I *DID* say the last mile is the expensive part. However, as I said before, the smaller broadband providers have the same costs PLUS profit for their providers. I'm quite certain they're not getting all of that for free. Things get cheaper overall at scale, not more expensive.
They're not just talking out of their asses, their companies actually don't have caps and they actually are profitable.
Sorry, no. The last mile is the "expensive" part. Unless you think the ISPs that the small ISPs use for uplink are charitable organizations, you'll need to acknowledge that they pay the same uplink costs PLUS a profit to that provider. The large ISPs get it even cheaper by being their own provider.
The unit cost by transfer or rate have dropped steadily over time. The bigger you are, the cheaper it gets. As for the hardware, in 1995 Gig ether switches (dumb) cost about $1000/port. Now it's $5/port.
It was your claim that AI and automation replacing humans opens new jobs for those humans so everything will come up roses. I was challenging your idea that replacing people's jobs with AI will result in more jobs and pointing out that the jobs that are opening tend to be worse than the jobs lost this time around.
Note that evidence from the industrial revolution won't covert it since those machines had no hint of AI to them.
Actually, I don't do windows. It has been a pain for people I know, however. Naturally, my point is that pursuant to your suggestion that real change happens in courts, the EFF has lawyers (people who specialize in making change happen in court). That kinda refutes the whole EFF has no power.
It seems to me that the correct action by the court would have been to nullify the whole damned thing since the plaintiff had thrown away the only evidence that the printer didn't work and so the follow-on "damages" couldn't be linked to anything. There was no reason the defendant even needed to hear anything about it.
But it wasn't just one person. It was an entire court system that wasn't able to say enough is enough before the sale of a $40 printer cost $12,000 dollars. That even though the plaintiff had already thrown away the only evidence that the printer didn't work AND was well known by the court for filing frivolous lawsuits..
As for medicine, in the U.S. you'll pay a lot of specialist fees but not get anything that couldn't have been done just as well by a nurse with a flip book.
In an un-distorted market the lowest natural minimum wage is whatever it costs to buy one person food, clothing, shelter, and occasional medical care. Otherwise they die and so cease doing their job.
Unless, of course, you believe your customers will be OK with their burger flipper smelling like the dumpster he lives in.
Look around you. If you'll quit plugging your ears and shouting LA LA LA, you'll see the evidence. Here's a hint. Those jobs at McDs aren't new. They had the help wanted sign out for years. It's just that they were such a bad deal there weren't enough desperate people to fill them. Now there are.
Where is your evidence that jobs lost to automation are replaced by better jobs?
The problem with welfare is that it actually enforces bad decisions and penalizes work. Save money for a car so you can get a job? Oops, now you have too much money so you lose your benefits. But it'll take longer to get them back than your savings will last you, you'd have been better off spending your savings. Get a job to start climbing out? Oops, you lose more benefits than the new job pays.
No, I understand well what it means. I also understand that in employment, the value is pushed down because the employees are less able to pull out of a disfavorable market.
That is too simplistic a stat. You have to look at the quality of the employment as well. It seems the jobs that do open up pay less than the qop that went away.
If the sole breadwinner of a family loses a good job and so he or she, the other parent and the eldest child end up with crappy jobs trying to make ends meet, that shows up as more people employed but represents a decline in standard of living.
Automation and artificial intelligence don't reduce the need for jobs, they allow reallocation of labor to other projects. It's why you get iPhones and computers these days, instead of turnips and potatoes.
It would seem reality disagrees with you. Where are these re-allocated jobs you speak of? Even the workers that got the jobs that went overseas are now getting replaced by robots.
On the other hand, A lot of people don't use anything that isn't replaced with something already available as part of the distro. They would be well advised to switch.
It's a fairly slippery set of terms. What is now called a coder or code monkey used to be called a programmer or a junior programmer. What is now called a developer used to be called a programmer/analyst.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you just made a bald claim with no relevant backing data. Then you pretended to be unable to tell a good job from a shitty one.
I *DID* say the last mile is the expensive part. However, as I said before, the smaller broadband providers have the same costs PLUS profit for their providers. I'm quite certain they're not getting all of that for free. Things get cheaper overall at scale, not more expensive.
They're not just talking out of their asses, their companies actually don't have caps and they actually are profitable.
So Julius Caesar was a nobody because Rome is gone?
Meanwhile, perhaps you should look at the more recent wins, not the oldest.
Would you please define your terms? This reads like the Chewbacca defense.
Sorry, no. The last mile is the "expensive" part. Unless you think the ISPs that the small ISPs use for uplink are charitable organizations, you'll need to acknowledge that they pay the same uplink costs PLUS a profit to that provider. The large ISPs get it even cheaper by being their own provider.
The unit cost by transfer or rate have dropped steadily over time. The bigger you are, the cheaper it gets. As for the hardware, in 1995 Gig ether switches (dumb) cost about $1000/port. Now it's $5/port.
It was your claim that AI and automation replacing humans opens new jobs for those humans so everything will come up roses. I was challenging your idea that replacing people's jobs with AI will result in more jobs and pointing out that the jobs that are opening tend to be worse than the jobs lost this time around.
Note that evidence from the industrial revolution won't covert it since those machines had no hint of AI to them.
Actually, I don't do windows. It has been a pain for people I know, however. Naturally, my point is that pursuant to your suggestion that real change happens in courts, the EFF has lawyers (people who specialize in making change happen in court). That kinda refutes the whole EFF has no power.
I see you have scrupulously avoided any source of news on the economy for the last 6-10 years.
You demand evidence but provide none yourself.
Since we're talking about another wave of automation advances that has happened in the 21st century, I don't see much relevance to a century ago.
I guess you slept through that whole jobless recovery thing.
You say that as if lawyers work for peanuts.
It seems to me that the correct action by the court would have been to nullify the whole damned thing since the plaintiff had thrown away the only evidence that the printer didn't work and so the follow-on "damages" couldn't be linked to anything. There was no reason the defendant even needed to hear anything about it.
But it wasn't just one person. It was an entire court system that wasn't able to say enough is enough before the sale of a $40 printer cost $12,000 dollars. That even though the plaintiff had already thrown away the only evidence that the printer didn't work AND was well known by the court for filing frivolous lawsuits..
As for medicine, in the U.S. you'll pay a lot of specialist fees but not get anything that couldn't have been done just as well by a nurse with a flip book.
Well, obviously, if your job is smiling for 100K a year, swimming in pig excrement for 10 cents an hour would be better...
That is, I imagine you understand better vs. worse if you give it a moment's thought.
It takes you 36 seconds to flip a single burger?
In an un-distorted market the lowest natural minimum wage is whatever it costs to buy one person food, clothing, shelter, and occasional medical care. Otherwise they die and so cease doing their job.
Unless, of course, you believe your customers will be OK with their burger flipper smelling like the dumpster he lives in.
Look around you. If you'll quit plugging your ears and shouting LA LA LA, you'll see the evidence. Here's a hint. Those jobs at McDs aren't new. They had the help wanted sign out for years. It's just that they were such a bad deal there weren't enough desperate people to fill them. Now there are.
Where is your evidence that jobs lost to automation are replaced by better jobs?
The problem with welfare is that it actually enforces bad decisions and penalizes work. Save money for a car so you can get a job? Oops, now you have too much money so you lose your benefits. But it'll take longer to get them back than your savings will last you, you'd have been better off spending your savings. Get a job to start climbing out? Oops, you lose more benefits than the new job pays.
Lets push your model and see how it responds. Ban income. Now nobody has any money so everything becomes free for everyone? Seems unlikely.
Your model assumes that everyone who wanted housing already had it and that nobody places any value on the extra cash they get from UBI.
The more likely scenario is that prices for 'luxury' housing goes up some and the percentage of occupation for more basic housing goes up.
No, I understand well what it means. I also understand that in employment, the value is pushed down because the employees are less able to pull out of a disfavorable market.
That is too simplistic a stat. You have to look at the quality of the employment as well. It seems the jobs that do open up pay less than the qop that went away.
If the sole breadwinner of a family loses a good job and so he or she, the other parent and the eldest child end up with crappy jobs trying to make ends meet, that shows up as more people employed but represents a decline in standard of living.
In other words, once the playing field is leveled, employers paying low wages for crappy jobs might have to pay fair market value. Oh the humanity!
Automation and artificial intelligence don't reduce the need for jobs, they allow reallocation of labor to other projects. It's why you get iPhones and computers these days, instead of turnips and potatoes.
It would seem reality disagrees with you. Where are these re-allocated jobs you speak of? Even the workers that got the jobs that went overseas are now getting replaced by robots.
The EFF has lawyers for a reason.
On the other hand, A lot of people don't use anything that isn't replaced with something already available as part of the distro. They would be well advised to switch.
It's a fairly slippery set of terms. What is now called a coder or code monkey used to be called a programmer or a junior programmer. What is now called a developer used to be called a programmer/analyst.
Sorry about your tiny tarnished ego, but I am probably the wrong person to ask for polishing service.
Sorry you have to rip your hair out over 10 bucks.