With progress, fewer and fewer people are needed to perform jobs. People need to either move on to something new or they'll be left behind. No business in their right mind would say, "Oh, I think we'll get rid of all this automation to hire more people."
Don't think that this absolutely couldn't happen. We could, collectively as a society, if things got bad enough, decide that maybe a 2000s-era standard of living was better. A rejection of the idea that somehow, robots HAVE to be involved and we just... can't NOT use them. It's totally impossible!
Granted, we have a long way to go before we'd be motivated to actually go that route. But don't think that things could NEVER get so bad that we wouldn't make that sort of decision.
At least Hillary understood this since she was pushing for job training. I expect a lot of service jobs will also disappear as well as AI improves. The jobs will become more and more technical. Those not able to hack it will continue to be further left behind.
Here's what actually happens, and has been happening for a number of years. This is important, because as much as the uninformed love to talk about how everyone who voted for Trump is a horrible racist, this really is what underpins Trump's support: when jobs move out of the country, they are gone. They are not replaced by newer, better jobs. When automation cuts 1/2 or more of a factory's employment, there are no better jobs available for those people. Your factory worker of 20 years ago is an underemployed Wal-Mart greeter today.
The jobs will become more and more technical. Those not able to hack it will continue to be further left behind.
What jobs? More technical, but much fewer and further between. That is, after all, the ENTIRE reason to automate. How many system administrators do you think we need? How many app authors? You're talking about the elimination of the service sector along with the manufacturing sector. What sort of "job training" could possibly benefit them? What other sectors are going to open up to accept a hundred million people? Nursing and elder care? Or will those go the automation route as well? Robot repair? Perhaps. How many repairmen will we need? You have to be specific here, you can't say that we don't know what these future jobs will but that you're sure the advances will make them possible. That hasn't been true for years. Trump's election came from the anger that has been building over lack of jobs and underemployment. Saving banks while losing jobs. All to give a false sense of prosperity. People fed up with getting outsourced or automated out of a career.
30 years from now, do YOU think you are actually going to be able to outcompete the hungry and motivated and exploitable twentysomethings who will be fighting like mad for the incredibly small number of jobs like yours? Is your 55-year-old auto assembly-line worker going to be ABLE to turn around and learn.NET for the career of the future? Today, most people are not going to be capable of doing these jobs. Do not make the mistake of thinking that they are just going to passively sit back and be ok with getting left "further behind." That you know, they'll just be fine with starving or dying in a ditch. They will, at some point, revolt, like the underclass often does when there is a society of large group of people with few prospects, and a small upper class. But you know, maybe in the future the automated robot police force can cut them down without any losses from the upper class, then we can really live in a dystopian future. But hey, that sort of a future is totally worth automating all of our jobs away.
It's the whole underpinning behind the burgeoning "basic income" movement. There are a big number of flaws with that too, but it we can't figure it out, the future will be violent and blood-soaked. Actual people are not going to quietly accept being "left behind."
No, it is always evil when a president, at any time (before or after their presidency), conspires with foreign governments to defraud the American public.
Interesting, I didn't realize the full transcripts of those contacts were released. Do you have a handy link where I can read the fraudulent planning myself?
Sorry, you are linking to known news sources that printed daily false stories about Trump and colluded with Clinton and the DNC during the campaign. Do you have sources that aren't proven to print false Trump stories?
I'm sure you have a number of these "false stories" that nbcnews.com ran on Trump. Let's hear them. We'll wait.
Hillary was part of the anti-Russia brigade that has taken us to the brink of nuclear war with them.
I.... what? Are you fucking serious, do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe Putin is that stupid? I mean, I know anti-Putin sentiment might be at a high, but he's not the total dullard you seem to think he is.
There is no reason for America and Russia to be enemies. The people of Crimea and Donbas speak Russian and overwhelmingly support unification with Russia
There are some areas in the Southwestern US where Spanish is a dominant language, and many, many of the actual US citizens had Mexican ancestors before the area used to be a part of Mexico. So Mexico would be totally justified in invading the Southwest and taking back their traditional land that is ethnically Mexican because maybe, just maybe, Hispanics feel they're threatened under a Trump administration? We totally should be friends with Mexico after that.
The people of Crimea and Donbas speak Russian and overwhelmingly support unification with Russia
In the Crimean election there was a 30% turnout, and of that, the choice to annex was 50/50. And that was when the area was under armed Russian occupation. Not exactly 'overwhelming' support, and any election run by an occupying force should be pretty suspect.
In Syria, Russia is supporting the guy in favor of religious tolerance and opposed to political Islam
But, you know, he's also guilty of genocide. But aside from that, Assad is a totally stand-up guy!
We expanded NATO to Russia's doorstep
We forced former USSR and Eastern European territories into NATO? How did NATO manage to do that? Or, perhaps those countries were looking for protection, so they sought NATO entrance. I wonder why, after seeing Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, former soviet territories or satellite states might feel the need to ally themselves with someone else.
How would America like it if Russian troops were in New Brunswick?
I'd be fine with that, though I suspect the Canadians would have something to say about it.
I have to say that I get a lot of liberal noise, but I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump is literally Hitler or is going to murder people. The closest is the story that Trump kept a book of Hitler speeches by his bed.
That might even be a smart move. Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest speakers we've seen in the modern age. Sure, he was evil as hell, and his policies were abhorrent, but he knew how to speak to a crowd.
TV and Twitter have taken over not by force, by by virtue of giving people the soundbites and one-liners that they want.
They give ENTERTAINMENT. Or infotainment if you want to call it that. It's not informative. It's not thoughtful. It's salacious. It's shocking. It's also all about taking one sentence outside of the context that it was given in.
Why does Facebook need to do anything? Why shouldn't people be able to share what they want? Why do we assume alternative sources of information are less accurate than large news monopolies?
Because the large news companies are usually BETTER at curating what is and is not accurate than your grandmother forwarding chain mail.
No it doesn't. It says that the polls are using flawed means that don't end up being accurate. People have complained about the way polls are conducted being skewed for a long time now. Polls only measure people who agree to be measured. They only measure what people say, rather than what they do in privacy.
There was a pretty decent interview on NPR last weekend where the interviewer sat down the heads of a view polling agencies to discuss how polling works and the challenges involved in getting accurate polling. The fact of the matter is that each year it has been more difficult getting an accurate cross-sample of people. 30 years ago, it was far easier -- everyone had a public land-line. Everyone picked it up on a ring. No one had caller id. Now it's far more self-selected, and it's easier to get penned in to one demographic.
The last time I checked they still only polled people who had land lines.
No, they use cell phones now. I received a poll call on my cell phone this election, the first time in 15 years I had been randomly polled about anything.
We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.
Clinton actually gained roughly the amount of votes that were expected. But what happened is the overwhelming majority of "undecided" voters voted for Trump. What we all forgot about, but should never forget about, is The Bradley Effect. People didn't want to admit to a pollster that they were voting for Trump. It's a key example of Social Desirability Bias where respondents answer questions in a manner which will be viewed favorably by those around them.
yes, some states will become less important to the election, but every CITIZEN will become equally important. That's true democracy.
The United States was intentionally not set up as a true democracy. "True Democracy," in the Tyranny of the Majority sense, was seen as inferior to a Democratic Republic.
Switch to the popular vote and what you have is ~320 million people voting and having their vote counted.
What relevance does their physical location within the geographical borders of the USA actually have? None.
Because the entire formation of country was a balancing of power between population centers versus rural interests. That the rural interests should have a say, because they shouldn't be ruled and have the way they use their land ruled by people hundreds or thousands of miles away who haven't seen a tree over 30 feet tall in months. It's to lessen the possibility that the people in the country will be serfs to serve the interests in people in the cities.
Just like it has been for the past eight years. Those damned Republicans always messing things up. Even though the Dems controlled EVERYTHING initially, it's still somehow all the Republicans fault. Oh and Bush. Can't forget Bush. It's still all his fault nearly a decade later:|
Yup, I blame Democrats for the fact that we didn't get the single-player health care that works in many 1st-world countries. It was conservative democrats who torpedoed it and forced that ghastly compromise of the Affordable Care Act.
The Democrats have, in this century at least, been far more compliant than Republicans have. I have a hard time imagining they WOULDN'T just roll over for Trump. I mean, bravo if they finally have a backbone, but they haven't shown any evidence of one yet, despite that working out surprisingly well for most of the Republicans (except Ted Cruz).
Applying game theory to elections means you have egg on your face, and all it does is make sure only the worst candidates are represented. I'd rather choose between two strong candidates than two weak ones because each side is trying to game the other.
I think I truly understand now why parties in various states do not allow crossover voting.
Not just your lifetime, but your country's lifetime, IIRC...
I would not go that far. The US had some truly horrible HORRIBLE candidates and presidents in the 1840s and 1850s. We haven't come close to those depths yet.
Slashdot Mirror
With progress, fewer and fewer people are needed to perform jobs. People need to either move on to something new or they'll be left behind. No business in their right mind would say, "Oh, I think we'll get rid of all this automation to hire more people."
Don't think that this absolutely couldn't happen. We could, collectively as a society, if things got bad enough, decide that maybe a 2000s-era standard of living was better. A rejection of the idea that somehow, robots HAVE to be involved and we just... can't NOT use them. It's totally impossible!
Granted, we have a long way to go before we'd be motivated to actually go that route. But don't think that things could NEVER get so bad that we wouldn't make that sort of decision.
At least Hillary understood this since she was pushing for job training.
I expect a lot of service jobs will also disappear as well as AI improves.
The jobs will become more and more technical. Those not able to hack it will continue to be further left behind.
Here's what actually happens, and has been happening for a number of years. This is important, because as much as the uninformed love to talk about how everyone who voted for Trump is a horrible racist, this really is what underpins Trump's support: when jobs move out of the country, they are gone. They are not replaced by newer, better jobs. When automation cuts 1/2 or more of a factory's employment, there are no better jobs available for those people. Your factory worker of 20 years ago is an underemployed Wal-Mart greeter today.
The jobs will become more and more technical. Those not able to hack it will continue to be further left behind.
What jobs? More technical, but much fewer and further between. That is, after all, the ENTIRE reason to automate. How many system administrators do you think we need? How many app authors? You're talking about the elimination of the service sector along with the manufacturing sector. What sort of "job training" could possibly benefit them? What other sectors are going to open up to accept a hundred million people? Nursing and elder care? Or will those go the automation route as well? Robot repair? Perhaps. How many repairmen will we need? You have to be specific here, you can't say that we don't know what these future jobs will but that you're sure the advances will make them possible. That hasn't been true for years. Trump's election came from the anger that has been building over lack of jobs and underemployment. Saving banks while losing jobs. All to give a false sense of prosperity. People fed up with getting outsourced or automated out of a career.
30 years from now, do YOU think you are actually going to be able to outcompete the hungry and motivated and exploitable twentysomethings who will be fighting like mad for the incredibly small number of jobs like yours? Is your 55-year-old auto assembly-line worker going to be ABLE to turn around and learn .NET for the career of the future? Today, most people are not going to be capable of doing these jobs. Do not make the mistake of thinking that they are just going to passively sit back and be ok with getting left "further behind." That you know, they'll just be fine with starving or dying in a ditch. They will, at some point, revolt, like the underclass often does when there is a society of large group of people with few prospects, and a small upper class. But you know, maybe in the future the automated robot police force can cut them down without any losses from the upper class, then we can really live in a dystopian future. But hey, that sort of a future is totally worth automating all of our jobs away.
It's the whole underpinning behind the burgeoning "basic income" movement. There are a big number of flaws with that too, but it we can't figure it out, the future will be violent and blood-soaked. Actual people are not going to quietly accept being "left behind."
No, it is always evil when a president, at any time (before or after their presidency), conspires with foreign governments to defraud the American public.
Interesting, I didn't realize the full transcripts of those contacts were released. Do you have a handy link where I can read the fraudulent planning myself?
Good to know that further Russian aggression in Europe will have Trump's blessing.
Maybe our NATO allies can start meeting their military spending obligations, then.
That'd be the one and only silver lining if it happens.
Sorry, you are linking to known news sources that printed daily false stories about Trump and colluded with Clinton and the DNC during the campaign. Do you have sources that aren't proven to print false Trump stories?
I'm sure you have a number of these "false stories" that nbcnews.com ran on Trump. Let's hear them. We'll wait.
Hillary was part of the anti-Russia brigade that has taken us to the brink of nuclear war with them.
I.... what? Are you fucking serious, do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe Putin is that stupid? I mean, I know anti-Putin sentiment might be at a high, but he's not the total dullard you seem to think he is.
There is no reason for America and Russia to be enemies. The people of Crimea and Donbas speak Russian and overwhelmingly support unification with Russia
There are some areas in the Southwestern US where Spanish is a dominant language, and many, many of the actual US citizens had Mexican ancestors before the area used to be a part of Mexico. So Mexico would be totally justified in invading the Southwest and taking back their traditional land that is ethnically Mexican because maybe, just maybe, Hispanics feel they're threatened under a Trump administration? We totally should be friends with Mexico after that.
The people of Crimea and Donbas speak Russian and overwhelmingly support unification with Russia
In the Crimean election there was a 30% turnout, and of that, the choice to annex was 50/50. And that was when the area was under armed Russian occupation. Not exactly 'overwhelming' support, and any election run by an occupying force should be pretty suspect.
In Syria, Russia is supporting the guy in favor of religious tolerance and opposed to political Islam
But, you know, he's also guilty of genocide. But aside from that, Assad is a totally stand-up guy!
We expanded NATO to Russia's doorstep
We forced former USSR and Eastern European territories into NATO? How did NATO manage to do that? Or, perhaps those countries were looking for protection, so they sought NATO entrance. I wonder why, after seeing Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine, former soviet territories or satellite states might feel the need to ally themselves with someone else.
How would America like it if Russian troops were in New Brunswick?
I'd be fine with that, though I suspect the Canadians would have something to say about it.
Trump reciever $0 corporate donations my liberal fucktards
BULLSHIT. That was the story early in the primaries, but after he actually gained traction there, his funding model became very traditional.
To be honest I don't really care who you voted for -- as long as you're angry. Enjoy!
Some people just want to watch the world burn!
We've had a good year to get used to Trump and listen to his promises about what to do when he's elected.
I have to say that I get a lot of liberal noise, but I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump is literally Hitler or is going to murder people. The closest is the story that Trump kept a book of Hitler speeches by his bed.
That might even be a smart move. Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest speakers we've seen in the modern age. Sure, he was evil as hell, and his policies were abhorrent, but he knew how to speak to a crowd.
TV and Twitter have taken over not by force, by by virtue of giving people the soundbites and one-liners that they want.
They give ENTERTAINMENT. Or infotainment if you want to call it that. It's not informative. It's not thoughtful. It's salacious. It's shocking. It's also all about taking one sentence outside of the context that it was given in.
Why does Facebook need to do anything? Why shouldn't people be able to share what they want? Why do we assume alternative sources of information are less accurate than large news monopolies?
Because the large news companies are usually BETTER at curating what is and is not accurate than your grandmother forwarding chain mail.
No it doesn't. It says that the polls are using flawed means that don't end up being accurate. People have complained about the way polls are conducted being skewed for a long time now. Polls only measure people who agree to be measured. They only measure what people say, rather than what they do in privacy.
There was a pretty decent interview on NPR last weekend where the interviewer sat down the heads of a view polling agencies to discuss how polling works and the challenges involved in getting accurate polling. The fact of the matter is that each year it has been more difficult getting an accurate cross-sample of people. 30 years ago, it was far easier -- everyone had a public land-line. Everyone picked it up on a ring. No one had caller id. Now it's far more self-selected, and it's easier to get penned in to one demographic.
The last time I checked they still only polled people who had land lines.
No, they use cell phones now. I received a poll call on my cell phone this election, the first time in 15 years I had been randomly polled about anything.
We were seeing all the polls showing Clinton had a near certain victory. And we assumed trump was lying when he said that his polls are showing something different. Unfortunately that raises the question how good are the sources to figure out truthfulness.
Now Trump could had been lying about his sources, and gotten lucky. However the fact that he was saying that he was winning and the media is lying about that and actually won. Does bring up questions, on the fact checkers and truthfulness.
Clinton actually gained roughly the amount of votes that were expected. But what happened is the overwhelming majority of "undecided" voters voted for Trump. What we all forgot about, but should never forget about, is The Bradley Effect. People didn't want to admit to a pollster that they were voting for Trump. It's a key example of Social Desirability Bias where respondents answer questions in a manner which will be viewed favorably by those around them.
yes, some states will become less important to the election, but every CITIZEN will become equally important. That's true democracy.
The United States was intentionally not set up as a true democracy. "True Democracy," in the Tyranny of the Majority sense, was seen as inferior to a Democratic Republic.
What's wrong with that though?
Switch to the popular vote and what you have is ~320 million people voting and having their vote counted.
What relevance does their physical location within the geographical borders of the USA actually have? None.
Because the entire formation of country was a balancing of power between population centers versus rural interests. That the rural interests should have a say, because they shouldn't be ruled and have the way they use their land ruled by people hundreds or thousands of miles away who haven't seen a tree over 30 feet tall in months. It's to lessen the possibility that the people in the country will be serfs to serve the interests in people in the cities.
But we have to do something!
Why? Because the election didn't go the way you wanted? So now we have to adjust the rules so they're more to your liking?
I think he was being sarcastic.
Everyone has the same needs.
Everything else is wants.
If you live in Gnome Alaska, you NEED central heating in your home.
If you live in Phoenix Arizona, you WANT central heating a few days a year.
Regarding Sanders, the superdelegates and the DNC party bosses had spoken long before the voters had a chance.
Yet the voters did get a chance and foolishly agreed with the party bosses.
running a Finnish operating system
Stallman might have something to say about that..
Just like it has been for the past eight years. Those damned Republicans always messing things up. Even though the Dems controlled EVERYTHING initially, it's still somehow all the Republicans fault. Oh and Bush. Can't forget Bush. It's still all his fault nearly a decade later :|
Yup, I blame Democrats for the fact that we didn't get the single-player health care that works in many 1st-world countries. It was conservative democrats who torpedoed it and forced that ghastly compromise of the Affordable Care Act.
The Democrats have, in this century at least, been far more compliant than Republicans have. I have a hard time imagining they WOULDN'T just roll over for Trump. I mean, bravo if they finally have a backbone, but they haven't shown any evidence of one yet, despite that working out surprisingly well for most of the Republicans (except Ted Cruz).
The voters don't actually decide anything, the delegates decide (in the primaries), supposedly based on the results of the votes.
Unfortunately the delegates just followed the will of the voters, for all the talk that the party delegates could choose someone better.
Applying game theory to elections means you have egg on your face, and all it does is make sure only the worst candidates are represented. I'd rather choose between two strong candidates than two weak ones because each side is trying to game the other.
I think I truly understand now why parties in various states do not allow crossover voting.
Not just your lifetime, but your country's lifetime, IIRC...
I would not go that far. The US had some truly horrible HORRIBLE candidates and presidents in the 1840s and 1850s. We haven't come close to those depths yet.