You haven't. You have said things that I strongly disagree with, but that doesn't trigger rage in me. I will admit to feeling a bit grumpy recently, but I'm not angry at you. Maybe you should talk to someone to see why you're impelled to project feelings on others. When you find that out, you might be able to make better arguments
I certainly am not projecting. I merely ask questions. I have noted in life, that questions often incite upset in people -;perhaps I erred in using the word rage, because that word itself incites..... but I digress. No, I'm not a terribly angry person. I have my moments, as we all do. but I usually have to be triggered - and I'll even confess her what triggers me - it's fundamentalist Christians. That's based on growing up in a family of Extremely conservative catholics with extreme Fundamentalist Christian Grandparents.
Dealing with workplace sexual harassment hardly registers on the trigger scale. I'm inherently an analytical person, and I do a lot of risk/benefit analysis on every thing I do. Projection might be in action if I was agitating to putting women out of the workplace because of a bunch of stupid old sexist memes about them and men - where I cannot handle being around them because I fear I'm going to lose control over myself. It just doesn't fit.
I merely advocate for a very effective cure to the problem of men harassing women.
Here's another effective cure: arm all women, and teach them to shoot men who harass them. Very effective, I think you'll agree, so by that measure it's just as good as your proposal.
Jeeze David, at least be a little funny with your second amendment solution sarcasm.
Or were you serious? In that case - no, it wouldn't work. sidearms are a bad solution to alomst any human interaction problem. Poeple should not use htem except under extreme life threatening duress. We already see too many people killing someone, then killing themselves.
Have any non-sarcastic solutions?
I mean, it is pretty simple.:
Men are harassing women.
Men need to leave women alone.
So as a man, you leave them alone.
That would seem to be the goal, yet for some reason, for some people, it must be done in a different manner? But never explained, never a solution. With the new found power of accusation and destruction, there nees to be some solution.
Otherwise it resembles just glee by some onlookers are some women's bad experiences, a sort of voyeristic experience, where no actual solution is desired, because it's so much fun for a guy to be destroyed, whether it's true or not
.
I mean, unless you are just having fun arguing and now starting to dip into insults, I'd love to reset the conversation, and have rational discussion on what is wrong with the concept, and different solutions as offered up by the more "progressive" (or insert what you want to be called) people.
At least that one had "perhaps". Then again, perhaps you're being paid by some subsidiary of the Koch brothers. Perhaps you just haven't taken your anti-psychotics in too long. "Perhaps" is not, in normal conversation, a neutral and non-accusatory term.
Finally, the end results of every conversation with either libertarians or some others here. You resort to your secret weapons. You get personal.
Good work.
I must admit, I get the anti-psychotics insult. The Koch Brothers bit is a little perplexing, if you've read any of my other posts. But hey. Your ideology has withstood the test.
Although, you never did tell me what your solution was. Anyhow, good day sir,
Because it fits his narrative? Ajit Pai doesn't care about small ISPs. His owner Verizon is probably coming in right after him offering to buy those guys out.
Some men are assholes. Got a problem with that? Some male assholes are violent male assholes. I think that's also obvious. A man harassing a woman is likely an asshole, and has the potential to be a violent asshole. This means that, if a man harasses a woman where there's nobody else around, the woman has to consider how not to get into a violent situation, and survival takes precedence.
Noted that in another post, you denied what you jiust replied to. Seriously.
Hey, tell me, why have I enraged you? I merely advocate for a very effective cure to the problem of men harassing women. When you find the source of your anger, you can start on the path of losing that anger. p.s. now's the time that you start calling me names. Always effective and wins the argument.
Look, what I'm saying is that I have never seen a case where a woman unjustly accused a man of sexual harassment, despite how common other people seem to find it. Your assignment of motives to me is puerile and inaccurate.
Sorry, but I am not assigning motives. I am making statements of fact.
You haven't seen a case, most likely because it is not common. However, you assign your not seeing a case as if it is the metric by which all cases must be judged. If it hasn't happened to you - that's very good. Hasn't happened to me either. However, my expeience does not lead me to pronounce other people's experience as invalid.
Tell me, you say I am inaccurate. Are you crying fake news? Are the links I sent lies? It happens, no matter how it does not fit the narrative, it happens. As for puerile, well, hey to each his own. I don't believe in trickle down economics either, and the people who support it think I'm being stupd and unrealistic. But I digress.
Do you have a cite for me saying all men are assholes? I don't remember saying that, and it's not something I'd say. It's conceivable that I said it in sarcasm or irony, although I still don't remember. Some men are assholes, and some women are also, but that's not the same thing.
"That's not safe to do in a secluded location. The woman already knows the man is an asshole, and doesn't know if he might be a violent asshole." https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Do you sense a trap?
I do note that most of your cites are of false accusations not in the workplace, which is what we're talking about. Some people seem afraid to deal with women at work, and the concept is foreign to me, after something like forty-plus years in the tech business with employment or long-term contract work at nine different enterprises.
So what is your point? The workplace somehow has an honesty press where not a lie can be told? It doesn't matter
My point is this.
A person can have their career destroyed simply by an accusation. No evidence, no due process, just an accusation.
It makes sense in such an environment that someone wishing to avoid having their career destroyed, avoid the source of the accusations.
Since all humans are capable of dissembling, it is important to be careful, and to reduce the risk. Avoidance of any situation that entails that risk is a sensible approach.
Does any of that make sense to you? This seems like logic 101 to me. Risk avoidance based on an assessment of risk/reward. I play Ice Hockey. It's a lot riskier than my chances of being accused of sexual harassment. But its a hella good cardiovascular exercise, and great fun to be on a team. As Captain, I can help shape our success. Risk yes, but very high reward.
As an example more related, I'm not at all likely to get into a serious automobile accident. But I wear a seatbelt regardless, because analysis shows that wearing a seatbelt is prudent, and can save your life. Not much reward in not wearing a seatbelt, and a big risk avoidance by wearning one.
Avoiding the issue by minimal interaction with a person or persons who can destroy you would seem to accomplish women's objectives in reducing harassment. Not that I would, I'm at work to do science, not get laid or whatever the hell people who are harassing women are trying to accomplish. You might not like that, but no woman is harmed or annoyed, or even slightly inconvenienced. It's a win, and the more women who are not harassed, the better.
What might bear some introspection is why my personal solution bothers you.
Another possible title is "apple sells phone with defective batteries; uses software to avoid having to replace them until the phone warranty runs out."
Apple uses children with AIDS who are chained to rats nests and fed only rotted chickens to assemble their phones.
On the contrary. Everybody keeps shouting bubble, bubble, tulips, tulips. Ponzi, pyramid, ponzi, pyramid. Fraud, fraud, fraud!!!
You've been doing it for years!
So it's pretty awesome that we have built the financial version of perpetual motion, where Bitcoin will just continue to rise, This train is bound for glory, and it ain't stopping - the brakeman has resigned! Onward to infinity, Bitcoin.....
Then the story will be "Apple makes users decide, reduced battery life, or slower performance." Just another attempt by Apple to make their clueless users spend money.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/trav... A woman accused a man of sexually molesting his daughter, while they were on an airplane flight, because she thought his skin was too dark ? I guess she just knew that he was pimping her out or something.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... A social worker accuses a man of molesting his daughter - again, falsely, Apparently mens fault she did that
Here's one that should make you happy a man falsely accused of rape. He hung himself, ismn't that what men deserve? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men...''
https://www.dailywire.com/news...
et us not forget The Rolling Stone's shining moment, when what you probably were partying about, when the Rolling stone and "Jacie" a victim of gang rape by the patriarcial members of a Fraternity this was the real dirt on all men ar pigs, and rapid justice was needed. THere was just one little teeny weenie problem.
It was completely false, as in a lie. Don't worry though, after all of the trouble for th eUniversity and th eFraternity, Jackie was never charge - and that is the important thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps you agree that the problem is so awful that innocent men must be destroyed to get rid of this probelm - after all you wrote in another pose that all men are assholse. Here is a link to re-affirm your cognitive dissonance.https://www.dailywire.com/news/23892/teen-vogue-columnist-claims-shes-not-concerned-if-emily-zanotti
So anyhow - no, it is not likely that men will be falsely accused of sexual harassment. That much is true. Most women just want to get along in life and find love and friends, and happiness, and to avoid being abused. I suspect you disagree based on some of your remarks, but the same is true of most men.
But there is a fair non zero chance of being falsely accused of something that will end your career without any chance of response, and that might get you sent to jail, and have to register as a sex offender.
And society and the legal system is on her side, not yours. Even if you are eventually exonerated, you
That's not safe to do in a secluded location. The woman already knows the man is an asshole, and doesn't know if he might be a violent asshole.
And yet I catch a lot of crap when I suggest that men purposely avoid these situations.
What is it with you male misandrysts? And don't deny it, because your the man is an asshole is proof. As time goes on, it seems that you misandrysts just want random men destroyed for something.
Come up with a better solution than passive avoidance. I'll wait.
So the workers at Starbuck should be replaced by a very simple robot to mix dirt, water, and ice together to call a frappacinno. Then put your name on it with an inkjet printer.
They are only claiming that automation of order-taking (using kiosks, apps, or webpages) creates more jobs than it eliminates. Although that claim may be questionable, there is no reason that it "isn't possible".
I'm speaking of a larger picture. If everyone who is in a similar business employs the same automation, the most likely result will be more or less null, unless every business that does this suddenly has customers who drastically increase their purchases.
There are clear historical examples of automation increasing employment. Jevon's Paradox was first observed when better steam engines led to higher demand for coal, which lead to higher employment of coal miners.
I think we have to look at the intent of the automation. In your case of the steam engines, were the improved engines put in place to eliminate payroll? I would think that the efforts were performed in order to move larger and heaver payloads further and cheaper, as opposed to eliminating jobs.
While payroll reduction is the stated purpose of restaurant automation. https://www.wsj.com/articles/w... although WSJ claims it is the guvmint and it's onerous regulations.Elimintion f payroll is the whole point of present day automation efforts.
So the final point is, unless consumers go on a permanent buying spree and all these eateries show so much more traffic that they a have to hire more employees, the story means nothing.
Although I invite a discussion of how there will be an increase in business that necessitates hiring more people that is caused by all these businesses switching to automation, not just a few.
And then, you can also just disregard this crap and have a decent life on earth, regardless whether there is an afterlife or not. Incidentally, if there is an afterlife, it will be very likely just you getting reincarnated into a new body, not necessarily in this universe. And yes, that means that for most, life is going to continue to suck.
Ain't that the truth! Even the concept of heaven doesn't seem that great. worshipping an angry desert god while on earth, in order to worship him for all eternity. Hell at least has more likeable people. I can't stand tohe folks who tell me they know they'll be in heaven. Nasty mean assholes who are full of hate.
I'll enjoy life to the fullest while I can, and when I no longer feel I can, or have become a burden, I'll reject any attempts at prolonging it. If suffering, I want an off switch.
Exactly, The wife and I codified and legalized our advance directive just recently. I have no desire to live a Terry Schiavo, and one of the worst fates I can imagine is being boxed in.
There are several fates that are much worse than death. For me, if the angry desert god is real (and I'm wrong), heaven or hell would be interchangeablely awful. I want to enjoy life as long as I can, but that off switch will actually be pretty nice.
The artificial scarcity in organs causes suffering and many unnecessary deaths. But it also inflates black market prices, and likely leads to more abuses, not fewer..
And some foks seem to think that they have a right to other people's organs. You know, unnecessary deaths that can be avoided?
I used to hate going to starbucks because it took 5-10 minutes of waiting in line just to order a cup of drip coffee. My time is too valuable to piss it away doing something like standing around.
Now i place my order from my phone as i am rolling out of the drive way in the morning. 7-9 minutes later when i get there it's on the counter with my name on it. They didn't need a person to take my order and no one had to wait. This is the what innovation is all about folks.
On a side note, when i go into starbucks to get my drink now, there normally isn't even a person working the register. Everyone is making drinks for mobile orders and the drive thru. Much more value added use of resources.
Doesn't make up for the fact that StarBuck's coffee tastes moldy and muddy. But hey, some folks like it that way.
1. People eat out more because perhaps it will get cheaper to eat out since labor is the largest cost in the restaurant business; or
2. Competition will drive out of business the (usually smaller) less competitive restaurants resulting in job losses as competition increases for the static level of consumers.
Both of these could happen together or to varying degrees.
The people who lose theior jobs will eat out every night of the week because they'll have more time on their hands to spend their money.....
If this is meant to say that "automation creates jobs", it is an utter fail. What happens instead is that those that automate get more business, a) showing that automation works and b) accelerating automation and c) job-loss in late-comers to automation will be even larger.
Are people really too stupid to see this? Because it is blatantly obvious.
Yes, people are that stupid. If a store has to hire more employees bacause of an uptick in business, it does not follow that every store that automates will have the same uptick in business. Hard to imagine anyone would think so, but here we are with the same sort of logic that created the housing bubble.
Actually, the number of stores also increased that year by about the same percentage, indicating that automation did not reduce their rate of hiring, as might have otherwise been predicted.
It's a completely bogus statistic, and means nothing, because if true, everyone who replaces employees with automation will have to hire more people. That isn't possible.
Somehow in there, if we automate everything and have zero employees, we'll also have full employment with more employees needed in the world. I guess itdepends on how you look at it. Sounds like Schrödinger's Restaurant.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't. You have said things that I strongly disagree with, but that doesn't trigger rage in me. I will admit to feeling a bit grumpy recently, but I'm not angry at you. Maybe you should talk to someone to see why you're impelled to project feelings on others. When you find that out, you might be able to make better arguments
I certainly am not projecting. I merely ask questions. I have noted in life, that questions often incite upset in people - ;perhaps I erred in using the word rage, because that word itself incites..... but I digress. No, I'm not a terribly angry person. I have my moments, as we all do. but I usually have to be triggered - and I'll even confess her what triggers me - it's fundamentalist Christians. That's based on growing up in a family of Extremely conservative catholics with extreme Fundamentalist Christian Grandparents.
Dealing with workplace sexual harassment hardly registers on the trigger scale. I'm inherently an analytical person, and I do a lot of risk/benefit analysis on every thing I do. Projection might be in action if I was agitating to putting women out of the workplace because of a bunch of stupid old sexist memes about them and men - where I cannot handle being around them because I fear I'm going to lose control over myself. It just doesn't fit.
I merely advocate for a very effective cure to the problem of men harassing women.
Here's another effective cure: arm all women, and teach them to shoot men who harass them. Very effective, I think you'll agree, so by that measure it's just as good as your proposal.
Jeeze David, at least be a little funny with your second amendment solution sarcasm.
Or were you serious? In that case - no, it wouldn't work. sidearms are a bad solution to alomst any human interaction problem. Poeple should not use htem except under extreme life threatening duress. We already see too many people killing someone, then killing themselves.
Have any non-sarcastic solutions? I mean, it is pretty simple.:
Men are harassing women.
Men need to leave women alone.
So as a man, you leave them alone.
That would seem to be the goal, yet for some reason, for some people, it must be done in a different manner? But never explained, never a solution. With the new found power of accusation and destruction, there nees to be some solution.
Otherwise it resembles just glee by some onlookers are some women's bad experiences, a sort of voyeristic experience, where no actual solution is desired, because it's so much fun for a guy to be destroyed, whether it's true or not
. I mean, unless you are just having fun arguing and now starting to dip into insults, I'd love to reset the conversation, and have rational discussion on what is wrong with the concept, and different solutions as offered up by the more "progressive" (or insert what you want to be called) people.
At least that one had "perhaps". Then again, perhaps you're being paid by some subsidiary of the Koch brothers. Perhaps you just haven't taken your anti-psychotics in too long. "Perhaps" is not, in normal conversation, a neutral and non-accusatory term.
Finally, the end results of every conversation with either libertarians or some others here. You resort to your secret weapons. You get personal.
Good work.
I must admit, I get the anti-psychotics insult. The Koch Brothers bit is a little perplexing, if you've read any of my other posts. But hey. Your ideology has withstood the test.
Although, you never did tell me what your solution was. Anyhow, good day sir,
Because it fits his narrative? Ajit Pai doesn't care about small ISPs. His owner Verizon is probably coming in right after him offering to buy those guys out.
FTFY
IKR. We never got to see the raw data that the EPA was trying to use for their power grab, either.
Or the cancelled baksheesh checks either. Logic and common sense cannot stand up to a good old fashioned bribe.
Not to nitpick/derail too much, but how did modern evangelicals lose the spirit of folks like Aquinas?
When they wholeheartedly bought into the Spirit of Roy Moore.
Some men are assholes. Got a problem with that? Some male assholes are violent male assholes. I think that's also obvious. A man harassing a woman is likely an asshole, and has the potential to be a violent asshole. This means that, if a man harasses a woman where there's nobody else around, the woman has to consider how not to get into a violent situation, and survival takes precedence.
Noted that in another post, you denied what you jiust replied to. Seriously.
Hey, tell me, why have I enraged you? I merely advocate for a very effective cure to the problem of men harassing women. When you find the source of your anger, you can start on the path of losing that anger. p.s. now's the time that you start calling me names. Always effective and wins the argument.
Look, what I'm saying is that I have never seen a case where a woman unjustly accused a man of sexual harassment, despite how common other people seem to find it. Your assignment of motives to me is puerile and inaccurate.
Sorry, but I am not assigning motives. I am making statements of fact.
You haven't seen a case, most likely because it is not common. However, you assign your not seeing a case as if it is the metric by which all cases must be judged. If it hasn't happened to you - that's very good. Hasn't happened to me either. However, my expeience does not lead me to pronounce other people's experience as invalid.
Tell me, you say I am inaccurate. Are you crying fake news? Are the links I sent lies? It happens, no matter how it does not fit the narrative, it happens. As for puerile, well, hey to each his own. I don't believe in trickle down economics either, and the people who support it think I'm being stupd and unrealistic. But I digress.
Do you have a cite for me saying all men are assholes? I don't remember saying that, and it's not something I'd say. It's conceivable that I said it in sarcasm or irony, although I still don't remember. Some men are assholes, and some women are also, but that's not the same thing.
"That's not safe to do in a secluded location. The woman already knows the man is an asshole, and doesn't know if he might be a violent asshole." https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Do you sense a trap?
I do note that most of your cites are of false accusations not in the workplace, which is what we're talking about. Some people seem afraid to deal with women at work, and the concept is foreign to me, after something like forty-plus years in the tech business with employment or long-term contract work at nine different enterprises.
So what is your point? The workplace somehow has an honesty press where not a lie can be told? It doesn't matter
My point is this.
A person can have their career destroyed simply by an accusation. No evidence, no due process, just an accusation.
It makes sense in such an environment that someone wishing to avoid having their career destroyed, avoid the source of the accusations.
Since all humans are capable of dissembling, it is important to be careful, and to reduce the risk. Avoidance of any situation that entails that risk is a sensible approach.
Does any of that make sense to you? This seems like logic 101 to me. Risk avoidance based on an assessment of risk/reward. I play Ice Hockey. It's a lot riskier than my chances of being accused of sexual harassment. But its a hella good cardiovascular exercise, and great fun to be on a team. As Captain, I can help shape our success. Risk yes, but very high reward.
As an example more related, I'm not at all likely to get into a serious automobile accident. But I wear a seatbelt regardless, because analysis shows that wearing a seatbelt is prudent, and can save your life. Not much reward in not wearing a seatbelt, and a big risk avoidance by wearning one.
Avoiding the issue by minimal interaction with a person or persons who can destroy you would seem to accomplish women's objectives in reducing harassment. Not that I would, I'm at work to do science, not get laid or whatever the hell people who are harassing women are trying to accomplish. You might not like that, but no woman is harmed or annoyed, or even slightly inconvenienced. It's a win, and the more women who are not harassed, the better.
What might bear some introspection is why my personal solution bothers you.
I've managed to get a +2 Troll before. Anything is possible.
Well played, sir! well played indeed!
Another possible title is "apple sells phone with defective batteries; uses software to avoid having to replace them until the phone warranty runs out."
Apple uses children with AIDS who are chained to rats nests and fed only rotted chickens to assemble their phones.
publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber.
The provider would respond by using 11.5" cables.
We need a new mod for Insightful and funny at the same time..
On the contrary. Everybody keeps shouting bubble, bubble, tulips, tulips. Ponzi, pyramid, ponzi, pyramid. Fraud, fraud, fraud!!! You've been doing it for years!
So it's pretty awesome that we have built the financial version of perpetual motion, where Bitcoin will just continue to rise, This train is bound for glory, and it ain't stopping - the brakeman has resigned! Onward to infinity, Bitcoin.....
Then the story will be "Apple makes users decide, reduced battery life, or slower performance." Just another attempt by Apple to make their clueless users spend money.
I have to ask this. What planet are you living on?
This one, and I'll respond to that in response to your next sentence
Here you go my misandryst compadre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... A North Carolina man's daughter lied when she accused him of raping her.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... A man's wife falsely accused him of molesting his daughter.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/trav... A woman accused a man of sexually molesting his daughter, while they were on an airplane flight, because she thought his skin was too dark ? I guess she just knew that he was pimping her out or something.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... A social worker accuses a man of molesting his daughter - again, falsely, Apparently mens fault she did that
http://www.latimes.com/local/l... Man falsely accused of molesting a child. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-... Man falsely accused of sexual assault by teenage girl. NOw on the the never occuring false accusations of sexual harassment in the workplace.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Yup, woman accuses a man of sexual harassment, ruins him.
Here's one that should make you happy a man falsely accused of rape. He hung himself, ismn't that what men deserve? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men...''
https://www.dailywire.com/news... et us not forget The Rolling Stone's shining moment, when what you probably were partying about, when the Rolling stone and "Jacie" a victim of gang rape by the patriarcial members of a Fraternity this was the real dirt on all men ar pigs, and rapid justice was needed. THere was just one little teeny weenie problem.
It was completely false, as in a lie. Don't worry though, after all of the trouble for th eUniversity and th eFraternity, Jackie was never charge - and that is the important thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Perhaps you agree that the problem is so awful that innocent men must be destroyed to get rid of this probelm - after all you wrote in another pose that all men are assholse. Here is a link to re-affirm your cognitive dissonance.https://www.dailywire.com/news/23892/teen-vogue-columnist-claims-shes-not-concerned-if-emily-zanotti
So anyhow - no, it is not likely that men will be falsely accused of sexual harassment. That much is true. Most women just want to get along in life and find love and friends, and happiness, and to avoid being abused. I suspect you disagree based on some of your remarks, but the same is true of most men.
But there is a fair non zero chance of being falsely accused of something that will end your career without any chance of response, and that might get you sent to jail, and have to register as a sex offender.
And society and the legal system is on her side, not yours. Even if you are eventually exonerated, you
That's not safe to do in a secluded location. The woman already knows the man is an asshole, and doesn't know if he might be a violent asshole.
And yet I catch a lot of crap when I suggest that men purposely avoid these situations.
What is it with you male misandrysts? And don't deny it, because your the man is an asshole is proof. As time goes on, it seems that you misandrysts just want random men destroyed for something.
Come up with a better solution than passive avoidance. I'll wait.
She was always a little picky about her men.
So the workers at Starbuck should be replaced by a very simple robot to mix dirt, water, and ice together to call a frappacinno. Then put your name on it with an inkjet printer.
Progress! Seems accurate too.
They are only claiming that automation of order-taking (using kiosks, apps, or webpages) creates more jobs than it eliminates. Although that claim may be questionable, there is no reason that it "isn't possible".
I'm speaking of a larger picture. If everyone who is in a similar business employs the same automation, the most likely result will be more or less null, unless every business that does this suddenly has customers who drastically increase their purchases.
There are clear historical examples of automation increasing employment. Jevon's Paradox was first observed when better steam engines led to higher demand for coal, which lead to higher employment of coal miners.
I think we have to look at the intent of the automation. In your case of the steam engines, were the improved engines put in place to eliminate payroll? I would think that the efforts were performed in order to move larger and heaver payloads further and cheaper, as opposed to eliminating jobs.
While payroll reduction is the stated purpose of restaurant automation. https://www.wsj.com/articles/w... although WSJ claims it is the guvmint and it's onerous regulations.Elimintion f payroll is the whole point of present day automation efforts.
So the final point is, unless consumers go on a permanent buying spree and all these eateries show so much more traffic that they a have to hire more employees, the story means nothing.
Although I invite a discussion of how there will be an increase in business that necessitates hiring more people that is caused by all these businesses switching to automation, not just a few.
I'll bet you would like the Nazi position on organ donation. They seem like a group who would provide many.
And then, you can also just disregard this crap and have a decent life on earth, regardless whether there is an afterlife or not. Incidentally, if there is an afterlife, it will be very likely just you getting reincarnated into a new body, not necessarily in this universe. And yes, that means that for most, life is going to continue to suck.
Ain't that the truth! Even the concept of heaven doesn't seem that great. worshipping an angry desert god while on earth, in order to worship him for all eternity. Hell at least has more likeable people. I can't stand tohe folks who tell me they know they'll be in heaven. Nasty mean assholes who are full of hate.
I'll enjoy life to the fullest while I can, and when I no longer feel I can, or have become a burden, I'll reject any attempts at prolonging it. If suffering, I want an off switch.
Exactly, The wife and I codified and legalized our advance directive just recently. I have no desire to live a Terry Schiavo, and one of the worst fates I can imagine is being boxed in.
There are several fates that are much worse than death. For me, if the angry desert god is real (and I'm wrong), heaven or hell would be interchangeablely awful. I want to enjoy life as long as I can, but that off switch will actually be pretty nice.
The artificial scarcity in organs causes suffering and many unnecessary deaths. But it also inflates black market prices, and likely leads to more abuses, not fewer. .
And some foks seem to think that they have a right to other people's organs. You know, unnecessary deaths that can be avoided?
How far does that go - mandatory donation?
I used to hate going to starbucks because it took 5-10 minutes of waiting in line just to order a cup of drip coffee. My time is too valuable to piss it away doing something like standing around. Now i place my order from my phone as i am rolling out of the drive way in the morning. 7-9 minutes later when i get there it's on the counter with my name on it. They didn't need a person to take my order and no one had to wait. This is the what innovation is all about folks. On a side note, when i go into starbucks to get my drink now, there normally isn't even a person working the register. Everyone is making drinks for mobile orders and the drive thru. Much more value added use of resources.
Doesn't make up for the fact that StarBuck's coffee tastes moldy and muddy. But hey, some folks like it that way.
So to balance the equation two things may happen:
1. People eat out more because perhaps it will get cheaper to eat out since labor is the largest cost in the restaurant business; or
2. Competition will drive out of business the (usually smaller) less competitive restaurants resulting in job losses as competition increases for the static level of consumers.
Both of these could happen together or to varying degrees.
The people who lose theior jobs will eat out every night of the week because they'll have more time on their hands to spend their money.....
If this is meant to say that "automation creates jobs", it is an utter fail. What happens instead is that those that automate get more business, a) showing that automation works and b) accelerating automation and c) job-loss in late-comers to automation will be even larger.
Are people really too stupid to see this? Because it is blatantly obvious.
Yes, people are that stupid. If a store has to hire more employees bacause of an uptick in business, it does not follow that every store that automates will have the same uptick in business. Hard to imagine anyone would think so, but here we are with the same sort of logic that created the housing bubble.
Actually, the number of stores also increased that year by about the same percentage, indicating that automation did not reduce their rate of hiring, as might have otherwise been predicted.
It's a completely bogus statistic, and means nothing, because if true, everyone who replaces employees with automation will have to hire more people. That isn't possible.
Somehow in there, if we automate everything and have zero employees, we'll also have full employment with more employees needed in the world. I guess itdepends on how you look at it. Sounds like Schrödinger's Restaurant.