Yeah, if only we had elected a president that wanted to help these people by re-training them into a modern set of jobs but instead we got one who will cut regulations so that his rich mine owning buddies can make more money while employing a tiny fraction of the people who are out of work.
There must have been some other option in the last election, someone who proposed re-training these folks and encouraging new businesses in these areas...
yeah but wouldn't it be cheaper both short and long term for those mines to hire the young folk? Its not like the union will last long when there are 10 jobs for every 100 men and the young folks will work cheaper (stupid yes, their best long term choice is to head for the hills but if people were planning ahead we wouldn't have so many people trained to mine something that wasn't going to be profitable over a generation or 2 from now).
You are implying here, without actually saying it, that coal is over regulated but where is your evidence for that? The article has laid out a ton of reasons why coal is in decline that have nothing to do with regulation what so ever. Plus, it clearly indicates that automation has gutted the number of coal jobs that are created so adding more coal capacity (or using what we have) will not employ more people than increasing capacity of renewables so if its not really cheaper and its not creating more jobs, why should we be so worried about how level its playing field is (which, again, you have shown no evidence for).
By removing what regulation there is we might temporarily increase the amount of energy produced by coal in this country but that money wont go to poor, out of work miners or plant workers thanks to automation that money will go to line the pockets of the people who own the power plants and mines, all it does is let them squeeze the last few dollars out of their investment at the cost of our environment. Thats not good economic policy, its a hand out to rich people.
Removing what regulation we have on coal doesn't put coal on a level playing field, it gives it an unfair advantage, letting the owners of these plants and mines make more money while pushing the cost of pollution onto the rest of us. We end up paying for the environmental impact that will need to be cleaned up envetually, the health care costs due to pollution, and even impact on other industries like fishing where many people might loose their jobs if areas are no longer fishable).
Its a loosing bet and your supposedly free market is going to produce better outcomes than letting this industry die a natural death. Right now its hard to see why we shouldn't accelerate the death of coal, encourage private investment in other energy sources so that we are ahead of the game and have a well secured energy plan for the next 50 or so years rather than propping up old tech at the expense of building new industry which could provide us with a big boon in the future when we are creating the turbines and solar panels that the rest of the world also uses.
the entire point you insufferable, bigoted, moron is that your imaginary school teachers are not getting fleeced at all, the money to pay for subsidizing housing is coming from the paychecks of other Californians who pay so much more in federal taxes than they get in return.
And yes, those people making 80K in Tennessee are absolutely leaching. Where do you think the money comes from for their highways? For their airports? How about support for their national parks? It comes from other states, from the tax money paid by places like silicon valley.
you realize Tennessee takes in way more federal money than it pays out, and that California does exactly the opposite right? Like it or not these economic centers are the engine that keeps this country running. The tax dollars they pay go to supporting the people of Tennessee and other states.
To be fair though, san fran could do some things to lower the cost of housing, like allowing for larger apartment building to be built and such. I'm not a fan of this "democratic cities" bullshit either but in this case they are making some decisions that are in some ways making the situation worse. Not like it would be cheep overnight if they did things differently, but it might slow the growth rate of the average persons rent.
If you are going to homebrew in any significant volume, you just have to move to a kegging system. Bottles are awful, but kegs (and fridge and a co2 rig) are a significant extra expense in what is otherwise a fairly inexpensive hobby.
Well if the time period you are talking about is 2002-2004, yes, things are considerably better now. That was an awful time to be graduating as a CS major, I was only a few years ahead of that period and it hit me pretty hard, but recently, I don't see people sitting out of work for long periods of time, I don't see high unemployment in the tech sector at all, certainly nothing like what it was back then.
But every industry goes through dips like that, and the economy is still stuck in a boom or bust cycle, but I have yet to see any evidence that the job market for software engineers is really so difficult right now that qualified candidates are sitting around desperate for work.
Not that that means we shouldn't consider reforming H1-B visas, hiring for only high paid positions is probably the best way to go as it will hopefully encorage more training of people on the low end. I know a woman who is around 30 with no tech background, who recently went through a 6 month bootcamp to prepare for a career in QA (an area frequently filled by H1-b visa holders in my experience) and now she has good solid job. With less low cost H1-b visa holders we might see more and more of this which could be quite valuable. Certainly you can't just retrain everyone into one kind of profession but when it comes to tech we would do well to not close off the entry level of the field from people who are changing careers.
God I thought this was a tech website but apparently its run by people who have never seen what computers are capable of... Just look at what tractor trailers looked like 2 centuries ago to have some hint as to how much things have changed.
I have no doubt that the cost of maintaining such systems would be a lot lower than the cost to employ a fleets worth of drivers and the insurance necessary to cover you in the event that the driver crashes (assuming self driving vehicles are ultimately insured by the manufacturer as they probably should be).
Full self driving tech is going to change a lot of thing in the insurance industry, in the mechanic industry and certainly in fleet maintenance but I have little doubt that the result will be cheaper in the long run... even if its not cheaper initially it will be once costs come down.
are you saying that the rate of attrition among first and second year students is 90%? That probably deserves a citation. Also improving learning could easily result in a decrease in dropout rate which would be valuable to society as a whole (people wasting time and money and not getting an education is a drain on our resources as a society).
If only the majority of people had more disposable income instead of that money being funneled primarily to people who couldn't spend all of the money they make if they tried, can you imagine just how well the economy would run?
shout it from the rooftops because that is unheard of in the US... last time I had independent insurance I paid double that a month for a $250 deductable and a yearly max somewhere around 10 grand
Is it newsworthy if the number of people having financial challenges is going up? Is it newsworthy if the challenges are worse than they were 2 decades ago?
Or maybe its only newsworthy when we can pin those challenges on H1-B visa holders?
Slashdot Mirror
And yet even with all those people employed, its cheaper to deploy new solar capacity than coal. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Yeah, if only we had elected a president that wanted to help these people by re-training them into a modern set of jobs but instead we got one who will cut regulations so that his rich mine owning buddies can make more money while employing a tiny fraction of the people who are out of work.
There must have been some other option in the last election, someone who proposed re-training these folks and encouraging new businesses in these areas...
yeah but wouldn't it be cheaper both short and long term for those mines to hire the young folk? Its not like the union will last long when there are 10 jobs for every 100 men and the young folks will work cheaper (stupid yes, their best long term choice is to head for the hills but if people were planning ahead we wouldn't have so many people trained to mine something that wasn't going to be profitable over a generation or 2 from now).
You are implying here, without actually saying it, that coal is over regulated but where is your evidence for that? The article has laid out a ton of reasons why coal is in decline that have nothing to do with regulation what so ever. Plus, it clearly indicates that automation has gutted the number of coal jobs that are created so adding more coal capacity (or using what we have) will not employ more people than increasing capacity of renewables so if its not really cheaper and its not creating more jobs, why should we be so worried about how level its playing field is (which, again, you have shown no evidence for).
By removing what regulation there is we might temporarily increase the amount of energy produced by coal in this country but that money wont go to poor, out of work miners or plant workers thanks to automation that money will go to line the pockets of the people who own the power plants and mines, all it does is let them squeeze the last few dollars out of their investment at the cost of our environment. Thats not good economic policy, its a hand out to rich people.
Removing what regulation we have on coal doesn't put coal on a level playing field, it gives it an unfair advantage, letting the owners of these plants and mines make more money while pushing the cost of pollution onto the rest of us. We end up paying for the environmental impact that will need to be cleaned up envetually, the health care costs due to pollution, and even impact on other industries like fishing where many people might loose their jobs if areas are no longer fishable).
Its a loosing bet and your supposedly free market is going to produce better outcomes than letting this industry die a natural death. Right now its hard to see why we shouldn't accelerate the death of coal, encourage private investment in other energy sources so that we are ahead of the game and have a well secured energy plan for the next 50 or so years rather than propping up old tech at the expense of building new industry which could provide us with a big boon in the future when we are creating the turbines and solar panels that the rest of the world also uses.
the entire point you insufferable, bigoted, moron is that your imaginary school teachers are not getting fleeced at all, the money to pay for subsidizing housing is coming from the paychecks of other Californians who pay so much more in federal taxes than they get in return.
And yes, those people making 80K in Tennessee are absolutely leaching. Where do you think the money comes from for their highways? For their airports? How about support for their national parks? It comes from other states, from the tax money paid by places like silicon valley.
Let me google that for you
https://wallethub.com/edu/stat...
you realize Tennessee takes in way more federal money than it pays out, and that California does exactly the opposite right? Like it or not these economic centers are the engine that keeps this country running. The tax dollars they pay go to supporting the people of Tennessee and other states.
To be fair though, san fran could do some things to lower the cost of housing, like allowing for larger apartment building to be built and such. I'm not a fan of this "democratic cities" bullshit either but in this case they are making some decisions that are in some ways making the situation worse. Not like it would be cheep overnight if they did things differently, but it might slow the growth rate of the average persons rent.
yeah, it really sucks the way people want to live in the places where their employment options are the greatest. What a bunch of entitled assholes
If you are going to homebrew in any significant volume, you just have to move to a kegging system. Bottles are awful, but kegs (and fridge and a co2 rig) are a significant extra expense in what is otherwise a fairly inexpensive hobby.
Well if the time period you are talking about is 2002-2004, yes, things are considerably better now. That was an awful time to be graduating as a CS major, I was only a few years ahead of that period and it hit me pretty hard, but recently, I don't see people sitting out of work for long periods of time, I don't see high unemployment in the tech sector at all, certainly nothing like what it was back then.
But every industry goes through dips like that, and the economy is still stuck in a boom or bust cycle, but I have yet to see any evidence that the job market for software engineers is really so difficult right now that qualified candidates are sitting around desperate for work.
Not that that means we shouldn't consider reforming H1-B visas, hiring for only high paid positions is probably the best way to go as it will hopefully encorage more training of people on the low end. I know a woman who is around 30 with no tech background, who recently went through a 6 month bootcamp to prepare for a career in QA (an area frequently filled by H1-b visa holders in my experience) and now she has good solid job. With less low cost H1-b visa holders we might see more and more of this which could be quite valuable. Certainly you can't just retrain everyone into one kind of profession but when it comes to tech we would do well to not close off the entry level of the field from people who are changing careers.
If only for kevin spacey's voice paired with emoji
the exterior of the 3 looks like a mazda with its grille sealed up. Not a bad choice of cars to rip off, but not exactly inspired.
Centuries... really?
God I thought this was a tech website but apparently its run by people who have never seen what computers are capable of... Just look at what tractor trailers looked like 2 centuries ago to have some hint as to how much things have changed.
I have no doubt that the cost of maintaining such systems would be a lot lower than the cost to employ a fleets worth of drivers and the insurance necessary to cover you in the event that the driver crashes (assuming self driving vehicles are ultimately insured by the manufacturer as they probably should be).
Full self driving tech is going to change a lot of thing in the insurance industry, in the mechanic industry and certainly in fleet maintenance but I have little doubt that the result will be cheaper in the long run... even if its not cheaper initially it will be once costs come down.
yes, with training and practice humans can do some really amazing things.
That doesn't mean those jobs wont be replaced by automation... pretending otherwise is just sticking ones head in the sand
Why do you think that it couldn't pull itself up to a loading dock?
are you saying that the rate of attrition among first and second year students is 90%? That probably deserves a citation. Also improving learning could easily result in a decrease in dropout rate which would be valuable to society as a whole (people wasting time and money and not getting an education is a drain on our resources as a society).
pshh... next you will be telling us that this "research" is more valuable or scientifically valid than the opinions of random slashdoters.
Yeah, but you get paid by them, not the other way around
Circadian rhythm is a harsh mistress
Professors so shitty that you have to go to a second section just to learn the material... yeah, sounds "distinguished" to me
Certainly true.
If only the majority of people had more disposable income instead of that money being funneled primarily to people who couldn't spend all of the money they make if they tried, can you imagine just how well the economy would run?
But then I don't live in the US.
shout it from the rooftops because that is unheard of in the US... last time I had independent insurance I paid double that a month for a $250 deductable and a yearly max somewhere around 10 grand
Is it newsworthy if the number of people having financial challenges is going up? Is it newsworthy if the challenges are worse than they were 2 decades ago?
Or maybe its only newsworthy when we can pin those challenges on H1-B visa holders?