...You can't treat this by treating the symptom (social media), you need to treat the root cause, but that's easier said than done because the entire culture of entertainment needs to be changed to something less worshiping of popularity based on mainly external traits instead of intellect or ideas.
I feel there's a rather simple fix to this; Stop fucking rewarding people.
No more financial rewards for YouTube narcissists for having the most "clicks".
No more financial rewards for Instagram narcissists for having the most "likes".
No more financial rewards for Facebook narcissists for having the most "friends".
Of course, this concept is considerably disruptive to current markets, so stopping this would be about as easy as making all opiates illegal in the US to help control painkiller overdoses.
Today it seems that everyone must rush to create an online identity in order to create a presence in the social media universe. Parents are often to blame for initiating this, finding it "cute" that their 4-year old has their own Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts (yes, I'm talking to you too, Hollywood). Naturally, child social media stars don't merely shut their look-at-me channels down when they get to the ripe old age of 10 and get their own smartphone, which comes with the added bonus of also being able to surf hardcore porn. (Given the lack of concern regarding internet filtering, this apparently means porn is no longer damaging, illegal, or harmful to minors.)
Chances are we're not solving for some odd addiction to artificial light or "screen time" here. When looking at the real reason behind smartphone addiction, I'm willing to bet a lot of it is tied to an addiction to social media, and the narcissism it creates. Tie the YOLO mentality to the FOMO concept, and it creates that constant need to be attached, online, and updating all the fucking time.
The true addiction to cure for many, is an addiction to narcissism. The kind that social media has created. Perhaps it's time to re-think the religion of social media, and realize just how damaging it can be.
Really, if you don't want children using smartphones so often, then find something where the non-technology is better than technology.
This may be rather difficult nowadays, but is still possible.
This has nothing to do with the actual tech itself. This has everything to do with teaching a human that moderation is key to damn near everything in life.
Addiction is powerful and damaging no matter what causes it, and replacing one addiction for another is not the answer either. You should try and find many things to replace an addiction with. Also known as living life to the fullest.
I believe this would fall under the category of, "what did you THINK was going to happen?"
It's not even about whether it is legal or not. It's just so easy to happen that it is almost comical to talk about legalities.
Fortunately, a lack of legal action against Burger King for what would be defined as a distributed/targeted/terrorist attack against thousands of innocent citizens tends to help define precedent.
... "Malicious attackers in Burger King's advertising department use vulnerability in Google home to make it do stuff its owner didn't request".
It's a bit rich to call it an ad and chuckle about.
It's a lot scary that it's possible for a remote attacker to ask these devices en masse to do something with nothing more than a broadcast ad. For now it was reading a wikipedia page. What happens when scumvertisers and other malicious adversaries figure out a way to make it spend money without your consent? Or to report to them that you have heard the ad, or worse.
If you're stupid enough to allow a device to "spend money" secured with nothing more than a passphrase known to the entire planet, then you probably get what you deserve.
We've always had a problem with hacking due to poor passwords that people chose. Naturally the obvious answer was to ensure everyone using these devices has the same fucking password. Brilliant stupidity at it's finest.
Isn't this basically a blatant violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act? What if a small timer had done this and not a mega corporation?
Essentially it is an act of accessing a computer system belonging to somebody else, without their permission. I imagine the legal description of hacking could be stretched around this well enough to take it to court in a country like the US where litigation rules.
Essentially this is utter stupidity. People want to secure their always-listening devices buried deep in their homes that control every damn thing? Then petition the manufacturer to be able to customize the trigger (pass)word to something other than what the rest of the planet already knows.
And for the latter reason, no, I don't believe even within the idiocy of US litigation could you convince someone that muttering the words "OK Google" is considered hacking. If so, then I fully expect Burger King to be facing terrorist charges for "attacking" the masses
Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified.
Then: Dell stopped offering that service, and you no longer have a choice but to have an entire set of cold-backup systems ready to go.
If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary
Oh, no, no need to void the service agreement; just stop renewing these contracts at the end of current terms...
If the previous contracts and services met the needs of the defined business SLA and DR/BC plan, and no longer do so, then you initiate the risk analysis cycle again and properly adjust. If the end result of that analysis justifies cold backup hardware, then you go fucking do it. If it justifies selling all of your hardware and buying something from a competitor, then you do that instead. The point is, if the rules change, you measure impact and adjust accordingly to protect the business properly.
If you fail to do this, then you're no longer mitigating risk, you're gambling with it.
Would you continue to shop with Dell after this?
Fuck no. I would go see what the competition has to offer, which is why it is critical to ensure we have competition. John Deere makes a good tractor in much the same way Mercedes Benz makes a good car. That certainly doesn't mean they're the only solution available, and if John Deere keeps pulling bullshit like this, I'm willing to bet competitors will have some enticing offers to switch brands.
How the fuck would this survey include state and local taxes, exactly, when they vary so incredibly widely across localities?
The burden varies down to the individual, so you measure down to the individual.
Gross income - every tax you're forced to pay = accurate tax burden per person.
If you really want to get accurate about measuring burden, include forced forms of insurance as well, such as life, health, homeowners, car, etc.
You can average out those numbers per household/state/region/country later, but the hard number crunching is necessary in order to exact valid statistics.
I await your perfect survey method for measuring taxes.
For every individual: Gross income - every tax you're forced to pay = a valid tax measurement per person.
If you really want to get exacting about measuring burden, include forced forms of insurance as well, since the burden of life/homeowners/renters/flood/car/medical/dental/vision/liability/umbrella insurance policies add up.
Lets star,t give me what single number you'd use for property taxes in the US. Obviously there isn't one and any number you could possibly come up with would be horribly lacking. Please continue to wine that the numbers they used don't perfectly match ME ME ME !!!!
I gave an answer, so stop whining. You can average taxes out per capita/state/country later, but the best way to do this survey is to do it accurately. In this case, that means taking the time to measure down to the individual, since the individual burden varies considerably.
Here's the beginning of the abstract published by OECD:
This annual flagship publication provides details of taxes paid on wages in OECD countries. It covers personal income taxes and social security contributions paid by employees, social security contributions and payroll taxes paid by employers, and cash benefits received by in-work families. It illustrates how these taxes and benefits are calculated in each member country and examines how they impact household incomes.
And the report did exactly that. Bloomberg are the ones who drew the unfounded conclusion that taxes aren't high in America based on a study looking at something entirely different.
You mean someone took statistics and manipulated the shit out in order to generate click revenue? Color me surprised. I would call for Bloomberg to be punished for publishing hype and unfounded bullshit, but we reward that kind of activity today.
Private prisons. They lobby for anything that results in higher and longer incarceration rates.
That's the flip side of this. It's also about making sure there's enough "play" in the forensics to convict someone innocent or exonerate someone corrupt.
Translation: "Yeah, 2 + 2 = 4, but we feel it needs some flexibility to provide an answer anywhere between 3.5 and 6."
As if destroying the advances we've made in forensic science makes any fucking sense whatsoever...
Fuck the lobbyists and their corrupt justifications. Actions like this make it obvious who actually needs to be punished. Pretty fucking sad we have people who are proud to bolster the label of Incarcerated States of America.
"...Excluded are the countless other ways that governments levy taxes, such as sales and value-added taxes, property taxes, and taxes on investment income and gains. Guess who came out at the top of the list? No. Not the U.S.
Guess who made an accurate tax survey? No. Not the OECD.
What the fuck is the point of a survey on tax burden when you're going to exclude a lot of it? My property taxes aren't some meaningless number, paid for by scrounging loose change from underneath my car seat.
This survey is as pointless as asking what megacorps pay in taxes every year...you know, excluding tax loopholes of course...
While density creates justification for resource improvement projects, waiting for fucking years for those projects to be completed only adds more fuel to the chaos.
When the freeway system got planned in 1950's, land was set aside for roadway that wouldn't be built for decades. The 85 extension from 280 to 101, and the 87 from the 85/87 interchange to 280 and 101, in Silicon Valley were the tomatoes fields of my youth. Those roadways didn't get built until 1990's.
Reserving land for expansion was good planning.
Sitting around waiting for mass chaos to justify doing something with it, is not good planning. Neither is shitty (or corrupt) project management that creates predictable delays.
I'm afraid that if someone sat down next to me and talked all the way from Seattle to Atlanta I might snap.
That may say more about you, and your opinion of other people than this situation itself. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the fact that phone calls are allowed on planes...
If "much of the rest of the world" didn't have a problem with phone calls on planes, then we wouldn't be sitting here having a discussion about the plan being shot down to allow phone calls on planes. There's a valid reason that we don't support phone calls on planes today; the reality is most people don't fucking want it.
There are enough issues going on with herding humans like cattle at 35,000 feet. To your obvious dismay, the opinion of the OP is a hell of a lot more common than you think.
...And I'll get ahead of it here: mass transit needs to be properly funded in order to work properly. Mass transit does not appear to pay for itself on the surface, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.
Waiting for "density" to justify resources turns cities into a complete clusterfuck. While density creates justification for resource improvement projects, waiting for fucking years for those projects to be completed only adds more fuel to the chaos.
Ironically, the tactic of being reactive with regards to planning and resources isn't getting "ahead" of jack shit.
The business owners were prepared for it. Somebody changed the rules. Now they have to have a $250,000 back-up tractor that's going to sit around not doing a damned thing, rusting out, and becoming obsolete. They won't be able to use it once it's obsolete because they can't replace a part that breaks; since that part's not made and John Deere won't repair the tractor anymore, they need to junk it out. Farmers want a 20% profit margin, but the market only gives them an average of 10%, sometimes 8%; that means that one piece of equipment represents profit off $2,500,000 of revenue, and some farms are quite small.
A secondary piece of hardware can serve both as a functional device and as a backup. No need for it to sit around unused. And the scenario you outlined where downtime costs "10k per minute" does not define a "quite small" operation; hence they can likely afford it.
What do you do if a change in business operations at a supplier can have that kind of impact against an operation? What does CareFirst Blue Cross do if the failure of a RAID drive in a server results in the server shutting down for 2 weeks until a Dell technician comes out with a hard drive, replaces it, and resets the RAID controller so it knows it's okay to rebuild the array and turn the server back on? Note that, today, a failed disk in a RAID array doesn't cause a service interruption, and Dell will have replacement hardware in your hands in under four hours; an immediate halt of service and a two-week lag time to get a new drive installed would be a major change to business operations.
What do you do if shit like that happens?
Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified. If the impact to business is great enough, then I have a secondary RAID controller running as a backup at all times. If the impact of downtime justifies the expense, then it justifies the expense. Those who wish to be cheap are called gamblers because you don't always win.
If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary. And if that vendor could no longer offer an SLA that met the needs of the DR/BC plan, then I would not do business with that vendor. Plain and simple. Perhaps John Deere will wake up to this fact as their sales decline over the next 5-10 years, or perhaps they wise up about it and start offering an extra service agreement to minimize downtime, much like Dell does.
The parallels are consistent here, and define the solution quite clearly.
we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation.
how is it any different from a car or a small truck? you are talking about farmers in a field, i am talking about vehicles on crowded roads
so your argument would say that all cars and trucks should be inspected by factory representatives after each oil change
you are SO full of shit
I was specifically talking about complex and potentially dangerous repair operations, not standard maintenance. In other words, I'm saying that a Tesla should be inspected by factory representatives if Joe Mechanic decided to rip open the battery pack and replace all the cells himself.
If it's simple standard maintenance, then no, it should not require a vendor magic wand to get the machine operational again.
It's a tractor. You sit on it and ride. It's not a stationary machine or a commercial jetliner.
We're not talking about an extra $10k; we're talking about the tractor sitting around non-working while enough time passes to call that $10k per minute because it leads to a several-percent drop in yields on a million-acre farm. It's not as direct in farming as it is anywhere else: if you get back on in X time, no big deal; if you have to wait 2 weeks, everything goes to shit. An afternoon of annoyance and some overtime is a lot different than losing a dozen days out of a 100-day growing season.
If the failure of any single piece of equipment manages to create that kind of impact against an operation, then it is the business owner who has fucked up. $10k per minute justifies backup hardware very quickly to properly mitigate the risk of downtime.
Shit happens. Prepare for it. That rule still applies regardless if your tractor was made in 2017 or 1967.
The problem is it cost the farmer $500 to do the repair on the previous model themselves, in an hour. The new model also costs the farmer $500 to do the repair themselves, in an hour; however, the tractor won't "go" until they pay a technician an additional $1,500 to drive out, wave their badge at the device, and whisper the secret word into its ear.
On the surface, this certainly seems more like vendor greed, but we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation. Should a Tesla simply trust Joe Mechanic's DIY battery pack refresh, or does it make sense the vehicle won't "go" until a certified technician runs a proper diagnostic on the vehicle to ensure it is safe to operate? Guess I'm struggling a bit between vendor greed and safety here.
Part of the complaint is they can't fix their tractor and get back to work; they have to take a relatively-significant hit to productivity and put their farm at risk waiting for a service call.
I get the impact to productivity, but perhaps it comes with the territory. A modern tractor might cost an extra $10,000/year to operate due to complexity, but could also provide $40,000 in savings because of the efficiency and productivity gains. Again, the alternative is to go buy 40-year old hardware that you can still wrench on, but won't operate with the same level of efficiency and accuracy.
If someone spends $90,000 on a brand-new Tesla and a "service call" costs a few hundred dollars, that's likely a reasonable and expected expense for a complex machine, as long as those service calls don't happen too frequently. By comparison, farmers are spending 2-3x more on high-end computer-controlled farming equipment, so what is a reasonable cost for service calls? Again, not trying to justify a vendor ripping off a customer, but from a cost vs. maintenance expense ratio, bitching about a few hundred dollars seems like a hollow complaint. Bottom line is your farming equipment needs more than a 1/2" wrench and a flathead screwdriver to work on these days, just like your new car.
Are vendors being greedy, or are they controlling what an end-user can do with their equipment because of the complexity, and perhaps even safety? Joe Mechanic sure as hell isn't gonna pop the titanium lid and DIY his Tesla battery bank. If it turns out to be little more than vendor greed, then certainly ensure that it becomes fair for all parties involved.
Those who hate the complexity of modern equipment have a simple solution too; go buy 40-year old shit.
...Why should I live "under ground" on earth when I have a desert sky on Mars? I would love to see a sunrise or sunset on Mars... underground in Antarctica: no chance.
Speaking of no chance, in another 200 years we'll likely be living underground no matter what planet we're on.
We'll fuck up the environment and atmosphere so bad on this planet we'll have no choice but to go underground, and your fantasies of a Martian sunrise will be aglow with enough radiation to ensure we'll be living underground on that planet too.
"...would not make a cozy home for life -- at least, not life as we know it."
Since we've moved on from that boring place we call the moon and are heading to Mars, I'm struggling to believe we care about "cozy" with any venture beyond our planet. Radiation isn't exactly a warm blanket to snuggle up with.
Slashdot Mirror
...All they have left is the smartphone.
How ironic society is so worried about kids getting into trouble while blindly handing them this addictive weapon of decay.
...You can't treat this by treating the symptom (social media), you need to treat the root cause, but that's easier said than done because the entire culture of entertainment needs to be changed to something less worshiping of popularity based on mainly external traits instead of intellect or ideas.
I feel there's a rather simple fix to this; Stop fucking rewarding people.
No more financial rewards for YouTube narcissists for having the most "clicks".
No more financial rewards for Instagram narcissists for having the most "likes".
No more financial rewards for Facebook narcissists for having the most "friends".
Of course, this concept is considerably disruptive to current markets, so stopping this would be about as easy as making all opiates illegal in the US to help control painkiller overdoses.
Greed is the ultimate addiction.
Today it seems that everyone must rush to create an online identity in order to create a presence in the social media universe. Parents are often to blame for initiating this, finding it "cute" that their 4-year old has their own Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts (yes, I'm talking to you too, Hollywood). Naturally, child social media stars don't merely shut their look-at-me channels down when they get to the ripe old age of 10 and get their own smartphone, which comes with the added bonus of also being able to surf hardcore porn. (Given the lack of concern regarding internet filtering, this apparently means porn is no longer damaging, illegal, or harmful to minors.)
Chances are we're not solving for some odd addiction to artificial light or "screen time" here. When looking at the real reason behind smartphone addiction, I'm willing to bet a lot of it is tied to an addiction to social media, and the narcissism it creates. Tie the YOLO mentality to the FOMO concept, and it creates that constant need to be attached, online, and updating all the fucking time.
The true addiction to cure for many, is an addiction to narcissism. The kind that social media has created. Perhaps it's time to re-think the religion of social media, and realize just how damaging it can be.
Really, if you don't want children using smartphones so often, then find something where the non-technology is better than technology.
This may be rather difficult nowadays, but is still possible.
This has nothing to do with the actual tech itself. This has everything to do with teaching a human that moderation is key to damn near everything in life.
Addiction is powerful and damaging no matter what causes it, and replacing one addiction for another is not the answer either. You should try and find many things to replace an addiction with. Also known as living life to the fullest.
I wonder how much "smartphone rehab" costs?
(as opposed, to, I dunno, just smashing/shooting the phone in front of them if the first couple of talks/slaps don't work)
I wonder how much risk is involved with simply ripping the heroin needle out of the addicts arm (as opposed, to, I dunno, proper rehabilitation...)
Addiction is powerful no matter what created it. So much so that humans have killed other humans in order to get a fix.
I believe this would fall under the category of, "what did you THINK was going to happen?" It's not even about whether it is legal or not. It's just so easy to happen that it is almost comical to talk about legalities.
Fortunately, a lack of legal action against Burger King for what would be defined as a distributed/targeted/terrorist attack against thousands of innocent citizens tends to help define precedent.
... "Malicious attackers in Burger King's advertising department use vulnerability in Google home to make it do stuff its owner didn't request".
It's a bit rich to call it an ad and chuckle about.
It's a lot scary that it's possible for a remote attacker to ask these devices en masse to do something with nothing more than a broadcast ad. For now it was reading a wikipedia page. What happens when scumvertisers and other malicious adversaries figure out a way to make it spend money without your consent? Or to report to them that you have heard the ad, or worse.
If you're stupid enough to allow a device to "spend money" secured with nothing more than a passphrase known to the entire planet, then you probably get what you deserve.
We've always had a problem with hacking due to poor passwords that people chose. Naturally the obvious answer was to ensure everyone using these devices has the same fucking password. Brilliant stupidity at it's finest.
Isn't this basically a blatant violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act? What if a small timer had done this and not a mega corporation?
Essentially it is an act of accessing a computer system belonging to somebody else, without their permission. I imagine the legal description of hacking could be stretched around this well enough to take it to court in a country like the US where litigation rules.
Essentially this is utter stupidity. People want to secure their always-listening devices buried deep in their homes that control every damn thing? Then petition the manufacturer to be able to customize the trigger (pass)word to something other than what the rest of the planet already knows.
And for the latter reason, no, I don't believe even within the idiocy of US litigation could you convince someone that muttering the words "OK Google" is considered hacking. If so, then I fully expect Burger King to be facing terrorist charges for "attacking" the masses
Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified.
Then: Dell stopped offering that service, and you no longer have a choice but to have an entire set of cold-backup systems ready to go.
If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary
Oh, no, no need to void the service agreement; just stop renewing these contracts at the end of current terms...
If the previous contracts and services met the needs of the defined business SLA and DR/BC plan, and no longer do so, then you initiate the risk analysis cycle again and properly adjust. If the end result of that analysis justifies cold backup hardware, then you go fucking do it. If it justifies selling all of your hardware and buying something from a competitor, then you do that instead. The point is, if the rules change, you measure impact and adjust accordingly to protect the business properly.
If you fail to do this, then you're no longer mitigating risk, you're gambling with it.
Would you continue to shop with Dell after this?
Fuck no. I would go see what the competition has to offer, which is why it is critical to ensure we have competition. John Deere makes a good tractor in much the same way Mercedes Benz makes a good car. That certainly doesn't mean they're the only solution available, and if John Deere keeps pulling bullshit like this, I'm willing to bet competitors will have some enticing offers to switch brands.
How the fuck would this survey include state and local taxes, exactly, when they vary so incredibly widely across localities?
The burden varies down to the individual, so you measure down to the individual.
Gross income - every tax you're forced to pay = accurate tax burden per person.
If you really want to get accurate about measuring burden, include forced forms of insurance as well, such as life, health, homeowners, car, etc.
You can average out those numbers per household/state/region/country later, but the hard number crunching is necessary in order to exact valid statistics.
I await your perfect survey method for measuring taxes.
For every individual: Gross income - every tax you're forced to pay = a valid tax measurement per person.
If you really want to get exacting about measuring burden, include forced forms of insurance as well, since the burden of life/homeowners/renters/flood/car/medical/dental/vision/liability/umbrella insurance policies add up.
Lets star,t give me what single number you'd use for property taxes in the US. Obviously there isn't one and any number you could possibly come up with would be horribly lacking. Please continue to wine that the numbers they used don't perfectly match ME ME ME !!!!
I gave an answer, so stop whining. You can average taxes out per capita/state/country later, but the best way to do this survey is to do it accurately. In this case, that means taking the time to measure down to the individual, since the individual burden varies considerably.
Here's the beginning of the abstract published by OECD:
This annual flagship publication provides details of taxes paid on wages in OECD countries. It covers personal income taxes and social security contributions paid by employees, social security contributions and payroll taxes paid by employers, and cash benefits received by in-work families. It illustrates how these taxes and benefits are calculated in each member country and examines how they impact household incomes.
And the report did exactly that. Bloomberg are the ones who drew the unfounded conclusion that taxes aren't high in America based on a study looking at something entirely different.
You mean someone took statistics and manipulated the shit out in order to generate click revenue? Color me surprised. I would call for Bloomberg to be punished for publishing hype and unfounded bullshit, but we reward that kind of activity today.
That's the flip side of this. It's also about making sure there's enough "play" in the forensics to convict someone innocent or exonerate someone corrupt.
Translation: "Yeah, 2 + 2 = 4, but we feel it needs some flexibility to provide an answer anywhere between 3.5 and 6."
As if destroying the advances we've made in forensic science makes any fucking sense whatsoever...
Fuck the lobbyists and their corrupt justifications. Actions like this make it obvious who actually needs to be punished. Pretty fucking sad we have people who are proud to bolster the label of Incarcerated States of America.
"...Excluded are the countless other ways that governments levy taxes, such as sales and value-added taxes, property taxes, and taxes on investment income and gains. Guess who came out at the top of the list? No. Not the U.S.
Guess who made an accurate tax survey? No. Not the OECD.
What the fuck is the point of a survey on tax burden when you're going to exclude a lot of it? My property taxes aren't some meaningless number, paid for by scrounging loose change from underneath my car seat.
This survey is as pointless as asking what megacorps pay in taxes every year...you know, excluding tax loopholes of course...
While density creates justification for resource improvement projects, waiting for fucking years for those projects to be completed only adds more fuel to the chaos.
When the freeway system got planned in 1950's, land was set aside for roadway that wouldn't be built for decades. The 85 extension from 280 to 101, and the 87 from the 85/87 interchange to 280 and 101, in Silicon Valley were the tomatoes fields of my youth. Those roadways didn't get built until 1990's.
Reserving land for expansion was good planning.
Sitting around waiting for mass chaos to justify doing something with it, is not good planning. Neither is shitty (or corrupt) project management that creates predictable delays.
I'm afraid that if someone sat down next to me and talked all the way from Seattle to Atlanta I might snap.
That may say more about you, and your opinion of other people than this situation itself. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the fact that phone calls are allowed on planes...
If "much of the rest of the world" didn't have a problem with phone calls on planes, then we wouldn't be sitting here having a discussion about the plan being shot down to allow phone calls on planes. There's a valid reason that we don't support phone calls on planes today; the reality is most people don't fucking want it.
There are enough issues going on with herding humans like cattle at 35,000 feet. To your obvious dismay, the opinion of the OP is a hell of a lot more common than you think.
...And I'll get ahead of it here: mass transit needs to be properly funded in order to work properly. Mass transit does not appear to pay for itself on the surface, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.
Waiting for "density" to justify resources turns cities into a complete clusterfuck. While density creates justification for resource improvement projects, waiting for fucking years for those projects to be completed only adds more fuel to the chaos.
Ironically, the tactic of being reactive with regards to planning and resources isn't getting "ahead" of jack shit.
The business owners were prepared for it. Somebody changed the rules. Now they have to have a $250,000 back-up tractor that's going to sit around not doing a damned thing, rusting out, and becoming obsolete. They won't be able to use it once it's obsolete because they can't replace a part that breaks; since that part's not made and John Deere won't repair the tractor anymore, they need to junk it out. Farmers want a 20% profit margin, but the market only gives them an average of 10%, sometimes 8%; that means that one piece of equipment represents profit off $2,500,000 of revenue, and some farms are quite small.
A secondary piece of hardware can serve both as a functional device and as a backup. No need for it to sit around unused. And the scenario you outlined where downtime costs "10k per minute" does not define a "quite small" operation; hence they can likely afford it.
What do you do if a change in business operations at a supplier can have that kind of impact against an operation? What does CareFirst Blue Cross do if the failure of a RAID drive in a server results in the server shutting down for 2 weeks until a Dell technician comes out with a hard drive, replaces it, and resets the RAID controller so it knows it's okay to rebuild the array and turn the server back on? Note that, today, a failed disk in a RAID array doesn't cause a service interruption, and Dell will have replacement hardware in your hands in under four hours; an immediate halt of service and a two-week lag time to get a new drive installed would be a major change to business operations.
What do you do if shit like that happens?
Dell would not have hardware in my hands in "under four hours" unless I pay for it through an extra service agreement which is budgeted and justified. If the impact to business is great enough, then I have a secondary RAID controller running as a backup at all times. If the impact of downtime justifies the expense, then it justifies the expense. Those who wish to be cheap are called gamblers because you don't always win.
If a vendor changes the rules and voids that service contract as a result, then I want to know why they violated an agreement and take legal action if necessary. And if that vendor could no longer offer an SLA that met the needs of the DR/BC plan, then I would not do business with that vendor. Plain and simple. Perhaps John Deere will wake up to this fact as their sales decline over the next 5-10 years, or perhaps they wise up about it and start offering an extra service agreement to minimize downtime, much like Dell does.
The parallels are consistent here, and define the solution quite clearly.
I see this as going down the path of subjecting applicants to public humiliation to apply for menial jobs. This is what post-labor world looks like.
The radio industry been subjecting interns to public humiliation as part of the permanent hiring process for decades now.
The MTV "Jackass" crew built an entire empire doing this kind of shit to each other, as their main job.
This gimmick ain't new by any means.
we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation.
how is it any different from a car or a small truck? you are talking about farmers in a field, i am talking about vehicles on crowded roads
so your argument would say that all cars and trucks should be inspected by factory representatives after each oil change
you are SO full of shit
I was specifically talking about complex and potentially dangerous repair operations, not standard maintenance. In other words, I'm saying that a Tesla should be inspected by factory representatives if Joe Mechanic decided to rip open the battery pack and replace all the cells himself.
If it's simple standard maintenance, then no, it should not require a vendor magic wand to get the machine operational again.
It's a tractor. You sit on it and ride. It's not a stationary machine or a commercial jetliner.
We're not talking about an extra $10k; we're talking about the tractor sitting around non-working while enough time passes to call that $10k per minute because it leads to a several-percent drop in yields on a million-acre farm. It's not as direct in farming as it is anywhere else: if you get back on in X time, no big deal; if you have to wait 2 weeks, everything goes to shit. An afternoon of annoyance and some overtime is a lot different than losing a dozen days out of a 100-day growing season.
If the failure of any single piece of equipment manages to create that kind of impact against an operation, then it is the business owner who has fucked up. $10k per minute justifies backup hardware very quickly to properly mitigate the risk of downtime.
Shit happens. Prepare for it. That rule still applies regardless if your tractor was made in 2017 or 1967.
The problem is it cost the farmer $500 to do the repair on the previous model themselves, in an hour. The new model also costs the farmer $500 to do the repair themselves, in an hour; however, the tractor won't "go" until they pay a technician an additional $1,500 to drive out, wave their badge at the device, and whisper the secret word into its ear.
On the surface, this certainly seems more like vendor greed, but we are talking about very large equipment that perhaps justifies some level of safety validation after a DIY operation. Should a Tesla simply trust Joe Mechanic's DIY battery pack refresh, or does it make sense the vehicle won't "go" until a certified technician runs a proper diagnostic on the vehicle to ensure it is safe to operate? Guess I'm struggling a bit between vendor greed and safety here.
Part of the complaint is they can't fix their tractor and get back to work; they have to take a relatively-significant hit to productivity and put their farm at risk waiting for a service call.
I get the impact to productivity, but perhaps it comes with the territory. A modern tractor might cost an extra $10,000/year to operate due to complexity, but could also provide $40,000 in savings because of the efficiency and productivity gains. Again, the alternative is to go buy 40-year old hardware that you can still wrench on, but won't operate with the same level of efficiency and accuracy.
If someone spends $90,000 on a brand-new Tesla and a "service call" costs a few hundred dollars, that's likely a reasonable and expected expense for a complex machine, as long as those service calls don't happen too frequently. By comparison, farmers are spending 2-3x more on high-end computer-controlled farming equipment, so what is a reasonable cost for service calls? Again, not trying to justify a vendor ripping off a customer, but from a cost vs. maintenance expense ratio, bitching about a few hundred dollars seems like a hollow complaint. Bottom line is your farming equipment needs more than a 1/2" wrench and a flathead screwdriver to work on these days, just like your new car.
Are vendors being greedy, or are they controlling what an end-user can do with their equipment because of the complexity, and perhaps even safety? Joe Mechanic sure as hell isn't gonna pop the titanium lid and DIY his Tesla battery bank. If it turns out to be little more than vendor greed, then certainly ensure that it becomes fair for all parties involved.
Those who hate the complexity of modern equipment have a simple solution too; go buy 40-year old shit.
...Why should I live "under ground" on earth when I have a desert sky on Mars? I would love to see a sunrise or sunset on Mars ... underground in Antarctica: no chance.
Speaking of no chance, in another 200 years we'll likely be living underground no matter what planet we're on.
We'll fuck up the environment and atmosphere so bad on this planet we'll have no choice but to go underground, and your fantasies of a Martian sunrise will be aglow with enough radiation to ensure we'll be living underground on that planet too.
"...would not make a cozy home for life -- at least, not life as we know it."
Since we've moved on from that boring place we call the moon and are heading to Mars, I'm struggling to believe we care about "cozy" with any venture beyond our planet. Radiation isn't exactly a warm blanket to snuggle up with.