payments, rents, and taxes would have a much greater benefit as far as I can tell. This topic reeks of political opportunism.

It looks like everyone in favor of 'UBI' (including politicians and 'influencers') is clamoring for this despite not considering (or, in the case of the politicians, ignoring intentionally) any of the drawbacks.

1\. The money isn't 'free' it's coming out of tax dollars.

2\. Once a UBI concept exists, people begin to plan their lives around it. Any changes to the system that aren't _increasing_ the amounts received then have a huge negative impact on a large population.

3\. The average American household now carries significant debt, in the tens of thousands of dollars range. They won't be stimulating the economy if they are just paying back (part of) prior debts.

4\. Do we seriously trust the US Government to _not_ mess this up? California is the [0] _world 's fifth-largest economy_ and still spends more than it takes in, despite placing enormous tax burdens on its residents. The federal government hasn't been any better, historically. At what point does the economic house of cards come crashing down? Who gets crushed first if it does?

[0][https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy- ranks-5th...](https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th-in- the-world-beating-the-uk-2018-5)

<comment><USER19> Or why not _appropriately tax_ them, especially the ultra high income ones who sneak out of paying with dodgy capital gains and shell company plots, then use _that_ money to give appropriate stimulus?

<comment><USER18> If we assume that we need 1,000 dollars per month for every adult in the country that means we'd have to increase taxes on "the ultra-high-income" to the tune of [0]209,128,094 * 1000 = $209,128,094,000 per month. Or, $2,509,537,128,000 per year.

We're talking about 'giving away' (using the term loosely here) 25% more than the combined market cap of FAANG every other year.

Put another way, that is 76% of annual federal tax revenue at [1]current levels.

No way that's sustainable.

[0][https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data- stat...](https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data- state/demographic-statistics-342)

[1.1][https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government- ta...](https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax- revenue-3305762)

[1.2][https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income- would-c...](https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/universal-basic-income-would-cost- taxpayers-3-8t-per-year-study/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _Romney said that the idea would "help ensure families and workers can meet their short-term obligations and increase spending in the economy."_

Given that many states are closing all non-essential businesses, where, exactly would the economy be stimulated? Stockpiling more toilet paper? I realize that online retailers are currently still delivering, but how long will that last?

<comment><USER21> If people see precarious economic conditions, they tend to save more. By having a semblance of a safety net, they're hopefully able to continue similar consumption habits. It's likely that the supply shock were seeing today will die down in a few weeks, which is when this would start to help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I predict that Americans hate their less wealthy fellow citizens way too much for this to ever turn into reality.

</comment><comment><USER23> The $1.5T injection would have been about 5 months of $1,000 UBI.

<comment><USER24> Except the $1.5B injection was a loan, not an actual expenditure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> They tried that in Iran. The result: massive inflation. The system cannot handle such a massive spike in demand especially if production is under strain from covid. It surprises me Romney is for it because he was a politician back when ahmedinejad tried that little stunt.

<comment><USER26> When has Iran _not_ have massive (>10%) inflation?

* [https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/inflation-cpi](https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/inflation-cpi)

Not since at least 1970 AFAICT.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> There was a $300/person tax rebate during the 2008 recession in the USA. So it's not that far fetched an idea.

I wonder how these kind of direct-to-consumer payments compare with traditional monetary policy (cutting interest rates, securities purchases) in terms of impacts.

<comment><USER28> Wasn;t it determined that no one actually spent that money and just paid of debt instead?

<comment><USER29> Not no one, but few. That's what the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded:

[https://www.nber.org/papers/w15421](https://www.nber.org/papers/w15421)

"Only about one-fifth of respondents in the Reuters/University of Michigan survey report that the 2008 tax rebates led them to mostly increase spending, while over half said it would lead them to mostly pay off debt... [T]he results imply that the rebates provided only a modest stimulus to spending per dollar of rebate."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > He adds that the law "should also specify that the payments would continue > in 2021 and beyond if the unemployment rate rises to 5.5% and remains there > or higher. Hopefully this will not happen, but if it does, the money will be > needed."

If it has this caveat, it's essentially just UBI, not a response to coronavirus. I'm more sympathetic to UBI than I'd have once expected, but my observation is that any response that creates a potential post-virus entitlement is substantially less likely to pass, and at the moment, the priority should be getting some relief out there. This is suboptimal, but reality.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's looking to me like the only way to fight the coronavirus recession is to have a strong enough testing capacity that we can be relatively sure that the people we are interacting with in the world do not have the virus.

</comment><comment><USER32> I assume my curiousity will be downvoted but I ask in a totally bipartisan way: How much would it cost? I'm guessing $157 billion/month given that 157 million people are working. How would it be paid for? I assume it's just put on the credit card with the other $23 trillion or so we're in debt?

Both parties have contributed hugely to the debt so don't assume which side I'm on here. And while I expect to be downvoted I truly want to understand the long-term effects. Not saying I'm against it.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think this is silly. The idea behind this is to induce demand, but there isn't a lack of demand due to lack of purchasing power. People aren't spending because they aren't leaving the house. (which, in the case of a pandemic, is a thing to be encouraged)

I sincerely doubt that giving everyone a thousand bucks will save the restaurants and bars and movie theaters and retailers and cruise ships and hotels and airlines etc...

<comment><USER34> You're right, a thousand bucks a person won't save those things. But the people who /were/ working at those restaurants/bars/etc now have a way to buy food for the month. People aren't leaving the house but they sure still need to spend on food, rent, basics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> How about a $10k loan instead? Zero interest, paid back through IRS over 10 years, with decreasing amounts available based on last years income.

<comment><USER14> A loan may not encourage spending in the same way free, no-strings-attached money does. For example, if you're poor and struggling pay-to-pay, would you like the idea of borrowing knowing that it'll bite you later on when you have to survive on _even less_ money due to paying back the loan?

On the other hand, absolutely no-strings-attached money might see you spend it on something that you've needed for a while but haven't been able to afford.

<comment><USER35> Quite true, my thought was that a loan can be a larger amount. $1k one time on't change much, $10k would help people pay for food etc.

It's always possible to do both.

> Furman proposes Congress pass a "one-time payment of $1,000 to every > adult..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This won't help a recession one bit as it doesn't incentivize any economic activity.

An average 1000$-worth of government-backed loan risk subsidy _might_ be worth considering.

With fed interest rates near-zero people with good credit should already be able to get pretty good short term loans and this will help those without a credit score or with a poor one to be able to meet their obligations.

<comment><USER21> > This won't help a recession one bit as it doesn't incentivize any economic > activity

Please explain to me how, in a country where 76% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, putting more cash in their pocket doesn't stimulate economic activity? When someone loses hours at their job due to no customers coming through, how does making sure that person can still eat not, at bare minimum, ensure they can still eat, not help with economic activity?

> With fed interest rates near-zero people with good credit should already be > able to get pretty good short term loans and this will help those without a > credit score or with a poor one to be able to meet their obligations.

Oh, cool, we put the fuckers in debt in times of highly uncertain economic horizons, but we'll say it's helping them.

<comment><USER36> A subsidized loan will also put cash in their pocket, will do so more efficiently because it should only be taken out by those who need it to the extent needed. A 1000$ for the people who don't need it is basically a luxury gift in hard times.

<comment><USER21> Whenever you introduce means testing, you can never claim that the people who truly need it will receive it, as you are explicitly offering avenues through which they could be excluded.

<comment><USER36> I think there are more urgent testings the US is currently struggling to introduce. Also, this bill is very explicit about "every American"

Look, There is a reason Romney is backing it - he knows this money will very quickly find its way to high-markup low-value businesses, will not address any structural problems but could be touted as trillion-dollars gift to the common man by the Republicans come November.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> America's immediate priority needs to be public health, not the stock market. The economy will recover, dead people won't.

<comment><USER38> The stock market is not a magical abstract thing that has no impact on people's lives.

It has an indirect and huge impact on all of us.

<comment><USER39> Money in our pockets would also have a direct impact us on. Why include the middleman? Let bad companies fail.

<comment><USER40> I think the issue here is that companies could fail without doing anything wrong. It's not just bad companies that will fail, but also responsible companies that simply cannot weather a months-long economic standstill.

<comment><USER39> Other than the logistical difficulties specifically imposed by Covid 19, I believe good companies should be able to weather a couple of months of double- digit reductions in sales. Like if airlines or large events are forced to close down, I could see helping them.

Everyone else who simply has to deal with a reduction in consumer spending should take some responsibility for overbuilding for an overheated economy. For whatever cause, the Fed has predicted a recession months ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Using the same total expenditure, quadruple the amount to $4k, give it out over 4 months ($1k per month), and only give it to those who are likely to need it (based on current income). Use 2020 income tax returns to reconcile the payments when actual income is known.

</comment><comment><USER42> My guess is that most of this money would be spent on businesses that are still operating, which means that those businesses that are hurting the most, because they are shut down, wouldn't see much or any of this stimulus.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think something like a $10K tax rebate per person would be more appropriate.

      1. It'll help people cover their bills
      2. It'll put a shit-ton of money out to help reboot the economy when this all blows over.

<comment><USER7> Tax rebate doesn't help if you don't pay any tax, and if you're out of work, you're also not paying tax.

For example, if you normally make the median income of $30k, but quarantine put you out of work for 3 months, you're down to $22,500, your federal tax bill is ~$2700, and so this is most you can get from tax rebate. If you have children, this is even lower.

While I agree that tax rebates are typically correct approach, here it's not the case: they won't help much those who most need it, and they'll help most those who don't need them at all.

<comment><USER24> Then make it a tax credit. Regardless of what you pays in tax (it could be zero) you'll get $X amount as a direct credit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Or we could provide universal healthcare, but that would be crazy.

<comment><USER45> How would that help at this point in time? Italy has universal health and it is not helping. UBI, on the other hand, could make an impact.

<comment><USER46> >Italy has universal health and it is not helping

You can't just sat that universal health care isn't helping in Italy because things are bad there. Things might be even worse if Italy didn't have universal health care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> $1k per American seems laughably small. Imagine how many people we would save if we gave $100k to every American?

<comment><USER48> Probably not that many, because that could result in massive inflation. Sure, QE has shown that we can print some more money and inflation isn't affected that much, but there have to be some limits to that. You can't just give everyone $1,000,000,000 (1B) and not have some huge effect on the economy from that.

<comment><USER47> It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. $100k per US household would only cost ~$10 trillion, which seems to be within one order of magnitude of the $1.5 trillion we just dropped without batting an eye.

<comment><USER48> Yeah, but my point is, if you take this to a ridiculous extreme ($1B per person), this would surely cause a disaster. So somewhere between 0 and this extreme, it goes from having little effect to having a big one, and I suspect it may be non-linear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Honestly I'd like to see a 1 month quarantine, with the US government guaranteeing the wages of everyone in the workforce for that time. Something like 100% up to 50k/year, 75% of 50-100k, and cap it there. It would cost a few hundred billion dollars but it would keep the "I have to work or be homeless" people from being homeless and allow them to actually stay home for that time.

<comment><USER50> Just $10k for every full time employee in the US is over 1.3 trillion dollars, so your numbers are pretty far off.

<comment><USER49> 1 month salary for every full time employee is not anywhere near that. Especially capped at 1/12 of 100k/year

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Should not be for every American but rather people that need it.

<comment><USER52> Adding 'need' criteria is likely to add bloat, expense, and hoops that people who _do_ need it will not always be able to jump through. Better to create an emergency benefit with as little bureaucracy and paperwork as possible, even if it means that some people that won't feel the impact will still benefit.

We get so caught up in keeping benefits away from the wrong people that we end up simply not providing them broadly enough. It's counterproductive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This method is good when you want people to go out and shop and spend the money. What happens when millions of American's now have money to go out and eat and go on vacation? That's the opposite of what we want.

</comment><comment><USER54> Nope, as pointed out by others. This doesn't do anything to solve the systemic problems that allowed this to happen and us to be woefully unprepared for this.

<comment><USER55> I don't have any specific opinion on if the proposed action would be a good or a bad thing (I'm not an economist or policy-wonk type), but it seems silly to me to dismiss actions taken in a crisis just because they don't solve the systemic problems that caused the situation.

Sometimes you need to stem the bleeding to buy yourself enough time to fix the underlying problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Misleading headline. The proposal is actually for "every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident".

</comment><comment><USER57> I like how Mankiew nonchalantly remarks that $1000 "sounds about right."

Wonder if he consulted any of the models in his widely used Macroeconomics textbook in order to reach this profound conclusion.

I think an even better way to help people right now would include Congress putting an end to the price gouging of students who are forced to pay as much as $200 dollars a pop to purchase textbooks (like Mankiew's Macroeconomics) for their classes.

And there's an idea for Bernie Sanders too, who is gasping for breath on the campaign trail now: instead of promising "free tuition" handouts, how about asking government to play a role in establishing "fair tuition" (much like Medicare already does in health care for seniors) that reflects the true costs of educating students (using the latest technologies) in subjects that lead to real jobs, after universities have been forced to cut the fat (starting from the top!) out of their bloated university administrations.

<comment><USER58> Unfortunately, price regulations on textbooks (however possible) would only affect the individuals "consuming" those textbooks, the majority of which are traditional students.

This has been a problem for many years. Why the price of a textbook for a particular course are not paid for via the cost(s) of that particular course is beyond me. I am all for solving this problem, but it is one of many.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Well it seems a rather "socialist" a.k.a "handouts" or "welfare" which is an anathema in GOP circles.

Perhaps they should do some mental gymnastics and rebrand it as "US Families First Aid".

</comment><comment><USER60> That buys a decent amount of whiteclaw, instant lotto tickets and juul pods.

<comment><USER61> How is that any different from it going to folks better off who don't immediately need it, and thus stash it in savings, etc.?

The point is it will be going to those who need it. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

<comment><USER60> I'm actually a fan of UBI. Comment was more out of frustration as I've seen idiotic behavior en mass from humans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> That will last a week at best

<comment><USER63> That depends on where you live. Prior to a recent move to a high COL area, it would've lasted me a month, with $50-100 to spare (rent, utilities, and food if I went for rice and beans and the cheapest meat I could find).

Cut out the optional services (streaming services) and fuel (not driving as much, $100/month fuel cost gets reduced to maybe $20 for the isolation month), and it can work in many parts of the country.

It probably wouldn't last long in San Francisco, New York, Seattle, and other high COL areas. And to make it last, you'd need roommates, which creates a hazard with regard to trying to create/enforce social distancing. But not every city or region has crazy high rent. Some places are still sane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> That seems pretty silly. Me and probably a lot of other people would just put it aside and save because we don't need the money. And for the people in some industries who are at risk of losing their jobs this is laughably little money. In Germany there is a concept called "Kurzarbeit". Companies reduce work hours and salaries across the board and unemployment insurance makes up for some of it. This way mass layoffs are avoided. That's the way to go in my view.

But I guess the US will either do nothing or hand a lot of money over to the top income earners in the hope that they will "create " jobs.

<comment><USER65> This is classic "me and my friends are rich, therefore everyone else is".

You just don't realize you're in the top 10-20% of earners, and the difficulties of those underneath you.

<comment><USER64> What I am saying is that more money should be given to people who really need it and no money to people like me (and a lot of HN readers) who don't need it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> This makes no sense. Why would we give money to every American instead of just those that really need help? If you aren't living paycheck to paycheck just to cover necessities you should have savings to fallback on. We should be giving money and help only to people who need it. Not people who have over extended themselves with credit card or student loan debt and no savings. People with means could use a lesson in personal responsibility.

<comment><USER63> Because means testing requires a massive, and in this case ad hoc, bureaucracy established to evaluate who should get money. Good luck establishing that. Mailing out checks is actually cheaper and technically feasible, in comparison.

Additionally, not everyone in debt got there by way of lack of personal responsibility. One ambulance ride and ER would send many minimum wage earners into debt, even if they were responsible with their earnings.

<comment><USER67> I think the IRS is much better set up for this than state run welfare programs. Send a check out to everyone now but collect $950 more in taxes next year from only folks that made more than $XX,XXX amount of money in 2020. Also you could make it so that uncashed checks would be cancelled by next year and you get a $50 extra refund.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I've been railing against this idea as uniquely stupid for the past few days.

1\. For people who are living "paycheck-to-paycheck", this won't even matter. How far does $1000 get you in the US? A better policy would be a general amnesty on rent and interest payments for a few months, and temporary free healthcare.

2\. For industries where it's a demand shock (e.g. travel), no amount of helicopter money will restart the demand. A better solution would be helping the companies directly, to the extent the government wants to help them survive, by e.g. tax write-offs or delays, emergency credit loans, or my favorite, emergency equity (the free-market solution, if your company cannot survive because of your poor panic, you don't deserve to own (all of) it).

3\. For industries where it's a supply shock (face masks, hand sanitizers, possibly soon but hopefully not food), some kind of coupon-based rationing (with the government paying the producers directly) would be a better solution, providing just the necessities for survival and ensuring there's minimal waste.

<comment><USER69> On point one, that's just the thing. If I got 1000$ right now from the government, I'd pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway, or I'd save it because the economy is bad. I'd imagine most people would do something similar.

<comment><USER70> > pay things that I'd already have been paying anyway

That's kind of the point. With a nearly imminent lockdown, many people would not be able to pay for things that they have been paying all the time, and that will bankrupt companies and break the economy. A cash injection that allows you to pay for things that you're already paying for - and _get_ the basic things you were already getting before - would be quite helpful.

<comment><USER69> It's a one time payment.

It just delays everything by a month.

I fail to see how this solves the problem.

<comment><USER71> The goal is create as many delays as possible, to maximize the duration and number of people who can stay home instead of spreading the virus. It doesn't address the root problem because we can't solve the problem - people will _have_ to go back to work eventually. We're not a post-scarcity society yet.

<comment><USER69> I don't think 1 month of safety is enough to convince people who need to work to not work. they'll simply say "what about next month."

<comment><USER72> You're trying to convince people who are sick not to work. Nearly everyone who is sick this month won't be sick next month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> This is not going to help.

The people who need the most help are the people who are going to be homeless in a month. 1k will buy them a second month. This thing will not blow over in two months.

What would help, is for mortgage and rent payments to be suspended as long as the state of emergency lasts. Not deferred[1], suspended.

When economic activity stops, we have to stop rent-seeking from bleeding everything out of the system.

[1] Deferral doesn't work. A bartender living paycheque to paycheque, who lost his job because all bars were shut down is not going to be able to magic up six months of back-rent in September. His landlord won't see a penny of that owed money... But the landlord's bank will be demanding six months of mortgage payments.

<comment><USER74> Then what happens to the people who's income depends on those rent payments. I think an approach like this makes sense. The problem is immediate cash flow for people. This is cash flowing to people. It may not be enough, but it's moving in the right direction. We're not going to re-engineer the economy in the next few weeks.

<comment><USER73> > Then what happens to the people who's income depends on those rent payments.

Since they also won't need to pay rent or mortgage, they won't get kicked out of their homes, too. Which is about the most that people should expect when the economy grinds to a halt.

Otherwise, tough. We're in a state of emergency, that is preventing their tenants from getting paid. Just like their tenants, they'll have to deal with it.

> We're not going to re-engineer the economy in the next few weeks.

1\. This is not going to blow over in a few weeks.

2\. We sure as hell shouldn't empty the treasury into the pockets of landlords over a few weeks. They should not be the only people to walk out of this unscathed.

Suspending rents and mortgages is the only fair thing to do. It costs the state, and the taxpayers nothing, it puts everyone on an even footing, in terms of continuing to have a roof to sleep under, and it doesn't screw us six months down the road.

<comment><USER70> IIRC "getting kicked out of their homes" is not a thing during an official state of emergency, it shouldn't be possible to evict renters for nonpayment right now. The same should apply for mortgage foreclosures, penalty interest/late fees on loans, etc - so if you can't pay these things because of the emergency consequences, you simply don't pay.

We need to tackle the financial consequences of the related economic crisis, but that can be done afterwards when all of this is over; right now what matters is tackling health issues and also the immediate financial issues of people being able to obtain core goods and services - and $1000 per person can buy a decent amount of food and necessities; let's sort out the rent debts when there's a vaccine available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> The whole idea of UBI is honestly pretty idiotic. Any form of UBI should 1000% be in the form of benefits, goods, housing, or other physical goods.

I'd much rather have tax cuts to reduce money lost through the middle man, as the middle man always wants a cut. Meaning you'd lose far more money to the process than if you were to just reduce taxes.

<comment><USER72> > Any form of UBI should 1000% be in the form of benefits, goods, housing, or > other physical goods.

We've tried this and it's a dumpster fire. The government builds low income housing which is 100% people in poverty and it turns into a slum. The government subsidizes home loans and student loans and it raises the cost of housing and education. The government subsidizes food and then restaurant workers who already have access to food can't use the money to fix their car or whatever it is they really need right now.

People know what they need better than bureaucrats do. If you give them money and they need food, they buy food. If you give them money and they need transportation, they buy transportation. If you give them food and they need transportation, you messed up, which is what consistently happens in practice when you don't give them money.

<comment><USER75> Fair but you just completely ignored the second half of my comment. Instead of handing out money, don't take it in the first place?

<comment><USER72> In general that's just the same thing. If the per capita average cost of providing roads and schools etc. is $15,000/year then anybody you're taxing less than $15,000/year is really getting a subsidy in the amount of the difference. They get roads and schools and pay less in tax than they cost and the other taxpayers have to pick up the tab.

Nothing about that changes at the point where the amount of "tax" someone pays goes negative. They started getting a subsidy from other taxpayers when they paid less than $15,000, not when they paid less than $0.

So if you want to call a UBI a "tax credit" then go ahead, but changing the name to "tax credit" makes no mathematical or economic difference at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft Joins the Blender Development Fund - <AUTHOR> https://www.blender.org/press/microsoft-joins-the-blender-development-fund/ <comment><USER2> There is a lot of implied ill-will on HN, I'm guessing the phrase "embrace extend extinguish" in Microsoft related threads gets upvoted? From the post I see that many Microsoft employees (at least in research) use Blender. Microsoft decided to pay for the software their employees are using, which happens to be open source, so the best way to do that is to donate to their foundation. Epic Games, Google, Nvidia, Valve, AMD, Intel, Ubisoft and others have done this (looking at the list of corporate sponsors is easy). This isn't a plot to take over Blender and destroy it from within...

<comment><USER3> Exactly. According to the membership page[1], Microsoft will be paying between €30k/year and €120k/year[2] to the blender foundation, along Intel and Ubisoft. On the other hand, Nvidia, AMD and Epic games[1] are contributing €120k+/year each.[2]

All of these companies get "direct access to the Blender team for strategical discussions. Roadmaps and priorities will be aligned with your requirements as good as possible."[2]

I don't see how they're going to "extinguish" blender. With this kind of reasoning, OpenBSD was also "extinguished" in 2019.[3]

_____________________________________

[1] [https://fund.blender.org/#credits](https://fund.blender.org/#credits)

[2] [https://fund.blender.org/corporate- memberships/](https://fund.blender.org/corporate-memberships/)

[3] [https://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2019.html](https://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2019.html)

<comment><USER4> They probably can't extinguish Blender any more than Oracle could extinguish MySQL (Larry must have been really mad for that), but I remember what happened when they acquired and ported Softimage to NT. It worked for a couple releases, then it was abandoned, after killing killing SGI by validating NT as a 3D animation OS. The Softimage acquisition, as a business, made little sense to Microsoft - it was a low volume high margin business, completely opposite to what MS does.

SGI made plenty of suicidal moves by itself, but I remember the Softimage thing was a big blow.

<comment><USER5> Microsoft acquiring Softimage made perfect sense at the time, Microsoft was wanting to push NT into the CG/VFX market, but because of the risk around companies producing for a platform that noone uses, someone had to throw the capital at it, and so Microsoft did.

Softimage|3D survived for a while after Microsoft sold it off, its eventual obsolescence seemed to came about from the drive to more extensible platforms, hence the new platform Softimage|XSI put out to compete with Maya.

Its also somewhat perfect irony that the company known for its Windows NT based 3D animation software (3DS MAX), Autodesk, would eventually end up owning the products which brought the big players over to that platform.

SGI also helped contribute to IRIX's obsolescence by producing NT based systems for this new Softimage|3D on NT move.

<comment><USER4> > Microsoft was wanting to push NT into the CG/VFX market

That's what I meant. In isolation, the business meant no sense. It was a PR move to validate NT as a graphics platform. With that goal accomplished, I got the impression the product languished without significant development.

> SGI also helped contribute to IRIX's obsolescence by producing NT based > systems for this new Softimage|3D on NT move.

Indeed. Microsoft assisted SGI in its suicide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> They appear to be using blender to generate data for machine learning!

So if you want to be able to recognizes poses or hand gestures from video or image stills, you need data to train your network.

The bottleneck is often high quality 'labelled' data - real data that requires people to laboriously label each frame and region with the 'ground truth'.

However, if you automatically generate the poses using something like Blender, you can also automatically label, and also generate a huge variety of systematic variations in camera angles, lighting, levels of noise etc.

Obviously there might be a worry that the Blender generated images may somehow inject their own bias, but they claim it's working really well.

[https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2019/0...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2019/09/2019-10-01-Synthetic-Data-with-Digital- Humans.pdf)

<comment><USER7> For the final project of the multimedia information retrieval class in my CS Master's I'm doing something similar.

The goal is to predict depth maps from single-view pictures using CNNs. But how to gather input, output pairs to train them?

I'm using a mod for Minecraft I wrote to generate such labeled data, e.g. input: [https://i.imgur.com/JRtmCeG.png](https://i.imgur.com/JRtmCeG.png) output: [https://i.imgur.com/q4KocXn.png](https://i.imgur.com/q4KocXn.png).

I'm not done yet so I can't tell you the results, but it's a fun project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1) Blender is GPLv2'ed Software,so there is no immediate danger of MS creating proprietary fork of Blender and making money by selling the fork. I beleive that they are contributing to Blender which benefits community as a whole.

2) Offtopic but i wish megacorps collaborate to create FLOSS alternative to Adobe Suit like Photoshop/Other Graphic Design programs. This would super benefit everybody on all platforms.

<comment><USER9> > _create_ [emphasis added] FLOSS alternative to Adobe Suit [sic] like > Photoshop/Other Graphic Design programs

What's wrong with Krita, GIMP, Inkscape, etc.?

<comment><USER10> Krita is fine for painting but isn't a full replacement for Photoshop. Inkscape does vectors, which is something else different entirely.

If GIMP prioritized matching Photoshop's UX to make it easy to switch over (shortcuts, UI similarity, etc.), it'd be much more successful at converting Photoshop users. Serious Photoshop users at this point have spent more than a decade (!) committing these things to muscle memory.

GIMP hasn't made replicating Photoshop's UX a priority, so it isn't a replacement for someone more comfortable using the industry standard tool.

If I used Vim for a decade, then you said, "Notepad++ also edits text, why don't you switch over?" Well, I'm not as productive in Notepad++, and I don't think I'll ever be. Same for GIMP.

<comment><USER11> GIMP should do a Blender 2.8 and do a major focused release on improving UX

<comment><USER12> There's a project called GIMPShop which was supposed to make the UI of GIMP more like Photoshop; I don't know what the current status of it is though.

<comment><USER13> Just be aware that the dot com domain for gimpshop was not created by the original author and contains malware in the download. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7481091](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7481091)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Microsoft has dozens of game studios that enjoy using Blender, and no competitor in the space (not recognized as a profitable business). Finding negatives to this move is being too paranoid.

<comment><USER2> I doubt any of Microsoft Game Studios seriously use Blender, although I'm sure some individuals might use it for specific workflows. AAA games almost universally use Maya (and ZBrush, Substance and Houdini), for example this presentation on Gears 5 workflow specifically mentions Maya and Houdini ([https://cdn.gearsofwar.com/thecoalition/publications/The%20V...](https://cdn.gearsofwar.com/thecoalition/publications/The%20Visual%20Technology%20of%20Gears%205%20V2%20PDF%20Version.pdf)). This donation specifically mentions digital humans created for Microsoft Research, and MS Research as the user, not Microsoft Game Studios.

<comment><USER15> Blender skyrocketed in popularity in last 5 years. I just went through local gamedev job openings site (skillshot.pl) and over half of 3D Artist postings mention Blender.

<comment><USER2> I never said that Blender is not used in game development, I specifically said Blender is not widely used in AAA (Microsoft Game Studios) game productions, and that Microsoft Game Studios is not the driving force for this donation (which is stated in the origin post!). This should not be a controversial statement.

<comment><USER16> > I specifically said Blender is not widely used in AAA game productions

This tells me you may not have been keeping as close tabs on industry practices. I can tell you personally, this has been rapidly changing over the past few years, and it's taken a lot of people by surprise. I can't say it's supplanted Maya yet by any means, but that software's quickly being seen as old-hat by each new wave of gamedevs. It's fascinating to see.

<comment><USER2> If you have examples of AAA game developers that have moved their entire studio (not individuals using Blender, or outsourced contractors making one off assets) to Blender I'd like to hear it. I'm aware that indies, including many successful ones, and potentially some mid-tier or AA studios, widely use Blender. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Naughty Dog, Blizzard, Treyarch, DICE, etc. I keep very close tabs on industry practices and work for a major game engine company. You yourself said "I can't say it's supplanted Maya yet by any means", I'm not talking about potential future growth, I'm talking about the current state of the industry in a very specific product category.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm surprised how low a Corporate Gold membership is, just €30k a year. They claim that is half of a developer year.

[https://fund.blender.org/corporate- memberships/](https://fund.blender.org/corporate-memberships/)

Is the assumption that beyond that you would just hire your own developer to work on blender?

<comment><USER18> €60.000/yr seems reasonable. This is the average salary in the Netherlands (home of the blender foundation).

<comment><USER19> Could you provide a source for this statement because I'm pretty sure it's actually closer to 45k/y for fairly experienced developers

<comment><USER20> No, ezperienced C++ devs with the math skills you need to do 3d dev make 60k or more, 45k is just above fresh graduate level. I don't have an online source, just from what I know from companies and people I know, and doing hiring myself in the past. I made more than 45k 10+ years ago when I was an employee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I just started paying attention to Blender again after some years. The tutorials Ian Hubert does really demonstrates how powerful the product has become - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY8Ol2n4o4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY8Ol2n4o4A)

<comment><USER22> Came here to say this. This video of his really opened my eyes to what Blender can do ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY8Ol2n4o4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY8Ol2n4o4A)) and makes a cool entry point into that world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Microsoft supporting BSD and MIT licensed open source makes sense; this has become commonplace under Satya's leadership. Aside from contributions to Linux to make it work well in Azure or Git to make it work well for Microsoft's rather unique issues, their supporting GPL licensed products is yet another stark reminder that this _isn 't_ Ballmer's Microsoft -- and that Microsoft might actually be doing more for F/OSS software than the FAANGs of the world are at this point in time!

<comment><USER24> I use lots of commercial software, so this is more a kind of philosophical question.

Many that still bash Microsoft for EEE practices, are the first in the line killing GPL based stacks, pushing BSD and MIT licenses, which most of the time end up with selected updates in upstream and gold features only on the commercial products.

Which kind of makes sense, supermarkets don't take PR, but it is a kind of two weight two measures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are there any good examples of embrace extend extinguish under nadella's tenure? I keep seeing this meme everywhere (including in this thread) but git is doing fine, Linux is doing fine. The only notable things I've seen extinguished are their own windows phone and phone hardware platforms.

<comment><USER26> Extinguish, I have no examples. But Embrace and Extend, here is a possible one. Not saying I think this is a case of the first two E's necessarily but I know other people have pointed it out.

1\. Build WSL2 and incorporate Linux kernel into Windows with great integration. 2\. Add DirectX and GPU acceleration support for Linux that works in WSL2 only and not in regular Linux: [https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux- GU...](https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-GUI-Apps-GPU- WSL2).

These two steps could certainly be looked at as Embrace and Extend, although I admittedly fail to see how they could take an Extinguish step from here.

<comment><USER27> Well, the way directx on wsl works is it redirects dxgkrnl escapes/ioctls to host windows system something not possible on native Linux.

<comment><USER28> Well, that doesn't matter in the end. Part of extend is to take whatever you embraced, and add things you cannot do. So it's a success in that sense. Seems you're trying to put it as "What can Microsoft do if Linux doesn't support it?" when they can, if they want to, do plenty about it.

<comment><USER27> I think you're wrong there, bringing dxgkrnl to Linux would have been a much more involved process instead of just providing a redirect.

dxgkrnl is by far the heaviest NT module afaik.

<comment><USER28> > bringing dxgkrnl to Linux would have been a much more involved process > instead of just providing a redirect

Of course, that's how collaboration works. Instead of going the harder but "improving the entire ecosystem" way, Microsoft chose the easiest + the one where they can extend stuff in a non-compatible way.

<comment><USER27> The way you look, you'll find malice in every little thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Blender is doing so good nowadays it is crazy... Everyone is supporting them.

I hope they keep the team smallish as always!

</comment><comment><USER30> Tangential but a project I'd like to see supported more financially is FreeCAD, used in many corporations of all sizes, big and small, like Behringer for instance. It's very powerful and capable but incredibly buggy.

</comment><comment><USER31> Their paint3d app isn't the worst thing for non technical creatives. But it scares me when I see the big MS start "embracing" something I love.

</comment><comment><USER32> If Microsoft is smart, they will continue to support large productivity applications in major industries that don't fit into an app store model.

The kinds of things that work better on a full Windows 10 machine.

<comment><USER33> I think the "Commoditize your complement" mantra is used by megacorps to justify their investment in open source. In this case, 3D modeling is probably complementary to their AI investments.

<comment><USER24> glTF 2.0 breakthrough adoption was triggered by Microsoft contributions to move glTF 1.0 beyond WebGL as target API.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wish Sony, Dreamworks, Pixar, Disney and other major CG studios would pitch in. They all probably pay 6 or 7 figures a year for licenses for various pro 3D software. I know Blender is not actually at the same level as much of that software but it could be if enough funds were there to support it. Either fund it directly or fund internal devs to contribute.

<comment><USER24> Blender still needs to improve a lot to compete against Renderman, Octane Render, Hyperion Renderer and similar.

<comment><USER16> Blender isn't competing with those programs, because those are a different type of software. Those are renderers, not 3D production suites. And two of the renderers you listed can be natively used in Blender in place of its own renderer.

Blender is competing against Maya, not Renderman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Const-me They might need to be there to port the software for that new armv8-a windows they have. I don't think there're many volunteers implementing support of a platform that hasn't quite took off.

</comment><comment><USER35> "Microsoft makes use of Blender to generate synthetic 3D models and images of humans that can be used to train AI models. For researchers, having access to high quality free/opensource 3D software has proven to be of great benefit for scientific projects." Here's what they linked:

[https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2019/0...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2019/09/2019-10-01-Synthetic-Data-with-Digital- Humans.pdf)

Am I in the minority where all I see in this synthetic human stuff is surveillance and propaganda usage?

What other benefits are there?

<comment><USER36> I would think the primary use case for this would be pose estimation and/or recovering 3d models from 2d images. The primary use cases I'd guess is for AR/VR and building other kinds of interfaces (gestures etc).

Neither of these use cases seem very useful for surveillance. I'm not convinced that facial recognition algorithms would benefit that much from synthetic faces, but I very well may be wrong about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> "Corporate Memberships: It's like having developers work for you - on Blender! This membership level is for organisations who want the option to monitor in more detail what will get funded with their contributions. They will get direct access to the Blender team for strategical discussions. Roadmaps and priorities will be aligned with your requirements as good as possible."

</comment><comment><USER38> Yeah this seems innocent enough. If Autodesk gets on the board, _then_ we need to be worried.

</comment><comment><USER39> 3E

</comment><comment><USER40> MSFT figures out how to play with Open Source: If you can't defeat them join them

<comment><USER41> This happened 10 years ago btw.</comment></comment>


Cryptography Breakthrough Could Make Software Unhackable - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/02/cryptography-breakthrough/?cid=18024444

<comment><USER2> Temporarily Unhackable*

Historically accurate headlines to the rescue.</comment>


Ask HN: Is full-time employment pure status quo? - <AUTHOR> The job market is mostly binary in the sense that people are either employed and work 40h/week or are unemployed and work 0h/week. I can't figure out an economic explanation for this. My intuition tells me that for the market to be optimal and more efficient it would also have to include the percentage of how much you work.
I also believe that it's easier to extract more value per hour from a programmer that works 20h/week than a programmer that works 40h/week, so why not adjust for that?
Am I missing something? <comment><USER2> I've worked part time as an engineering manager before. Anything from 80% down to 50% (after my kids were born, when trying to start a startup on the side, etc.). It's usually possible to scale your work to suit the percentage you want to work.

However, in all of the times I tried to do this part time work, I failed to strike the balance I wanted. The reason for this is that your colleagues aren't working the same schedule is you. They may not know your reduced schedule (even if it's in you calendar) or they may just not care. But it's very hard (at least for me, YMMV) to ignore phone calls, texts, slacks and emails when your teammates (or people who report to you) are asking for help with something.

So I think for this to work, it would need to be ingrained into the company culture.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is often possible to flexibly reduce your hours after you've worked at a place for some time, but it is much harder to start off that way from day one. The default assumption is that you will work 40+ hours per week. In short, I've wondered about this question myself. The best I've been able to come up with is cultural expectation.

</comment><comment><USER4> The economics of supporting an employee are optimal with them doing a full 40 hour workweek because of fixed costs. Their office space, desk, and equipment cost the same whether they are working 1 hour a week or 40 hours a week. Their medical insurance that covers them 24/7 and other benefits cost the same whether they are working 1 hour a week or 40 hours a week.

To reach the same optimal point for a half-time employee, their pay would have to be reduced by more than half to account for the fixed costs.

<comment><USER5> Not making sense to me. Fixed costs are a small fraction of pay. Further, costs are not subtracted from pay, but _added to_ pay to calculate total cost of employee?

In some imaginary scenario where you simply use twice the people and twice the fixed assets to perform the same tasks, then they'd be paid for half a job minus half the fixed costs I suppose. But not necessary to operate like that. Could share office space, share most fixed costs. Only medical remains.

And some jobs don't even require full-time for the company to thrive. Payroll has to be processed every two weeks only, and doesn't take 2 weeks to calculate. Are they not worth having then?

</pedant>

<comment><USER4> > " _Fixed costs are a small fraction of pay._ "

Across all employee types in the US, the estimate is that wages are ~70% of the costs and the the other ~30% are benefits and other fixed costs: [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). If that's small, I'd like to see your definition of large.

As another datapoint, though this site is likely a bit biased (they're selling consulting services), they provide an estimated breakdown for a $100k/year tech employee that comes to about 46% burden rate (i.e. for every dollar paid to the employee there's an extra 46 cents in cost): [https://telegraphhillsoftware.com/hiring-technical- employees...](https://telegraphhillsoftware.com/hiring-technical-employees- true-cost/)

<comment><USER5> Sure you 'fully load' costs on employees. But you have to have a building etc, no matter if its full. Not quite fair to divide 'cost of doing business' across employees, and mistakenly assume hiring another employee is going to change that.

And yes, 1/3 is a small fraction. A large fraction would be 2/3 etc. I think I said that right, its normal mathematical usage.

Anyway, its all talking thru our hats. In Russia for instance during the early Soviet years, they had no weekends. Only occasional holidays. So 40 hours is heaven compared to that.

Honestly, 'full-time' Americans at least, typically get 114 days off a year. Out of 365. Pretty soft life.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Broadcom orders software employees to return to work a week before Colorado - <AUTHOR> https://coloradosun.com/2020/04/23/broadcom-colorado-covid-coronavirus-work/ <comment><USER2> Not in the headline: The software devs in question have been working remotely.

If I was one of those workers, I'd strongly consider finding another job. There's absolutely no excuse to require _software developers_ to come into the office in the current crisis. (With maybe case-by-case exceptions if there's truly work that can't be done remotely, e.g. physical servers that need hardware changes, or someone needs to drop off or pick up company-provided remote work equipment.)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Title truncated because of length restriction. Full article title: "Broadcom orders its software employees to return to work a week before Colorado will allow others"</comment>


Pappas Pärlor, the man who turns the world into 8bit video games - <AUTHOR> https://www.voicemod.net/blog/pappas-parlor-the-man-who-turns-the-world-into-8bit-video-games/ <comment><USER2> I've developed a free tool that can convert any image into these type of 8-bit bead sprites: [https://www.beadifier.com/](https://www.beadifier.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> But most of these are 16-bit...</comment>


There Are No Pictures of iPhone 4 on Google Image Search - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/images?q=iphone%204 <comment><USER2> Google Image search is unfortunately not real-time. This is not the first time someone has noticed. Google was accused of censoring the Abu-Ghraib images, because several weeks after the event, the photos could not be found on Google Images. Google replied:

 _In short, There is no censorship here. We are embarassed that our image index is not updated as frequently as it should be. Expect a refresh in the near future._

[http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=10747654&sid=128...](http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=10747654&sid=128815&tid=153)

Then they were accused of censoring a picture of Egyptian striker Mohammad Aboutrika's goal celebration where he revealed a T-shirt with the message "Sympathize with Gaza". Matt Cutts had to write a blog entry debunking this claim.

[http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/debunking-a-misconception- plus...](http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/debunking-a-misconception-plus-a- reminder-of-how-search-engines-work/)

<comment><USER3> I'm happy to accept this as the correct explanation, and I'm in no hurry to assign petty motives to Google over this, but in your last link, Matt Cutts says "it can take a few days between when an image appears and when its crawled by the Googlebot." And by "a few days," he appears to literally mean less than a week.

But it's been almost a full month since the WWDC keynote, and nearly two weeks since customers have been posting a barrage of iPhone 4 pictures to the web. So I'm doubtful that Google Images' delayed refresh rate is a sufficient explanation.

Edit: In response to your reply below, you might be right. I've only tried a few searches, but images of major events from the past month seem hard to come by. A search for 'Galaxy S' does give some results from within the past month (the first result was from June 23), as does a search for 'Kindle graphite' (July 2), but presumably refreshes aren't comprehensive. Still, a month-long refresh rate is really surprising. If you need to find images from a recent event, Google Image search may be practically useless.

<comment><USER4> There are tons of iPhone 4 pictures, such as the gizmodo picture re-leaked onto thenextweb, etc.:

[http://www.google.com/images?q=iphone+4&hl=en&safe=o...](http://www.google.com/images?q=iphone+4&hl=en&safe=off&prmdo=1&tbs=isch:1&sa=N&start=160&ndsp=20)

The more popular results reflect a linking pattern that's from then (mostly linking to the curved Macbook Air style fake iPhone 4), rather than now (linking to the released phone).

<comment><USER3> Ah right, sounddust's comment framed me into thinking there were _no_ pictures of the iPhone 4 (searchable with the terms 'iPhone 4'), despite previous commenters pointing out they appear after several pages of results. Sorry about that.

But it does mean sounddust's explanation is incorrect, since this isn't a matter of _whether_ 'iPhone 4'-searchable post-WWDC images are indexed. The question is why the images are buried beneath several pages of results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know this may sound crazy, but ever thought of using Bing? Web experience is pretty good too: <http://www.bing.com/search?q=iphone+4>

<comment><USER6> Why? Their image search isn't any better:

[http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=iphone+4&FORM=BIFD](http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=iphone+4&FORM=BIFD)

<comment><USER7> Actually it is. I found an iphone 4 image:

<http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/iphone4-giz.jpg>

Compared to the google search which got none.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Normally i nod knowingly and say, "No one appreciates how hard image search really is." But in this case, both Bing and Yahoo do much better. Usually Bing image search is better than google image search, but not by this much.

iPad images are similarly scarce. I wonder what's up? Could google really be this ham-fisted? I find it hard to believe, given that textual searches are not similarly obscured.

</comment><comment><USER9> There are some: [http://www.google.com/images?q=%2B%22iphone+4%22&hl=en&#...
Perhaps the "4" confuses Google.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This seems very strange to me. There are no Apple PR pictures or pictures taken by normal folks. On the second page of results there's a picture of a picture of the phone (at the keynote), but it's not until page six that there's actually a picture of the thing. And it's the stolen Gizmodo one at that.

Am I the only one that finds this really weird?

(Here's a screenshot, as I imagine this will change at some point: [http://cloudwalking.posterous.com/where-are-all-the- iphone-4...](http://cloudwalking.posterous.com/where-are-all-the- iphone-4-pictures))

<comment><USER10> Maybe in retaliation at Apple, Google applied their porn-filtering AI prowess to remove iPhone 4 off the face of Google Image Search?

</conspiracy>

(They start to appear after page 5 btw).

<comment><USER11> Or when you search for 'iphone4'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe an effect of SEO madness and the enormous hype surrounding everything iPhone?

</comment><comment><USER13> Google's image search is a very different beast to their text search. It isn't continually updated in the same way, instead they seem to do an update every month or so. It's 1 month since wwdc when images of iphone 4 appeared, so it's possible that they just haven't done an update in that time.

</comment><comment><USER14> IIRC image search updated way less frequently than search itself. If that is still true it may explain why there are "prototype" and "concept" images but not release images.

</comment><comment><USER15> Odd. There are on Yahoo image search:

[http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A9G_bDiWzT...](http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A9G_bDiWzTJM8mQAxsqJzbkF?p=%22iphone+4%22)

</comment><comment><USER16> Pretty interesting.. but there are a few results for "iphone four". [http://www.google.co.uk/images?&q=iphone+four](http://www.google.co.uk/images?&q=iphone+four). In the UK version the first image result is the iphone 4.

</comment><comment><USER17> At least it seems to me that Droid X has similar problems:

[http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=droid%20x&gbv=2...](http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=droid%20x&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi)

</comment><comment><USER18> Put the word Apple in front iPhone 4 and iPad. This will help your search.

</comment><comment><USER19> There are no iPad images either.

<comment><USER20> They start at the end of the first page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> ipad images are "blocked" (or at least they were when it was released) and it seems like they're doing the same with the iphone. Well, apple won't allow google ads in their apps anymore...</comment>


Ask HN: How do I make a lot of money quickly? - <AUTHOR> I'm a 22 year old software developer with nearly 2 years of experience in full-stack software development.  I'm pretty proficient in both frontend and backend technologies, and have built full web systems through to completion that are in production use today.
I have a lot of free time.  I'm young and single with no interest in relationships right now.  I'm looking for a way to make large amounts of money very quickly, and I need some ideas here.
Note: I do make pretty good money already, but my expenses/standard of living are also pretty high. :/
TL;DR : What are some good or creative ways to make a decent amount of money ($5k+) in a short amount of time? (1-3 months) <comment><USER2> It's easier to keep the money you earn than to earn more, and the discipline will provide long-lasting benefits. You'll be surprised to find that you can live with far less expenses without decreasing your standard of living. It will however require thought.

<comment><USER3> _" It's easier to keep the money you earn than to earn more"_

That's true in some cases and some circumstances, but not all. Apart from anything else, if there are things you want or need that cost more than you currently earn on a per-month basis, then it's definitely easier to earn more in order to be able to afford them.

There are also a number of circumstances where it's far easier to make more money than make more savings - for example, the very common "freelancer drastically undercharging" or "exemplary, beloved full-time employee who can probably get a raise just by asking" ones.

 _" the discipline will provide long-lasting benefits"_

Depends how you do it. In general I'd agree with you, but being excessively frugal can be just as damaging to your health and happiness, and that of your family, as being spendthrift.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _I 'm looking for a way to make large amounts of money very quickly, and I need some ideas here._

You've come to the right place.

 _I 'm pretty proficient in both frontend and backend technologies_

This is where you fall down. It's possible you are very amazing and nobody knows it yet. If so, you have an advantage — you can create something new and crush competitors before they know you're a threat. It's also possible you're in the "overestimating abilities" phase of a career. The best case here is to have _someone else_ tell you how good you are.

 _What are some good or creative ways to make a decent amount of money ($5k+) in a short amount of time? (1-3 months)_

Put all your money into Apple stock during rumor season.

Read and execute on affiliate marketing.

Read and execute on ebook publishing for in-demand niches.

Bake bacon fudge and sell it on the street corner for a profit.

Bake cake pops and sell them to offices for a profit.

Busk.

Get hired at a place with a sign-on bonus then flee the country after they pay it out.

Sell organs (yours and/or others).

Dance like nobody's watching, put it on youtube, enable ads.

</comment><comment><USER5> Are you handy with chemicals? Happen to own an RV?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good suggestion, but I'm looking for something a little more wholesome. Like a hired hitman.

<comment><USER6> You came to the right place. Why not raise a round with YC to disrupt the assassination industry?

I always thought they were making a killing.

If only you could take out the competition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hear the lottery pays out well. To make a lot of money quickly requires a lot of money to begin with. You have no interest in relationships? Some would say a relationship and the experience is worth far more than any amount of money.

</comment><comment><USER8> I know you write "no relationships" but maybe reconsider this.

Imo combine:

* low cost of living / fixed costs

* remote work for SF/Bay based companies (biggest delta in budgets vs talent available)

People tend to recommend "project based contract" work. Imo those attract people who want to pay less. Look for people who actually look for quality employees and are happy to pay global salaries. Combine this with a low cost of living and you have a good place to start with to save money.

eg $5k+ saving for a few months sounds reasonable if you compare it with "global salaries"

[https://angel.co/jobs#find/f!%7B%22locations%22%3A%5B%22Sili...](https://angel.co/jobs#find/f!%7B%22locations%22%3A%5B%22Silicon%20Valley%22%2C%22San%20Francisco%22%5D%2C%22remote%22%3Atrue%7D)

apart of that: you have a job that works in your resume and you might end up working on a project that becomes a big learning experience

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems to be a lot of no-content responses here which is a shame.

Realistically your best bet is to do consultancy/contracting work. With 2 years experience you could easily pick up a Jnr or Intermediate role at $40-80/hr. Over a month you'll have your 5K.

Pull 80 hour weeks on in-your-own-time contracts and you'll make it in a week.

You also need to cut living costs out entirely. If you wanted to go extreme, sell everything you own and live in your car, and take a free 7-day trial at every gym in your area over the next few months.

I did this before moving overseas for a few months, once a month I'd stay at a friends place for the weekend - definitely not for the faint of heart.

<comment><USER10> I don't know if I am being ripped off, I am currently working at a small company in BC, Canada, doing ASP.NET with some front-end (recent college grad, working full-time 9-5). My salary is ~37k/year. "With 2 years experience you could easily pick up a Jnr or Intermediate role at $40-80/hr" \- is it in the Valley?

<comment><USER11> Two years of mobile development (iOS and Android) experience in Montreal. I make less than you do.

Surely that's a Valley thing.

<comment><USER9> The pay in my city is relatively low compared to other cities worldwide.

I'd expect at least 50K USD in a major city if no longer junior-level, anything less and I would prefer to contract/bootstrap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would think the best way would be to start out with a large sum of money and invest it conservatively. If the initial sum is large enough, your investments will yield a lot of money quickly.

Do you have access to a large sum of money?

<comment><AUTHOR> If I did, I probably wouldn't be asking how to make money quickly.

<comment><USER12> Well you should have stated that clearly in the initial prompt, I'm not in the business of making assumptions.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're correct. I meant my response as tongue in cheek, though that didn't really translate well in text, my apologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "I'm looking for a way to lose large amounts of money very quickly"

Fixed that for you.

Any scheme to maximize wealth over time with minimal risk has already been exploited. When you open yourself up to large gains in a short time you also take on large risks. Ain't no rewards without risk. And if there are they get drained really quickly.

Sorry if it sounds age-ist or judgmental, but at 22 maybe you haven't quite realized how long human civilizations and markets have been around, how many smart people have worked their whole lives to maximize their reward versus risk ratios.

</comment><comment><USER14> Reduce your cost of living. Simplest and most direct approach that is easy for you to control. Penny saved is a penny earned and all that.

<comment><USER15> This can be a good approach, but it's fundamentally limited. If your living expenses are $X/month, the biggest increase you can get by reducing expenses is $X/month.

OTOH, if you focus on producing something, you can potentially achieve $X*BIGNUM/month

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Bet on the winners of sporting events.

(Note: This works best if you have previously picked up a sports almanac from the future.)

</comment><comment><USER3> What you're suggesting is perfectly doable, apart from the "very quickly" bit.

Making $5k a month shouldn't be too hard, but almost all of the ways to do it have ramp-up time. Becoming a specialised contractor, starting a business of one kind or another, going down the usual Internet Marketing routes (which _do_ work if you put the time in) - they'll all get you considerably beyond $5kpm, but none of them are really doable in a 3 month window.

If you're really serious about doing this, commit a year at least and start learning.

(BTW, you have read "The Four Hour Work Week", right? If not, definitely have a read.)

<comment><USER17> Could you expand on the "usual" internet marketing routes? What would be some good places for a beginner to start?

<comment><USER3> SEO, paid traffic affiliate marketing, infoproducts, SaaS, viral / social media-led stuff, paid blogging - those are the usual routes that spring to mind. Some cross over.

Good places to start learning:

"Four Hour Work Week", as mentioned, and Tim Ferriss' blog. "The $100 Startup" \- book. Smart Passive Income - blog Viperchill - blog ProBlogger - blog. Ignore the guest posts, read stuff by the founder Darren Rowse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There are literally millions of micro-niches online where spending x will yield x per month, fairly consistenly. Just find these, and scale.

For example: Udemy courses. I have one that does $3,500 a month on the high end, and about $500 a month on the low end. I know a guy who gets about the same average but has created roughly 40 courses. He, as you can imagine, makes a little more than $5k a month.

Btw, my investment in the course was no more than $200 total. Plus of course about 20 hours of my time.

<comment><USER19> What are the courses on? Could you elaborate a bit more on what you provide for the X / month? Do you make 20 videos and then put them on? Do you have to grade their homework?

<comment><USER20> I too would am curious to know

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Pick up some local nights & weekend work on Craiglist. You want $5k in 2 months, that means you need to charge $50/hour and work 15 hours/week for 7 months.

</comment><comment><USER22> Switch jobs. About 2 years experience is a good time for a switch. You probably won't find a $5k/month raise, but you might get a $5k/3 month raise.

<comment><USER9> Seeing as this is his/her first job, it'll likely be a 50%ish pay bump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think you should probably clarify how much you don't want to work a regular job (Seems like the simplest way to make that amount of money in that time)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually I'm looking for the income in addition to my regular job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I remember this feeling. If I could go back and teach myself anything it would be the power of saving. You already said yourself you make good money.

</comment><comment><USER25> Rent a place and airbnb it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Do contract development work for contractor pay.

</comment><comment><USER27> Negotiate for a signing bonus, this used to be very common and $5k is not unreasonable, though you may need to increase that to account for your tax situation.

</comment><comment><USER28> Get a job and live minimally? $5k take-home is about $75k/yr.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have a job, struggle to live minimally when I have about $2k in expenses that I'm locked into.

<comment><USER29> This sounds like a choice. Get out of that situation. Sell your car. Pay off debt. Get roommates. Stop eating out.

For someone your age, reducing fixed costs should be fairly easy, but still require some life changes that will be uncomfortable at first.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually the reason I'm looking to make money is to get out from under this car lease that I mistakenly took on, and have enough for first+last months rent and a security deposit at a new, more affordable place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> do freelancing. offer to build MVPs. Build some websites and try selling them

</comment><comment><USER31> Speculate in stocks and commodities

<comment><USER32> That's also a great way to lose a lot of money quickly.

<comment><USER31> Yup , thats true ... The stock market is basically like a casino. You can go broke or get fabulously rich speculating in stocks like George Soros</comment></comment></comment>