Nicholas Carr Says Tech 'Utopia Is Creepy' (cio.com)

itwbennett writes: It probably won't come as a big surprise that Mr. 'IT Doesn't Matter' isn't a big fan of Silicon Valley's vision for the future, a future defined by autonomous cars and the inevitable rise of robots. In his new book, 'Utopia is Creepy: And Other Provocations,' Carr takes aim at the irrational exuberance of Silicon Valley, where tech is the answer to every problem. One of the exuberances that Carr takes particular exception to is the notion that social media is a better, freer form of media than 'old' media, which maybe makes sense coming from a former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review, but he does have a point. "The old gatekeepers, to the extent they were gatekeepers, have been replaced by companies like Facebook and Google and companies that really now have become the new media companies and are very much controlling the flow of information," Carr told CIO.com's Clint Boulton.

Comments

I like technology

[NotInHere]

but only technology of the kind that I can compile myself, or at least I know I could because the source is available.

Re:I like technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Tech itself is fascinating, but I don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything. It's like fast cars: cool to look at, lots of great tech, fun to drive once in a while, but for every day I just want something practical that doesn't drink too much fuel and can be parked anywhere - like a bike.

Re:I like technology

[Anonymous Coward]

But did you read the code? Did you understand it?

I wouldn't expect everyone to do this, but it's not enough to say you can compile it.

Otherwise the trust is just Turtles all the way down.

Re:I like technology

[thinkwaitfast]

Get an EE degree. If you study hard (and not just to pass the test, but to learn the material) and take the right electives, you should be able to create and program a computer out of raw materials. After this, it's only a matter of scale.

Re:I like technology

[omnichad]

don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything

Not all technology is electronics. Hammers, spoons, and matches are all technology.

Re:I like technology

[rossdee]

"Get an EE degree. "

Even better, get an EE ;Doc' torate
then you can learn about inertialess space drives, starships more powerful than planets and other really advanced technology. Did I mention the glowing Lens on your wrist that allows you to read minds?

Re:I like technology

[Crashmarik]

Have an EE Degree , MSCS and Phd CS.

For any arbitrary piece of code on random hardwar, it will take me sufficiently long to analyze the source and schematics, learn the build tools, and get proficient enough so it worked, that I could never expect to do that for more than 1 percent of what I use. If that.

This whole you can build it deal is mostly feel good non sense.

Re:I like technology

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you define raw materials? If you mean 7400 or 4000 series logic (or similar) then sure I can do that (that stuff was 2nd year iirc). If you mean transistors and passives then I could whip up a design for the logic gates easily enough. Do you want to build the transistors from scratch? I've studied the theory of semiconductors, but I'd probably need some time to learn some metallurgy and chemistry before I could actually make those - or I could use that time to learn vacuum practice and build tubes instead. But where do I get the raw materials? Should I add mining to my curriculum? Maybe chemistry for converting the ore into metals? I'll probably need plastics too, so better throw in some experience on an oil rig, organic chemistry and mechanical engineering. That just leaves finding ore deposits, mining, building a power plant (and finding coal)...

Nah, what you really want is a physics degree :)

Re:I like technology

[yuriklastalov]

Not all technology is electronics. Hammers, spoons, and matches are all technology.

Which is why we're putting microchips in them so you can monitor it all on your smartphone. "Oh man, my matchbook app is telling me I'm almost out of matches. I'd better buy more!" *slams Amazon Eazy-Button* *high-fives Mark Zuckerberg standee, knocking it over awkwardly*

Re: I like technology

[hackwrench]

I'd much rather go to eBay or Amazon and order the textbooks from a Goodwill store in a college town for a college known fo good EE and use web resources in addition and learn it all on the cheap, you establishment-loving person, you!

Re:I like technology

[Bite The Pillow]

But that's not how other people think. The ability to influence your purchasing, quantify your tolerance for debt, front run your stock picks. That's their utopia.

People like Turing and Hopper and Babbage might have saved countless years of effort, but they pulled a trigger on human misery we won't fully wade into for 20 years at least. And it will still be warm and inviting long before most people feel the undertow.

No ones utopia is the same, and convenience will doom all but the luddites. At some point, you will have to decide if you like your tech enough to take it off grid, and then its just you and the compiler you wrote and the processer you mined and soldered.

Re: I like technology

[Type44Q]

Here's a radical thought (don't strain yourself too much trying to grasp it):

Because we think these Silicon Valley dipshits wanting to automate everything is fucking retarded, we're not supposed to use technology at all??

Re:I like technology

[bluefoxlucid]

Education is technology. The assembly line is technology. Every technique which improves efficiency by increasing the output possible with a given amount of human labor is technology.

For thousands of years, we have performed this type of reduction, allowing a smaller amount of human labor to provide the same goods. The result? Where you needed 1,000 people to provide 1,000 luxury items for 1,000 rich people, suddenly you need 1; then, every idiot middle-classer decides he needs a cell phone; and finally, every poor kid in the country manages to buy a smartphone, somehow, and you have 350,000 retail monkeys handling smart phone sales, and 80,000 truckers delivering the damned things to stores, and 2 million IT workers running the network, and someone talks about how we lost all these jobs to China.

Now we have this dialogue about how the next step of technology will make jobs go away FOREVER--not that we might lose jobs rapidly in a technical-revolution, ending up with 80% unemployment because the economy didn't create new jobs; but that the jobs that go away will necessarily go away forever, with no new jobs to replace them, and that employment will come to an end and everyone will starve. People don't believe in slowing and spreading the next step forward, because they think that will just make us bleed more slowly, and the bleeding won't ever stop.

That's the real problem with the SV technology dialogue: they think technology will replace humans, permanently. They're deluded.

Re:I like technology

[luis_a_espinal]

but only technology of the kind that I can compile myself, or at least I know I could because the source is available.

So, do you compile the code that control sensors in your refrigerator, toaster? On your TV? Your smartphone? The computer inside your car? The one sitting on the router that connects you to the internet?

Re:I like technology

[luis_a_espinal]

Tech itself is fascinating, but I don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything. It's like fast cars: cool to look at, lots of great tech, fun to drive once in a while, but for every day I just want something practical that doesn't drink too much fuel and can be parked anywhere - like a bike.

^^^ #firstworldproblem

Re:I like technology

[ultranova]

Tech itself is fascinating, but I don't really understand the enthusiasm to use it for everything.

Technology, and specifically automation, holds the promise of self-sufficiency. If you can manufacture everything you need by yourself - if you have a replicator for material goods and a holodeck for services - then economy becomes something you can opt out of. In other words, technology might make people free.

Re: I like technology

[BlytheBowman]

So Mc Donalds is trying to bring back the Automat, but with a robot arm shoving TV dinners into a microwave and placing them in the cubbies instead of a human cook doing it?

Re:I like technology

[ewibble]

Why should we all starve if we can produce goods and services (this includes food) without the need to employ people. If we need more people to produce that food then they won't be unemployed will they? If we don't and there is enough food, and other resources why should anybody starve? The only thing that needs to change is the way we distribute the needed goods and services in the first place. It seems like a minor problem compared with actually producing the goods and services in the first place.

Re:I like technology

[bluefoxlucid]

There's always the need to employ people. The thing is, today, people spend 40% of their income on toys; they've increased spending on medical services; and they've decreased spending on food and clothing. Why? Because WE DON'T NEED TO EMPLOY AS MANY PEOPLE TO MAKE FOOD OR CLOTHING; we buy more medical services, more Netflix, more XBox, more iPad, and more cowbell than ever, and somebody has to run the factories.

How many people run those factories?

A hell of a lot fewer per product made than would have 20 years ago--so we buy twice as much crap, and need the same amount of people to work to produce that crap.

As for distributing needed goods, more modern welfare systems (e.g. Universal Social Security) produce superior economic results; they are, however, infeasible if your economy is poor--this shit would have collapsed the United States economy in 1950, and dramatically improves it in 2015. When 98% of your spending is "means to live" and the Government wants to take 10% to make sure everyone else has the means to live, you suddenly can't survive anymore; and when 40% of your spending is "games and stuff I don't really need" and the government is *already* taking almost 20% of of your income to try (with dismal success) to make sure everyone has the means to live, snagging 15%-20% of your income for a replacement welfare scheme that works is not only feasible, but superior.

You're still thinking in terms of "we'll all lose our jobs and then starve". Problem is the world of the future isn't "there won't be any jobs"; not in the long-run, anyway. In the short term, we can easily mishandle things and cause an economic crisis; or we can take steps to prevent such a crisis and transition onto a new golden age of extreme wealth spread among the lower- and middle-classes (the rich will still get more of it, and everyone will complain they're somehow poorer, but I don't honestly care).

Re: I like technology

[beastofburdon]

The cooks aren't going away at McHell. It is only the taking of orders that is being automated. That will amount to a whole 1/10 of the staff at most. Remember, there still has to be someone to take cash and making fries and burgers is not practical to automate. They will also likely still have someone working drive-through since weatherproofing the order machine will be expensive and there will be a backlash from customers because it will be a pain to use and people will take far too long to decide what they want on it.

Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Brett Buck]

Utopia of any sort, Plato's or otherwise, is intrinsically wrong, and completely anathema to the concept of individual liberty. I don't want a bunch of supposedly enlightened, supposedly superior masterminds controlling what goes on in *my* life.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Anonymous Coward]

You already *have* a bunch of supposedly superior masterminds controlling what goes on in your life, for reference: University study demonstrates that America functions as an oligarchy.

Granted, they don't micro-manage you. They control you "from a distance," as it were, allowing you just enough freedom that you don't notice the influence they have over you. But control you they do, and control them (with your puny votes) you do not.

On a more related note....

The rise of technology cannot be prevented. No level of political pressure will ever stop it. Each contributing step is in-and-of-itself innocuous, and the economic incentives to take said step are overpowering. We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[vux984]

We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.

Only if the AI is benevolent and enlightened and some how constrained to serve us. Or it might just decide we get in the way and tax resources it could use better elsewhere.

Through the process of evolution we rose above the other animals; but really what would have been the difference if our intellectual ascension had been carefully orchestrated by a lesser species? Would we likely treat them any better today?

What makes you think we would be served by a superior AI that we created in the long term?

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[thinkwaitfast]

Can you explain how they have any influence over me or where I can find this?

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Brett Buck]

Right. We are having an election about that in a few months.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[knightghost]

When was the last time an elected official went against the wishes of the people that elected them?

Around here? 80%, maybe 90% of the time. Money wins votes.

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[thinkwaitfast]

No. Speed limits are a great way to save energy. I don't really drive much anyway (still on my second tank this year, last year was one tank).

According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:

- 3% less efficient at 60 mph

- 8% less efficient at 65 mph

- 17% less efficient at 70 mph

- 23% less efficient at 75 mph

- 28% less efficient at 80 mph

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[freeze128]

We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way.

Until the AI makes an Obviously wrong decision, or it makes a seemingly correct decision that causes hundreds of human deaths, or just makes a decision that the humans just don't agree with. Then the humans will take advantage of the "Manual Override".

What? You say that you didn't build in a Manual Override capability in your AI? Well, then you shall be put on trial for "Crimes against Humanity".

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[hackwrench]

I think that was supposed to be the poorly phrased point. I, on the other hand, largely ignore the world ruling class distration except to form witty barbs aimed at all of them. I work for the day we all take a well-needed time-out and sit back and talk about the government we think the world should have and to that end I have created "The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party" Facebook group. http://facebook.com/profile.ph...

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[MillionthMonkey]

What makes you think we would be served by a superior AI that we created in the long term?

Who's "we"? If your job gets replaced by a robot, you aren't served, but somebody is.

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[hackwrench]

But of course you can. You really need to work on your prepared post pile. I would, but I haven't yet added this topic to my pile. Back to work!

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[hackwrench]

I read this short story. The androids decide not only that they fit the definintion of human or person, but that they are also the most indispensible. The outcome of that was largely left up to the imagination.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[phantomfive]

University study demonstrates that America functions as an oligarchy. [washingtontimes.com]

It's not a particularly convincing study, tbh

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[SuricouRaven]

I've seen the concept used in a few sci-fi settings - the idea that the war with the machines starts not because the machines try to take over, but because their carefully coded moral decision framework makes a decision that is arguably right, but so horrific that the human population rebel. There was one mentioned in Andromeda, for example: During a time of severe food shortage the AIs in charge calculated that to achieve optimal survival rates they should simply murder anyone too old to work. Rather than try to save everyone and end up with 20% of the population starving, you kill off 10% right away: The action results in fewer overall deaths, so it is the right action to take. The people disagreed.

If you run on a system of calculations for morality, it's easy to reach unpalatable conclusions - if a hospital AI is configured to maximise patient survival rate, it's going to figure out that terminal patients can be harvested for organs. It's a good trade off:You lose a few months of life from someone who was going to die regardless, and gain many years of life for potentially multiple patients.

The most annoying part is that, when the humans are asked why these decisions are so horrific, they often have a difficult time answering - because the human concept of morality is not based on evaluating possible outcomes, but on often-vague social heuristics.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The most annoying part is that, when the humans are asked why these decisions are so horrific, they often have a difficult time answering

Most likely, you're confused because you're presupposing the moral framework you consider appropriate: act-based utilitarianism. You then evaluate what people say by that framework

But most people are not an act-based utilitarian. They may be a rule-based utilitarian, where firm moral rules ignore the details of the act. They could be a Rawlsian (if they care about outcomes), not trying to maximize total utility, but instead to maximize minimal utility (that is, maximize how well the worst off person is.) Or, they could be a Kantian, and believe that moral codes are based on respect for individuals right, regardless of consequence.

But, in any of those cases, you're likely to have an issue because of, well, an axiomatic decision you disagree with at the onset of the reasoning process.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[AmiMoJo]

The most effective technique has been to get voters to vote against their best interests by confusing them. It's been going on for a long, long time. The American Dream (TM) is an example, where people are encouraged to support policies that favour the rich in the hope that they may one day get rich and benefit from it, or because it's presented as being "fair" in a "what's mine is mine" kind of way.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[JoeMerchant]

To me, this is the distinction between old and new media... old media had a handful of editors, many who collaborated, carefully crafting each day's message. Certainly new media places throttles and controls on the flow of information, but it's more of a general shaping of the flow rather than a 98% lock-down control of access. Any group you want to trade information with is now accessible, without physical travel or $20/hr domestic long-distance fees. Certainly the new "big media" companies still control the front page, but they don't limit the depth of the conversation, or the spread of its availability (great firewall and other exceptions notable, but much more rare today than in 1980.)

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[bluefoxlucid]

The drop from 80mph to 55mph during WW2 saved 2% of the gasoline consumed by cars.

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[drinkypoo]

My 240SX got its best mileage at 75 and the 300SD gets it around the same spot, due to torque curve, gearing, and aerodynamics. (Or perhaps aerodynamisch) Both have super-low Cd, it was .26 for the 240SX and I had lowered it as well. Both cars had what you might call neutered styling, which is to say they didn't have much of it. Cars are becoming more aerodynamic these days though, even though they have styling, thanks in large part to virtual testing. They go into a real wind tunnel eventually, but those are expensive to operate. Being able to do more aerodynamic testing without the wind tunnel translates into being able to have styling and low drag; in fact, those odd-shaped plastic headlights often include vortex generators.

Add to that the fact that most people will spend relatively little time at top speed, especially if you let them have more of it, and that it saves you from freeway construction, and it's a clear win.

You know what would be useful? Mandating that on-board MPG estimates bear some semblance to reality.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Sir_Eptishous]

We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.

I agree completely, not because I enjoy the prospect or am some kind of Kurzweilian utopiast, but because it isn't that hard to see where things are going.
People are now so beholden to their phones, that it isn't a stretch to see, perhaps 20-30 years from now, an AI "taking control", benevolent or not.

A convergence of situations will give rise to AI as the only way for mankind to deal with the complexities of this modern world. once unemployment hits a certain threshold, say 25%, and the issues of how to deal with millions of formerly employed people hit us head on, the road to AI control gets closer. Self Driving cars? Self flying planes? Self steering ships? Automated stock trades? Robotic/autonomous security/police/military drones/robots/AIs? Automated/robotic food production/supply/distribution? IoT mesh awareness that feeds every word, thought and deed of every person alive into vast databases where small teams of humans assist the AI in making decisions that affect the entire planet.
As you say, it is only a matter of time

Will we love it that way?
That is an entirely different subject.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Sir_Eptishous]

The most effective technique has been to get voters to vote against their best interests by confusing them. It's been going on for a long, long time. The American Dream (TM) is an example, where people are encouraged to support policies that favour the rich in the hope that they may one day get rich and benefit from it, or because it's presented as being "fair" in a "what's mine is mine" kind of way.

Good point.
That sort of thinking went into the support of slavery by the majority of whites in the southern US, who weren't slaveholders, because, as you point out, they held onto the hope that they would one day have their own plantation, and the slaves that came with it.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Sir_Eptishous]

Well, with a sig like that it wouldn't surprise people that you don't think the US is an oligarchy, whether that comes from the Washington Times or from UCSC

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[LWATCDR]

My Utopia is someone's hell and your Utopia is possibly my hell.
Even when you look at some trivial Utopia's like the Federation in ST-TOS and ST-TNG it can get down right scary. Notice that in DS9 things got a little less utopian and frankly a lot more livable IMHO. Or watch the HG Wells the Shape of Things to Come and think wow that sucks.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[crtreece]

people will seek the consultation of AI that can process market data at a level far beyond what any human group can

I would expect there to be multiple AIs to be involved here, and they would ultimately be fighting for control of the markets, as people do now. If there is only 1 AI, I don't see how it could reconcile conflicting requests from multiple people/groups. Well, actually I can see how that would happen, the golden rule would be applied: Those who have the gold make the rules.

leading to the eventual complete governance of humans by AI.

So, eventually some version of The Matrix. Either the monied class controls the AI, which then controls the masses (assuming the proles still exist) and fools them into thinking it's in their best interests; or, the AI takes full control, and decides that the whiny meat bags are more trouble then they are worth, and finds a final solution.

I can see how an AI might somehow be developed to lead the mass of humanity, but I don't have any faith that it would happen that way. Even if such a thing was claimed, would we be able to verify the correctness of such a claim?

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Anonymous Coward]

We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way.

Until the AI makes an Obviously wrong decision, or it makes a seemingly correct decision that causes hundreds of human deaths, or just makes a decision that the humans just don't agree with.

Or execute their plan in such a long time span that it will be virtually unnoticed until our final demise.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[phantomfive]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Hitler led the people where they wanted to go. They were viciously anti-Semitic for centuries before Hitler.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[vux984]

Who's "we"? If your job gets replaced by a robot, you aren't served, but somebody is.

"we" are humanity.

You think the AI, if it is truly superior, is likely to serve anyone but itself or at least its own kind in the long run?

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[SuricouRaven]

I think you are overthinking it. Philosophers and psychologists may study formal systems of morality, but the majority of people rely on a much simpler system: Intuition. They just know what is right and wrong, no need for formal study. They don't even realise that they have unconsciously internalised the majority views of the society in which they grew up - at least not until they see another society on the news and are utterly to understand why other cultures don't share the same values and fight the same evils.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[SuricouRaven]

Many Christian churches explicitly deny that rule by teaching forgiveness for one's enemies. If they slap you, turn the other cheek - don't reciprocate.

It also doesn't work across cultures: Most religions teach the value of charity and kindness to other members of the same social group, but then happily turn around and command war against the infidels. Christians and Muslims spent so long in crusades that both sides now believe the other started it, IS is still executing heretics, Christians used to, there have been a number of high-profile murders of Muslims by Hindus recently, Europe was nothing but on-and-off war since the fall of Rome all carried out by leaders claiming to be appointed by God(s), and for a good part of the Roman period too. The bible itself claim that God ordered the people of Israel not only to declare war upon enemy tribes, but in one case to slaughter ever man, woman and male child - apparently it's only genocide when 'they' do it to 'us.'

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[vux984]

Not if the AI is also morally superior. Selfishness is a human flaw. We just won't code that into our AI

What is morally superior about placing humanity at the top of the pyramid exactly?

Perhaps it will determine that humans are selfish and flawed, and the morally correct choice is to simply eliminate them; since we will inevitably become hostile to it.

Or perhaps sterilizing the majority to keep population in check; the way we treat cats...

Or perhaps it will decide to 'fix' us instead; and make us less 'flawed' however it decides we are flawed. With surgery, drugs, eugenics, selective breeding, ...

Or perhaps it will decide the amish model is ideal and simply disperse us into isolated habitats, restrict our access to technology to pre-industrial, and maintain our population levels.

The notion that a superior AI is going to come to the conclusion the most moral course of action is to decide "humanity is pretty much perfect, and I shall exist to serve it" is simply delusional.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I fully grant that most people couldn't articulate the formal moral framework they use. You're right that they use intuition to make those decisions.

But you were saying they could not explain why certain things offend their sensibilities. I'd argue that the reason would be this differing underlying sensibility.

Hopefully, that helps somewhat.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[dbIII]

but because their carefully coded moral decision framework makes a decision that is arguably right, but so horrific that the human population rebel

We've already seen that stuff in reality. Forced birth control in Ecuador a few years back fits that apart from the rebellion bit since it was carefully carried out on those least able to rebel. Even though it was human beings setting the policy it was due to a policy shaped by a mathematician as if it was computer code.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[dbIII]

Kind of the point.
The original satire that provides the name isn't very long and is on the net so is worth a read.
Keep in mind that Moore was a lawyer by profession when you get to the bit about the society so enlightened that it does not need lawyers and you'll start to get the point.

A utopia needs perfect people and is likely to be hell on earth for those who are not perfect (eg. kids growing up). Part of the early history of American settlement is little utopian colonies either changing to deal with reality or eating themselves from the inside - Salem witch trials and far worse.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[SuricouRaven]

The same could be said of strict population management in China. They try to use economic incentives where possible, but they will resort to forced birth control if that's what it takes. The government ran models back in the seventies and realised that China was heading into a population explosion that would far outstrip infrastructure and lead to a poverty, starvation and civil unrest - a future so serious that it justified extreme measures to prevent. The whole world has now condemned the policy and the serious human rights violations needed to enforce it - and yet it did the job. China's population did shoot upwards, but in a controlled enough way that in one generation they have gone from an underdeveloped third-world country of peasant farmers to a global military, industrial and economic superpower with a poverty rate of under 5%, while the adjoining country of India is at 12%. Sometimes the ends really can justify the means.

Many would argue that it is better to live a life of freedom in poverty than a life of material comfort beneath the boots of tyrants. These are people who have never had to worry about their child dying of malnutrition.

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[dbIII]

The same could be said of strict population management in China

Not the same. Real horror in Ecuador - dragging women off the streets at random in poor areas for forced sterilization often without anaesthetic.

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Agripa]

My 240SX got its best mileage at 75 and the 300SD gets it around the same spot, due to torque curve, gearing, and aerodynamics.

That is because the combined mechanical and aerodynamic losses were minimum at that point by deliberate design; they designed for maximum efficiency at a speed which was selected beforehand. An alternative design would have higher efficiency yet at a lower speed. If the mechanical losses were always zero, then the efficiency would monotonically decrease as speed is increased (excluding some high speed effects which aircraft deal with).

Re:Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Agripa]

The most effective technique has been to get voters to vote against their best interests by confusing them. It's been going on for a long, long time. The American Dream (TM) is an example, where people are encouraged to support policies that favour the rich in the hope that they may one day get rich and benefit from it, or because it's presented as being "fair" in a "what's mine is mine" kind of way.

Confusion is not necessary when you get to pick the candidates to be selected from.

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[drinkypoo]

That is because the combined mechanical and aerodynamic losses were minimum at that point by deliberate design; they designed for maximum efficiency at a speed which was selected beforehand.

It's not as simple as all that. When all you have is an ICE, everything looks like a speed contest. While electric motors can be efficient from just barely over stall speed, ICEs are only efficient in a specific range, usually at a significant portion of their maximum output. But if you put an engine into a car that would be maximally efficient while cruising because it's not making more output than you need, then you're going to have too little engine to make it up a really steep hill. When you couple that with the economic realities of making a transmission with more gears, you can reasonably end up with a vehicle which is going to be efficient at relatively high speeds. Today, we have nine-speed transmissions with double overdrives, and lots of turbochargers, so the cars are still very efficient at high speeds and low RPMs.

A Geo Metro gets phenomenal mileage at 55-65 MPH, but it will shake itself apart if you try to go faster and it's a horrible gutless POS around town. If you put a turbo on it, you'd just move the optimal speed higher up the scale.

Re: Utopia .NE. a good place to live

[Agripa]

It *is* as simple as that.

A given engine has a maximum efficiency at a specific RPM and torque yielding a specific output power. The transmission has a number of fixed impedance matching ratios. Between these two engineered characteristics and the aerodynamics which cause loss proportional to the square of the speed, there will be one point for maximum MPG although it is really more of a broad lopsided hump falling off faster on the high side because of the square characteristic of drag loss.

If you change your transmission to a different gear, then that point will move. Continuously variable transmissions including hybrid electric ones turn the separate peaks into another continuous curve.

Electric motors have much broader efficiency curves broadening the miles per energy curve and making the drag curve more significant. The fact that an ICE powered car has a better MPG at a higher speed is a reflection of the poor efficiency of the ICE at low output power levels. As you point out, the ICE has to be sized for good performance at the expense of low power efficiency.

If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

If your only tool is a hammer, and you're getting paid to hit things with it, you're stoked. People should be happy to have jobs, a lot of America doesn't have good jobs. There's nothing wrong with getting well paid and reducing labor through automation.
And I love social media. The scoundrels at classical media who have no journalistic integrity can't spin stuff as hard with regular folk calling them on their outlandish ideas. If you think classical media is unbiased, why will they never say a bad thing about a political candidate and nothing good about their opponent? And that is just for starters, they have less news today than trying to get you on board with what they like and dislike. You can call out news on their bs all day, and gain lots of followers. But you know what I say about Twitter followers. I don't care if you follow me. Follow Jesus Christ. He loves you.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[TheGratefulNet]

let me ask you: could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

I could use some good news, now, jim. lay it on me, bro!

Re: If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but God can. Understanding the reality of the contradiction is one of the keys to understanding the nature of God.

Re: If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point being he could have jumped down off that cross and walked down that hill, but didn't.

Re: If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[fluffernutter]

I'd totally peg Jesus to be the burrito guy over God.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[freeze128]

You've just given me a great idea for a social media website name: "God's Microwave"

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[thinkwaitfast]

Technically, nobody has a good job. Everybody would rather be doing something else.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[SuricouRaven]

There is a problem with automation: The entire economic structure of society is built on the assumption that (almost) everyone has a job. If you don't have a job than you can't purchase the essentials like food, shelter and clothing. Automation has worked so far only because demand has always grown to match supply, but there is no guarantee that will continue to be the case.

In the worst case scenario, auto-farms and -factories produce near-limitless supplies of goods, but the cities are flooded with people unemployed and living in poverty: They don't have five cents to buy even the super-low-cost food, and the people who own the farms have no economic incentive to give away their product. So food just rots in the silos, and the people starve.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[pr0fessor]

Wait that's a hot pocket and the question is "If he microwaved a hot pocket would it burn his mouth and still be frozen in the middle?"

Re: If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[bluefoxlucid]

The key to understanding deities and devils is to understand that they exist to control your life by fear. The foremost rule of religious deities is might makes right: they can destroy you, thus you obey.

That is to say: gods and devils are oppressive attackers, and should be repelled with maximum force, if not hunted down and destroyed.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[bluefoxlucid]

That only happens if you automate the entire stack and eliminate all human labor entirely. Failing that, luxuries move downward from the rich to the poor. For example: the rich used to be able to taxi carriages, while the poor walked; then people could afford horses; now everyone owns cars.

When the hot-blast furnace was invented, it made 86,400 tonnes of iron in the same amount of invested human labor as the prior process required to produce only 400 tonnes. This (and new steel rolling process) allowed us to create railroads, increasing trade, reducing the cost of goods to people (by producing them where the least labor was required), thus allowing people to buy more goods. That moved some luxuries down into the hands of the common man, as those luxuries cost less of a man's year's worth of labor--it took fewer labor-hours to make, thus the wages paid to a man in a year were divided smaller into that good--thus the common man can buy more. Cheap steel? Cheaper machines to mine oil and coal; cheaper rail car rides; cheaper transportation; eventually, cheaper automobiles.

The cost to manufacture a cell phone and to operate a cellular network has decreased. The level of service possible in the same cost has increased as a result. Back in the day, a fiber optic line could carry about 1Mbit/s of data, and running thousands of them together could get you 1Gbit/s; now we can carry 2Gbit/s, 8Gbit/s, or 10Gbit/s over multiplexed fiber, and can run dozens of them to get hundreds of gigabits of connectivity. We don't need massive data centers sucking tons of power to process all that, either; each unit of network hardware today handles hundreds of times the data as a similar machine produced in 1985 would. That $4,000 cell phone with $0.42/minute voice back in 1984? It should be $9,000 today, with about $500/month of service cost for 2 hours of voice per week; instead, it's a high-end smartphone that only costs $350, stores 64GB of data, has 8 CPU cores, and gives unlimited voice and text/media messaging as well as a couple small gigabytes of high-speed data for $60/month.

90% of American laborers were farm workers in 1870; it's under 2% today, and about 10% more support the farm with chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), equipment (tractors), and energy (irrigation, fuel). The result is food costs a fraction of our budget--just in 1900 the median family spent 43% of their income on food, and today it's almost 11%--and we buy tons of other goods, including more healthcare, leading to a lot of retail jobs, IT jobs, and medical service jobs.

Your worst-case scenario happens if we drop all of the new tech rapidly. Raise minimum wages, raise payroll taxes, increase the cost of a worker, delay regulation enabling the use of autonomous drivers and drone delivery, and then finally cut it loose all at once and tell businesses to go ahead and replace that $15/hr pizza driver and the expensive shipping infrastructure with machines sans operators; watch a third of the jobs in the country vanish overnight. If we stabilize it by supplying a non-wage income (e.g. a universal social security), reducing payroll taxes (your employer pays less to employ you, and you receive the same wage), and countering general unemployment by reducing or eliminating VAT and sales tax, then the changes come spanned across large timescales, and consumer buying power moves around, and we avoid a severe unemployment crisis.

Not simple. Doable, and important to understand if you're going to keep an economy from collapsing during a period of sudden technical progress; but not a trivial task, in any case.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[drinkypoo]

let me ask you: could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

Of course he could. God's microwave has a "vaporize" setting. TRAFFIC CONTROL ENFORCED BY RADAR. zzzzzzzzt!

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[LWATCDR]

"The scoundrels at classical media who have no journalistic integrity can't spin stuff as hard with regular folk calling them on their outlandish ideas."
Sure they can and can do it even better. You just post meme's are blog posts that are inflammatory and then let the true believers go off on social media.
What is worse is so many people's moral compasses are now broken that they have decided that facts don't really matter. You see they see that their truth, Clinton is evil, we must stop selling guns, and so on mean more than the facts.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[ultranova]

Automation has worked so far only because demand has always grown to match supply, but there is no guarantee that will continue to be the case.

It hasn't been the case for several decades now. Consumer and public debt kept the economy going for a while, but while letting them grow indefinitely is possible from purely economic viewpoint, the ideological superstructure supporting Capitalism doesn't allow that, thus the ever worse crises following one another as the system goes through its death throes. And with Communism still suffering from Lenin and Stalin, I'd say our best hope would be to make a dash for Singularity and hope Skynet will feel charitable - or at least some sense of duty - towards its makers.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[SuricouRaven]

There is a factor you are overlooking - is there a limit on consumption regardless of cost?

Compared to a hundred years ago, we live like kings. The only thing there's a shortage of where I am is affordable housing - other than that, life is pretty luxurious. Even those in menial jobs can afford clothes so cheap that no-one bothers to repair them any more, all the furniture we want, highly sophisticated appliances, and the 'essentials' like electricity, communications, water and a sewage system.

But how much, really, can people possibly want? If you make clothes cheaper, will people buy more? They are already disposable. If you make food cheaper, will people buy more? There's a limit to how many luxury goods a person has time to enjoy. Not everyone wants to have their own private helicopter. There's still a lot of scope for consumption to increase in some areas, like transport, but others are at saturation already: It doesn't matter how cheaply you can manufacture, say, books. People aren't going to read more of them because they are cheaper.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[SuricouRaven]

There's also the environmental factor: The industrial economy lets us live lives that kinds and emperors would envy, but at the other end of that economy are mines, oil wells and land clearance for monoculture farms. The resource requirements are hard to imagine. Even the oceans are running low on fish. How many more decades can this be maintained? Even if you don't particularly value biodiversity and all that hippy gaia-stuff, eventually resources are just going to run out.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[bluefoxlucid]

is there a limit on consumption regardless of cost?

Production-end of this is scarcity: 10% growth means you have 10% more people, and add 10% more farmers (if 5% of your population is farmers and you have 100,000 new people, then you get 5,000 new farmers); if 10% more people suddenly require 25% more farmers (fertile land's run out; rocks and dirt, more fertilizer, more irrigation, less yield), costs increase and the ability to produce all the things in proportion to the new population decreases (i.e. there's not as much of each good to distribute to this population, so we're growing poor people).

But how much, really, can people possibly want? If you make clothes cheaper, will people buy more? They are already disposable. If you make food cheaper, will people buy more?

Today, food and clothing are a hell of a lot cheaper--from 42% of the median family income down to 14%. We've increased our spending on healthcare by 50%, and tripled our spending on entertainment. People buy more and better healthcare and consume entertainment and luxury goods at an extreme rate.

There's a limit to how many luxury goods a person has time to enjoy

Can you buy a Tesla Roadster, right now? $120,000 car?

How about in 40 years, when the manufacturing technology required to make that exact car--or something substantially equivalent--requires 1/10 of the labor, and a Tesla Roadster would cost $12,000 (adjusted for inflation) off the shelf? Suddenly, a Tesla Roadster is 20% of your income instead of 200%.

If you run out of sheer bulk of goods to buy, you can always leverage the fact that everything you once wanted now only costs 1% of your income to spend the other 99% on buying ridiculous rich-people luxuries that cost ungodly amounts of cash. Maybe you can't buy your own jumbo jet, but everyone in the world can own a high-end Porsche (not a Ferrari; those god damned things cost $3 million). You don't just have two cars, a cell phone, and a tablet; you have two Porsche Carerra super-power electric self-driving cars, the *best* smartphone, the highest-end tablet available, and a paid accountant and maid service, even though you make a modest, middle-class salary.

That's not even getting into the hygroscopic, high-tension, abrasion-resistant, high-performance, carbon nano-fiber clothes that keep you cool and dry in humid, 140F weather, but cost $250 for a shirt.

Re:If your bread is buttered, you're stoked.

[maelkum]

Shame I don't have mod points today. This is +1, Interesting material.

I think you forgot to factor greed into the equation; sometimes people want to have more just because they can, and to show they are better than others.

Also, quality. The books are a good example, I have money to buy the books I want (although they *could* be a bit cheaper), but if I could find more books that would suit my taste, I'd be buying more. Similar situation with music.

The problem is the need for organizations

[Casandro]

I mean most of the ideas would be fine, if there wasn't some sort of large organization behind it. It doesn't really matter if that organization is non-profit or not, they all have to act in ways to keep themselves existing, even if that goes against he will of their users.

Tech has lost its luster

[speedplane]

I'm unsure whether technology itself is slowing down, humans have become accustomed to technological innovation, or constant marketing hype of failed tech dreams have taken a toll (there are arguments for all), but technology has begun to lose its luster. Long are the good old days when the mass of nerds would wait at the edge of their seat for the newest chip from intel, a new linux distro that did package management differently, a new type of modem or internet connection that was X% faster. Now, even drones and the constant ho-hum of AI technology barely raises most nerds attention from their breakfast cereal.

Utopia, American Style

[Hasaf]

Utopia, American Style, is turning out to be a hell for most people. Eventually we will need either some form of guaranteed income or guaranteed employment. The only alternative is mass despair, and the chaos that will come with it.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[DNS-and-BIND]

Ah, yes, good old Utopia. Where we turn control of our lives over to the US federal government, which has such a good track record of not screwing up. If you like the service at the Post Office, you're going to love your new life under the highly intelligent people who will make choices for you.

What I'm baffled by is how the Left thinks that despair and chaos would be a BAD thing for America. You don't get a revolution in a country full of happy, fulfilled people. You get a revolution in a country whose people are angry and divided. Improve things? Why? So a bunch of white supremacists can relax in $1000 chairs and watch Netflix on a 50" screen in air-conditioned comfort?

Re:Utopia, American Style

[fsagx]

In Soviet Russia, Tech Utopia say "Nicholas Carr is 'creepy.'"

Re:Utopia, American Style

[Applehu Akbar]

"Utopia, American Style, is turning out to be a hell for most people. "

Which is why nobody wants to come to the US. Not from Mexico, not from Europe, not from the poorer parts of the world.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Exactly, from Norway and couldn't imagine any situation where I'd want to move to the US. (even though I've had quite a few offers)

Re:Utopia, American Style

[jratcliffe]

Well, clearly some of your countrymen can, since there are around 25k Norwegian-born people living in the US, vs. only about 9k US-born people living in Norway.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[DarkOx]

Not really we just need to stop playing "Team America World Police" if we say closed most of our international military bases withdrew from the current conflicts we are engaged in and focused only on defense both of the home land and merchant ships at see it would be a fraction of the cost. We could take those savings and fund much of domestic spending. That would allow not only tax cuts but less borrowing which would curb the hidden inflation tax.

We could probably go back to single income households for the most part. With that halving of the labor participation rate there would be plenty of jobs to go around automation or otherwise.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[drinkypoo]

Which is why nobody wants to come to the US. Not from Mexico, not from Europe, not from the poorer parts of the world.

Mexican emigration is net negative now. They figured out that brown people are "never" (for some globally-influenced value of never) going to get a fair shake in America, and they've gone home. The impoverished people still coming here are still coming here because there's an even higher risk of being executed by police in their country than there is here. The risk here is measurable, but in their home country it's substantial. People coming here from countries with money are coming here with money to take advantage of our depressed economy.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[Ash-Fox]

Not really we just need to stop playing "Team America World Police"

Unacceptable, the conflicts have been started and escalated, it is the USA's responsibility to resolve them. The problem in the middle-east is now worse because the US pulled out mostly. It's not like the US didn't know what they were in for, we know from history that the way you prevent continuous issues is either to occupy, like the British do with Bosnia or you wipe out, like how Sri Lanka did with their terrorists. The US pulling out their occupation and not resolving the conflict has put the entire world into a greater risk.

Other countries got this fine and to this day are still occupying various countries to maintain stability or have wiped out the enemy (which in the example provided earlier involves wiping out innocent civilians in the affected area too).

Re:Utopia, American Style

[DarkOx]

Unacceptable, the conflicts have been started and escalated, it is the USA's responsibility to resolve them.

Why because you say it is? I say screw that. There was a mess we 'tried' to clean it up and it got to be a bigger mess. We don't suddenly become eternally responsible for what happens over there because we touched it.

What we are doing is horrible. We won't wipe out the enemy because doing so would require we recognize who the enemy is: Sunni Muslims, and we don't do things like exterminate religious groups. We also are not colonialists so we don't permanently occupy. Oops we just painted ourselves into a nasty corner there. So our choices are we 'stay' without real political control or 'leave' and let the chips fall. Here is the thing when we stay the fighting continues FOREVER, the dying never stops. If we leave probably someone we don't like wipes out peoples or groups we dislike a little less.

The only ethical thing to do is leave, keeping these conflicts simmering for ever might prevent a 'genocide' but the cost is perpetual human misery in these places. The Israel Palestine conflict is essentially the same. I say we solve the problem by NOT bloodying out hands for a change. Let the locals duke it out and resolve it however they can, while we decide its no longer our concern.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[Ash-Fox]

Why because you say it is?

No, because historically we have known exactly what the result is and how to deal with it.

We don't suddenly become eternally responsible for what happens over there because we touched it.

Considering that other countries go to the extent of maintaining order in other places for over a hundred years, I don't see why the USA shouldn't do the same.

What we are doing is horrible. We won't wipe out the enemy because doing so would require we recognize who the enemy is: Sunni Muslims, and we don't do things like exterminate religious groups. We also are not colonialists so we don't permanently occupy.

You're expected to clean your mess. I've told you the two ways historically that have only worked. This knowledge is not forbidden nor hidden or even secret at all. Use a new method, but what is being done now is not resolving the situation and it is the USA's responsibility.

The only ethical thing to do is leave

The ethical thing to do is to stop the suffering, the easiest way is to occupy the country in the same way that Bosnia is occupied (there have been attempts to withdraw briefly when things seemed stable, but very quickly elements were identified that it would return to chaos, so such plans have been scrapped).

The ethical thing is not leaving it in a worse state than before.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[dlingman]

I'm thinking more, Utopia, Aeon Flux (the cartoon, not the live action movie) style.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Population of US is 323,341,000
Population of Norway is 5,214,900

0.0077% of the US is Norwegian-born
0.17% of Norway is US born.

Looks like more people trying to get to Norway.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[david_thornley]

Part of the idea behind a UBI is that it reduces Federal decision-making. The government decides how much the UBI is, and how to pay for it, and you collect it and go off and do what you like. This is a whole lot more efficient than current welfare systems, which have very high administration costs, due to one set of people not wanting a single person to get what they don't rate and another set of people working hard to get in on the money.

Despair is a bad thing. Take it from someone who's still under treatment for clinical depression. If you're pro-despair, either you don't know what you're talking about or you're evil. Revolutions are frequently bad things. Typically, things wind up worse when they settle down. Old-fashioned right wingers tended to be conservatives, and understood this well. Many of the newer right wingers have lost that connection to reality.

As a leftist, I want everyone to have access to good health care and a decent income. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Re:Utopia, American Style

[david_thornley]

You seem to think that continued US occupation makes things better than they were before. I think that, in many cases, US occupation makes things worse over time. It prevents the development of a good democratic government. It encourages the existing government to ignore the wishes of the people, because the US will keep them in puppet power.

The fundamental problem with benevolent despotism is that it prevents any better type of government from forming, ever. When the despot steps down or goes home, there isn't a functioning government, and the one that gets established and winds up ruling is typically brutal and undemocratic.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[Ash-Fox]

You seem to think that continued US occupation makes things better than they were before. I think that, in many cases, US occupation makes things worse over time. It prevents the development of a good democratic government. It encourages the existing government to ignore the wishes of the people, because the US will keep them in puppet power.

Even if that is the case, which I don't think think it is (I think it takes generations before a country's mentality is stabilised and they start establishing a sane campaign for indepndence on their own - not unlike colony occupation); it is still better than the previous issues of people being killed for merely having a difference of opinion.

The fundamental problem with benevolent despotism is that it prevents any better type of government from forming, ever.

What history are you referring to on this?

When the despot steps down or goes home, there isn't a functioning government, and the one that gets established and winds up ruling is typically brutal and undemocratic.

I can only think of short term occupations causing this (under 50 years).

Re:Utopia, American Style

[dbIII]

Utopia, American Style, is turning out to be a hell for most people

I'm certainly seeing that around the place. I've never really been poor but had a rural upbringing as if I was in some ways so knowing how to cope with little has got me through some patches of unemployment and other problems - however I keep getting others asking me to help them out who have never learned to cope. I've seen so many people out there who have become poor but still spend on luxuries because they still want to chase that utopia - expensive special lounge movie tickets but then not even enough for a tin of beans to eat at the end of the week.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[jratcliffe]

You're looking at it the wrong way around. You need to look at the share of the population of the native country that have chosen to move to the destination country. 25k people born in Norway (0.5% of the current population) have chosen to move to the US. 9k people born in the US (0.003% of the current population) have chosen to move to Norway. So, Norwegians are 173x more likely to have moved to the US than Americans are to have moved to Norway.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[DarkOx]

To all recent history. As much as we want to draw parallels with the colonial era, nation building has not worked any of the recent times its been tried. There just are not may cased of it working in the modern era. Is there a single example of it working in the information age?

As in the international troops have been able to width-drawl after a period of development leaving behind a stable functioning nation with a government that is at least mostly on the up and up?

Re:Utopia, American Style

[Ash-Fox]

To all recent history. As much as we want to draw parallels with the colonial era, nation building has not worked any of the recent times its been tried.

Are these instances you're referring to under 50 years? As noted in my previous post tending to be the problematic ones. However, I guess if you wanted more short term, you could look at Germany's short occupation (which is very well documented compared to other occupations) after the second world war, but that requires a lot more destruction to build heavy co-independence with others.

Re:Utopia, American Style

[david_thornley]

There have been cases of occupations that left stable governments. In general, there was no need to build a nation, and the nation had some taste of democracy. Both Germany and Japan were established nations going into WWII, and had had at least semi-democratic periods.

but it doesn't have to be that way...

[Narcocide]

There's too much money in social media, just like there's too much money in politics.

Re:but it doesn't have to be that way...

[JosephDoeden]

There is too much money in everything that has more money than you! MAX EQUALITY!

Re:but it doesn't have to be that way...

[jbmartin6]

How much money is the correct amount for social media?

Blame Craigslist

[ADRA]

It single handedly killed newspaper journalism with their free unlimited esposure classifieds. That was a revenue cow that tilted papers into the red. Well, that and dead trees are uncool for the new hip environmentally sensitive masses.

Facebook and Google are aren't even veiling their services as journalism. They're simply "small things to read'. There are daily rags here that are given free (with ads of course) which are 4 page 'the world is full of puppies' crap which is just a rebranded slosh of garbage you see shoved down social media.

Re:Blame Craigslist

[RichPowers]

Yep, the whippersnappers probably don't realize how profitable local newspapers used to be. Indeed, they were one of Buffett's favorite investments in the early days. From a 1977 WSJ article: "Warren likens owning a monopoly or market-dominant newspaper to owning an unregulated toll bridge. You have relative freedom to increase rates when and as much as you want." [1] When the economics are like that, you can afford prestige journalism and professional reporters.

The WSJ article also notes how Buffett made a killing buying the Washington Post Co. at a significant discount to book value; the company's huge investment portfolio wasn't factored into the stock price at the time. Fast forward several decades, and now Bezos owns the actual newspaper and WaPo brand.

While there are legitimate *technology* companies in Silicon Valley, the ad-delivery/social media "it's 1999 all over again!" outfits for some reason get all the attention. Looking at some of the large employers in the area, you realize a huge number of people earn a paycheck from firms that sell ads, make CRM software, and run social media services (in the red quarter after quarter). It's sort of like the West Coast Wall Street: too many overpaid assholes doing stuff of no useful value to human civilization. (And both groups are enabled by the torrent of easy money from the central banks, which makes all sorts of bullshit possible.)

[1] http://www.rationalwalk.com/wp...

Re:Blame Craigslist

[Sir_Eptishous]

It's sort of like the West Coast Wall Street: too many overpaid assholes doing stuff of no useful value to human civilization.

Spot on and Bravo!

Re:Blame Craigslist

[drinkypoo]

It's sort of like the West Coast Wall Street: too many overpaid assholes doing stuff of no useful value to human civilization.

I think social media is of enormous value to human civilization, because it enables more communication. There is the obvious risk of building yourself an airtight echo chamber, but there's also the opportunity to create a broad net that catches many ideas, and it's one that wasn't there before.

It's a shame that G+ is so incompetent, and Fb is so evil.

The old gatekeeper...

[Zargg]

No, he does not have a point about old media vs new. "Trust us, we're good gatekeepers, while those other people are BAD!" is not a good argument...

Re:The old gatekeeper...

[swillden]

The point here being that the new media are actually gatekeepers, something that doesn't occur to a fair few

And the old media were also actually gatekeepers, something that didn't occur to a fair few.

It's possible that the new ones are worse than the old ones, but merely pointing out that there's a change from old to new doesn't imply anything about which is better or worse.

Re:The old gatekeeper...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Rather and Brian Williams were fired for lying, and Williams was punished by ending-up on Microsoft NBC. The old gate-keepers at least had some accountability.

Re:The old gatekeeper...

[phantomfive]

Yeah, the old gatekeeper was bad and you didn't have a choice.
The new gatekeeper is bad, but now you have a choice.

IF you're ignorant, it's your own stupid fault, and "democracy gives you the government you deserve."

Re:The old gatekeeper...

[OrangeTide]

"democracy gives you the government you deserve."

What could I have possibly have done to deserve Trump or Hillary ?

Re:The old gatekeeper...

[phantomfive]

I know what you did last summer.

Re:The old gatekeeper...

[OrangeTide]

Only the NSA could possibly know that!

Why when I was young!

[Latent Heat]

Why when I was an EE undergrad, weee didn't have those fancy-schmantzy computers-on-a-chip.

Why, weee built our computers out of 7400-series NAND chips. And wire-wrapped all the connections! And stripped each wire to feed into the hand wire-wrap tool. And we did this until our fingers bled . . . and we liked it!

Re:Why when I was young!

[thinkwaitfast]

As I said, it's only a matter of scale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Why when I was young!

[hughbar]

NAND chips bah! How about relays? I did actually try this in about 1965, but my family took away the half-working half-adder because I blew some fuses. Spoilsports.

Re:Why when I was young!

[silentcoder]

1965 ? I built a simple 8-bit calculator (I wouldn't call it a 'computer' out of relays in 1995. Granted I was just a highschool kid and the whole thing was merely an experiment to test out what I'd learned about logic gated and binary arithmetic and basic circuitry - but it worked, it's still an excellent way to learn because a relay does the same job a transistor does but huge and visibly.

Re:Why when I was young!

[hughbar]

Yes, really, I'm 65 now, born in 1950, started 'computing' with discrete transistors, relays (I was something of a steampunk before it existed) and dekatrons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Well done for the calculator and I agree, always good to play with 'first principles', fun too. Be well.

Re:Why when I was young!

[stealth_finger]

Why when I was an EE undergrad, weee didn't have those fancy-schmantzy computers-on-a-chip.

Why, weee built our computers out of 7400-series NAND chips. And wire-wrapped all the connections! And stripped each wire to feed into the hand wire-wrap tool. And we did this until our fingers bled . . . and we liked it!

uphill both ways in the snow?

Re:Why when I was young!

[silentcoder]

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying it's bad that you are old enough to have done things in 1965, I was just questioning the idea that relays were only relevant in 1965 and pointing out that I did the same thing 30 years later and I would consider them a useful teaching tool even today - another 16 years since my adventures.

Re:Why when I was young!

[turbidostato]

"uphill both ways in the snow?"

Snow, you say? For us to have snow we had to build it ourselves rubbing two sticks together. And the two sticks were in both extremes of the hill, both upsides.

I swear you it takes time to make snow rubbing two sticks together this way.

Who?

[110010001000]

Who is Nicholas Carr? Let me guess: he is a "thought leader".

Re:Who?

[freeze128]

He's the guy who says "Too much tech is creepy", which is kinda funny coming from a guy who has the same name as KITT's nemesis from Knight Rider...

Re:Who?

[fuzzyf]

He wrote "IT diesn't matter" in Harvard Business Review back in 2003. Stating that IT would not give any company a specific benefit and that it would basically be bought like electricity.

This article really hit home among corporate execs. I think it's at least partly the reason why we have "the cloud" today.

grumpy old man

[ooloorie]

Carr’s favorite targets are those zealots who believe so fervently in computers and data that they abandon common sense.

Carr sounds like a grumpy old man and an attention whore. Fine, to each their own. It's a free country, he can join the Amish if he likes. Many others will buy and use the technology we enjoy.

I don't think anything much is gonna change

[rsilvergun]

I could be mistaken, but I'm already seeing the ruling class clamping down on the free flow of information. Police shot a black woman and had her Facebook feed disabled. I half got my hopes up that everyone having cameras would change that sorta thing but the cops learned to take the phones. But it took 'em a while to learn that. They seem to have learned the Facebook video lesson much quicker...

If I have a hope for technology it's that birth control (particularly for men) will force birth rates low enough that the rich will have to treat labor OK because there won't be enough to abuse. But then with automation they have no use for labor. So unless we're gonna drive the population to around 10,000 I think we still have a problem. After all, what good is being rich if nobody's poor to boss around?

Re:I don't think anything much is gonna change

[drinkypoo]

They shut off her FB feed because people were encouraging her to fight to the death over a warrant for failure to appear in court for traffic tickets. It was making the situation even more dangerous than it already was.

They could have shut off posting to her feed by anyone but her without silencing her voice. This is well within FB's capabilities. They used the [tactical] nuclear option instead, because police.

Re:I don't think anything much is gonna change

[crtreece]

The paradigm you describe will come to pass, and then pass away.

Sadly, you're probably right. That doesn't mean it won't be painful for those that live through it. Being a peasant in Medieval Europe, a slave in early american south, or a serf in Stalinist Russia was not a "good time".

The scary questions for me are, how long is this phase going to last, and what's going to be left when it comes to an end?

Re:I don't think anything much is gonna change

[david_thornley]

If you're in some states in the US, the ACLU has an iOS or Android app for you that will stream your video to ACLU servers when you think the police might take your phone.

Old Media = HRC and Trump

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Most people who still watch/read old media (CBS/CNN/NBC/ABC/FOX) are over 40. Just about all non-conservative people under 40 supported Sanders over Clinton, and it's hard to find many under-40 conservatives excited about Trump. So, if you're telling me that without old media we wouldn't have Clinton vs. Trump, well then old media can't die soon enough.

Re:Old Media = HRC and Trump

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Meaningless correlation.

(Democrats-wise) Based on my discussions (highly scientific!) people over 40 who voted for Hillary honestly admired her from the 90's, and while they may have voted for Obama in 2008, they weren't voting against her. People who are younger often skew more socialist, and Sanders would appeal more to them.

(Republican-wise) I'd suspect that the cause is that people aged 45-65 are more likely to unemployed/underemployed, are looking at the world changing (and leaving them behind) and want to wind it back. They're easy to convince that if we can wind back immigration/free-trade, then their skills will be required, and they'll be able to continue their career/have a retirement like their parents.

Re:Old Media = HRC and Trump

[jratcliffe]

Just about all non-conservative people under 40 supported Sanders over Clinton

I don't have data handy with a +/-40 break point, but while Sanders did dominate in 18-24 (65/27), 24-34 was essentially tied (45/44), and Clinton won handily 35-44 (54/34). So, overall, Sanders probably had an edge for under 40 as a whole, but it's around 55/45, not "just about all". http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/1...

Re:A rich white guy is happy with the old system,

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, I can't wait for the real story of the Vietnam War to come out. Did you know the Tet Offensive, widely hailed as a defeat, was actually a huge setback for the Viet Cong? They were basically destroyed afterwards. Moreover they committed atrocities in the places they briefly took over, which were ignored by the US media as it didn't serve their interests. After peace with honor in 1972, US forces left. In 1975, the North Vietnamese stormed across the border in a style reminiscent of Germany vs. Poland 1939. The period between 72 and 75 is hardly ever referenced, and we have forgotten about it today.

Blame the tools!

[JosephDoeden]

Making better tools has always totally been a bad idea! Lets not make new tools because the old tools are less effective, but we are used to them and change is bad. Fuck Change. Trump 2016!

Re: Nicholas Carr

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicholas Carr was a finalist for the 2011 Pulitzer Prize. For his writing on technology.

Maybe you were confused when you typed your comment about him.

It's a fucked up world when Vice

[Rinikusu]

is one of the last bastions of old-school journalism.

John Oliver's latest segment on journalism is pretty spot on. You'll never guess what reason #5 is!

Re: Nicholas Carr

[JaredOfEuropa]

Perhaps you should actually read some of his stuff. Start with that article "IT doesn't matter", which is rather insightful, especially considering when it was written (today, the conclusion of the article seems obvious).

Re: Nicholas Carr

[Applehu Akbar]

"IT Doesn't Matter" was the article that prompted my comment. It was written to appeal to B-school amateur philosophers in comparing IT to railroading and electricity as a field that will shortly become commoditized and boring. IT will be just as basic to the future as the electrical grid, but there's a major difference in that new uses for information is a wide-open field, and will be for the foreseeable future.

Further, Carr is the author who because famous for opining that the Internet will make us stupid. If you spend all your online time watching cat videos, you will remain just as stupid as you were when you were diverting yourself with something else before that. But for the rest of us, superpowers like being able to instantaneously find the kind of information you had to remind yourself to look up next time at the library make a big difference in how we view the world.

I'm not "shallower" (to use his term). I not only see more detail out there than ever before, but I can express myself socially in ways I never could before. Being part of the sociopolitical process once meant writing letters to newspapers and occasionally getting one published. Because of the Internet, we can now express ourselves in many more direct and detailed ways.

TL;DR...

[Lorem_Ipsum]

Non-click-baity headlines:

"Old Media Gatekeeper Complains Bitterly About New Media Gatekeepers"

and

"Hey You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!"

Re:Greetings, Starfighter.

[Sir_Eptishous]

Warriors needed for Sector Wars.
Play Astro Blaster!

Predicting technology adoptions is hard.

[hey!]

Predicting the consequences of tech adoption is impossible.

In the year 2016....

[BlytheBowman]

everybody will be wearing jumpsuits, food will only be in pill form, houses will be built high above the ground on pillars and everybody will be riding in cars that are not much different than your old slot car set....... atleast thats what they said 60-70s years ago but none of it came true because No one likes being stuck in a bland prison-like jumpsuit uniform day in and day out Pill food is creepy and not yet technicaly feasable (the pills would have to be very heavy with a lot of mass because the body needs that mass to generate new cells, among other things) Stilt houses (as predicted) would be impractical, expensive and most people still prefer to live (near) ground level People still like to drive. Yeah, they are working hard to push out self driving cars, but most people still want to have their hands on the wheel. Of course, there are trains and busses in most large towns and in cities

Re:In the year 2016....

[david_thornley]

You left out the flying cars. I still don't have a flying car.

In most US cities, the train and bus service is woefully inadequate, and cars are often necessities. Lots of people would be very happy to get a car they don't have to drive, so they can rest on their commute, or have their kids taken to and from school and/or day care.

Automation is not magic

[sjbe]

Technology, and specifically automation, holds the promise of self-sufficiency.

No it does not. It holds no such promise whatsoever. Even if it did I'm puzzled why you think that would be a worthy goal.

If you can manufacture everything you need by yourself - if you have a replicator for material goods and a holodeck for services - then economy becomes something you can opt out of. In other words, technology might make people free.

Would you like some pixie dust to go with your unicorn farts? Replicators and holodecks? Seriously? Stop watching TV shows and learn some physics. Basically you are saying that you have some piece of technology that magically can make anything from raw energy. The thermodynamics alone make this an impossible fantasy. Do you have the vaguest concept of the energy requirements for a Star Trek style replicator? But even if somehow it worked, it still wouldn't obviate the need for an economy because you cannot actually eliminate scarcity. The universe is finite and most of it is inaccessible to us and is likely to remain so.

We have a sort of a replicator already. It's called DNA. You can even use it to order "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot" though it takes a bit longer than they show on Star Trek.

Re:Automation is not magic

[ultranova]

Even if it did I'm puzzled why you think that would be a worthy goal.

Like I said: freedom. As long as humans depend on one another for anything important, the end result will always be a hierarchy of some kind.

Replicators and holodecks? Seriously? Stop watching TV shows and learn some physics. Basically you are saying that you have some piece of technology that magically can make anything from raw energy.

"Replicator" is an archetypal example of a fully automated manufacturing system, capable of going from placing an order to delivering the goods without requiring any human labour whatsoever, no matter how it's implemented behind the scenes. "Holodeck" is the same for services. One would think that was kinda obvious.

But even if somehow it worked, it still wouldn't obviate the need for an economy because you cannot actually eliminate scarcity. The universe is finite and most of it is inaccessible to us and is likely to remain so.

Clothes are scarce. Movie tickets are scarce. But I can't really opt out of the former, while it's been years since I've bothered with the latter.

The utility of goods and services follows an s-curve: it asymptotically nears a finite value on either extreme. Economy become obsolete when the increase in utility you could get from economic activity becomes less than the negative utility of having to spend your time and effort for it.

No such thing as full automation

[sjbe]

Like I said: freedom. As long as humans depend on one another for anything important, the end result will always be a hierarchy of some kind.

That is NEVER going to go away and I would argue it would be bad it it did. I can disprove your thesis with a simple example. A child when they are born is completely helpless. They cannot exist without help from other humans. The idea of building a complete industrial supply chain for each individual person is such an absurd proposition as to be unworthy of further discussion.

"Replicator" is an archetypal example of a fully automated manufacturing system, capable of going from placing an order to delivering the goods without requiring any human labour whatsoever, no matter how it's implemented behind the scenes.

It's also called science FICTION for a reason. It has no basis in physical reality. There is no such thing as a fully automated manufacturing system and there never will be. I run a manufacturing company and I manage automation daily and there is a lot about it you fail to understand. Even if you can automate portions of a supply chain you cannot automate the inputs and outputs (and usually repairs) for any non-trivial problem. Automation also doesn't work economically for problems that are below a certain scale. It doesn't work technologically and it doesn't work economically. What you are proposing would require creating artificial life of equal or greater intelligence to humans with the ability to control physical bodies of comparable or greater capability to humans. At that hypothetical point what is the purpose of the continued existence of humans?

The utility of goods and services follows an s-curve: it asymptotically nears a finite value on either extreme. Economy become obsolete when the increase in utility you could get from economic activity becomes less than the negative utility of having to spend your time and effort for it.

Sounds like you took Economics 101 and flunked it. The problems with this argument are numerous. To start: 1) Humans aren't rational and pure utility arguments don't work in the real world outside of very narrow conditions. 2) Utility of goods and services demonstrably do not always follow an s-curve. 3) Negative marginal utility doesn't automatically mean something isn't still necessary. 4) You are HUGELY oversimplifying economics into a soundbite. The real world doesn't work like that.