And they have better knowledge of their personal condition and what options, including regular work, that they can do instead.
On the one hand, this is why such systems are not extremely popular: many people realize their time is better spent on other endeavors rather than trying to find the rare decently-paying microjob. On the other hand, assumptions that all actors in any economic model are fully equipped to act in their own self-interest is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy that underpins a lot of these systems, and what people generally mean by "exploitation" when they apply negative connotations to it is acting on perverse incentives to keep your workforce ignorant of their own best interests or powerless to pursue them.
For systems like mturk to live up to their potential, they have to balance getting employers a good value with improving employee conditions. Simply doing the former results in the system failing as the workforce either leaves, or becomes unavailable as the lives of workers deteriorate past the point where they can work. Simply doing the latter is unattractive to employers as it makes their inventory more expensive.
Yeah pretty much. The code used by the micro-employers usually involves something totally hacked together requiring huge horsepower to do really simple things, so an old pentium with low ram running a pirated copy of winxp on an intermittent IP connection is not going to cut it. Plus there's little to build confidence that any of it as been looked over to make sure some "employers" aren't just going around owning workers' machines with malware.
I played with this thing when it first came out mostly just to see what was going on. For a while there were a lot of jobs that really captured the spirit of something like this... for example taking street view images and typing in any street addresses you could see posted on transoms or mailboxes.
Eventually those went away, and the only thing of merit left were some audio transcription jobs, which, well, if you could make minimum wage at, you'd probably be good enough to get a day job doing it because you are a great typist... but compared to the other jobs they were reasonable. The rest was all surveys trying to milk personal demographics information out of workers, and responding to "ask jeeves"ish questions for less money than it was worth to run a single google search and paste a URL. You'd generally spend more time refreshing job lists to find something decent than actually working.
Incidentally, if you were signed up during this period, changes in the scoring mechanisms probably ruined your rating as a worker by trashing your rating using old data from before the changes, so you're no longer eligible to do just about any job.
Even if it started out at wages we would consider exploitative here, getting the market rolling in less developed markets would provide a base from which to work up from, but unless there have been drastic improvements in innovation among the work-providers and improvements in the platform, nobody on that side of the fence seems to be smart enough to figure out how to leverage this system.
Expecting certain trading partners to go to a U.S. minimum wage overnight is too much.
But you're right... people can't just scream "protectionism" over every attempt to leverage trade policy for foreign social improvements.
Generally trade policy, and corporations wishing to look better or improve stability in their supply lines, will try to eek up worker conditions gradually over time.
Don't put random things you found on the internet into your program without reading the code, understanding what it does, and doing a full audit on it first.
Nobody would get anything done if they had to fully audit all their dependencies.
However, they should spend some time auditing some portion of it. Especially if they have specialized domain knowledge which allows them to audit that section better.
In other words, improve, even if slightly, some of the things you use. Contribute. Don't just take. If everyone did that, then security would improve.
Yup. Everyone wants a philosophical fix for the security (and general QA) problem. Nobody wants to admit the need for many hours of less-than-prestigious, methodical work.
This. It also helps if codebases "do one thing and do it well" and when they feel mission creep seeping in, break off extra functionality into a well separated module. That helps confine bugs to more easily audited units.
The bugs in version 1.0 have a much lower chance of making it into version 2.0 if it's all new code.
A lot of "bugs" are actually design deficiencies that are later patched up in code. These patches rarely make it back into the design documents, if there even are any. Rewrites are very likely to make the same exact mistakes, because it was not obvious a mistake was made until the code was put into production.
Or in other words, old code contains wisdom. People need to learn to read code, not just write it.
"That played well before the election. Now? We don't care."
or maybe this one is better:
"You people were vicious, violent, screaming, 'Where's the wall? We want the wall!' Screaming, 'Prison! Prison! Lock her up!' I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right? But now, you're mellow and you're cool and you're not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?"
Not really. We only have to have a vague idea of what we are doing to enter uncharted territory. The normal process of evolution is to just throw random mutations up against a wall and seeing what sticks. We're on the cusp of making those mutations rather less than random.
It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that past some point, life extension will require forgetting some of your life and dealing with some personality changes, as there are limits to the brain. I guess that means Dr. Who got it kinda right.
Our species, it appears, has better tools for advancement than those that evolved naturally. When you start intelligently editing gene expression and genomes, you're kinda in uncharted territory.
"In vivo reprogramming improves regeneration in 12-month-old wild-type mice" -- TFA...which even though it may not extend lifespan, it could significantly delay senescence and thus allow people to have higher quality, more productive, later years. Combined with a lifetime of experience this could be a win-win proposition for both the economy and the individual.
Also, the estimate is 10 years before clinical trials are possible. So, some number more years after that.
The other thing that will kill cloud is arbitrary service alterations when the duopoly gets cocky, and the fact that smaller providers can just pack up and leave.
Basically if you use too many privately owned, nonstandard APIs/infrastructure, you are in for hurt when those stop being offered on a whim. It will probably take a few decades before this lesson filters up to PHBs, but someday there will come a buzzword down the tubes that means "stop using any old thing a company offers and stick to standards."
revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?
Legislatively we are already there. The question is whether Sessions is going to tell the federal law enforcement troops to start an enforcement campaign in those states.
Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.
Trump has a long track record of ruining hundreds of business ventures.
FTFY.
Clinton never stole money from joe sixpack. Trump's MLM schemes have. And the reason he doesn't want to divest is because his debt would have to be reconciled too, and all the places where he's double-dipping into his asset values would be exposed.
Slashdot Mirror
This probably isn't why most users do not update.
But you are right, bundling security updates with other behavioral changes risks turning off users to updates.
They do that automatically.
My point is this idea is naive. To take an extreme example, what do these systems do to ensure labor input to the system is not slave labor?
And they have better knowledge of their personal condition and what options, including regular work, that they can do instead.
On the one hand, this is why such systems are not extremely popular: many people realize their time is better spent on other endeavors rather than trying to find the rare decently-paying microjob. On the other hand, assumptions that all actors in any economic model are fully equipped to act in their own self-interest is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy that underpins a lot of these systems, and what people generally mean by "exploitation" when they apply negative connotations to it is acting on perverse incentives to keep your workforce ignorant of their own best interests or powerless to pursue them.
For systems like mturk to live up to their potential, they have to balance getting employers a good value with improving employee conditions. Simply doing the former results in the system failing as the workforce either leaves, or becomes unavailable as the lives of workers deteriorate past the point where they can work. Simply doing the latter is unattractive to employers as it makes their inventory more expensive.
Yeah pretty much. The code used by the micro-employers usually involves something totally hacked together requiring huge horsepower to do really simple things, so an old pentium with low ram running a pirated copy of winxp on an intermittent IP connection is not going to cut it. Plus there's little to build confidence that any of it as been looked over to make sure some "employers" aren't just going around owning workers' machines with malware.
I played with this thing when it first came out mostly just to see what was going on. For a while there were a lot of jobs that really captured the spirit of something like this... for example taking street view images and typing in any street addresses you could see posted on transoms or mailboxes.
Eventually those went away, and the only thing of merit left were some audio transcription jobs, which, well, if you could make minimum wage at, you'd probably be good enough to get a day job doing it because you are a great typist... but compared to the other jobs they were reasonable. The rest was all surveys trying to milk personal demographics information out of workers, and responding to "ask jeeves"ish questions for less money than it was worth to run a single google search and paste a URL. You'd generally spend more time refreshing job lists to find something decent than actually working.
Incidentally, if you were signed up during this period, changes in the scoring mechanisms probably ruined your rating as a worker by trashing your rating using old data from before the changes, so you're no longer eligible to do just about any job.
Even if it started out at wages we would consider exploitative here, getting the market rolling in less developed markets would provide a base from which to work up from, but unless there have been drastic improvements in innovation among the work-providers and improvements in the platform, nobody on that side of the fence seems to be smart enough to figure out how to leverage this system.
Expecting certain trading partners to go to a U.S. minimum wage overnight is too much.
But you're right... people can't just scream "protectionism" over every attempt to leverage trade policy for foreign social improvements.
Generally trade policy, and corporations wishing to look better or improve stability in their supply lines, will try to eek up worker conditions gradually over time.
Don't put random things you found on the internet into your program without reading the code, understanding what it does, and doing a full audit on it first.
Nobody would get anything done if they had to fully audit all their dependencies.
However, they should spend some time auditing some portion of it. Especially if they have specialized domain knowledge which allows them to audit that section better.
In other words, improve, even if slightly, some of the things you use. Contribute. Don't just take. If everyone did that, then security would improve.
Yup. Everyone wants a philosophical fix for the security (and general QA) problem. Nobody wants to admit the need for many hours of less-than-prestigious, methodical work.
This. It also helps if codebases "do one thing and do it well" and when they feel mission creep seeping in, break off extra functionality into a well separated module. That helps confine bugs to more easily audited units.
The bugs in version 1.0 have a much lower chance of making it into version 2.0 if it's all new code.
A lot of "bugs" are actually design deficiencies that are later patched up in code. These patches rarely make it back into the design documents, if there even are any. Rewrites are very likely to make the same exact mistakes, because it was not obvious a mistake was made until the code was put into production.
Or in other words, old code contains wisdom. People need to learn to read code, not just write it.
I am:
"That played well before the election. Now? We don't care."
or maybe this one is better:
"You people were vicious, violent, screaming, 'Where's the wall? We want the wall!' Screaming, 'Prison! Prison! Lock her up!' I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right? But now, you're mellow and you're cool and you're not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?"
You should be careful about promising "free nucs" on slashdot.
Know of any?
....crickets
Not really. We only have to have a vague idea of what we are doing to enter uncharted territory. The normal process of evolution is to just throw random mutations up against a wall and seeing what sticks. We're on the cusp of making those mutations rather less than random.
It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that past some point, life extension will require forgetting some of your life and dealing with some personality changes, as there are limits to the brain. I guess that means Dr. Who got it kinda right.
Not to mention, kids will be waiting around for their inheritance quite longer, and might defer on that extra child due to economics.
Our species, it appears, has better tools for advancement than those that evolved naturally. When you start intelligently editing gene expression and genomes, you're kinda in uncharted territory.
"In vivo reprogramming improves regeneration in 12-month-old wild-type mice" -- TFA ...which even though it may not extend lifespan, it could significantly delay senescence and thus allow people to have higher quality, more productive, later years. Combined with a lifetime of experience this could be a win-win proposition for both the economy and the individual.
Also, the estimate is 10 years before clinical trials are possible. So, some number more years after that.
I'm sure they'd be amenable to mixing in conservatiive-leaning fact-checking operations as well. Know of any?
value-added fart huffing contest
I am sooooo stealing that.
on non-sensitive information
What's that? Never heard of it.
The other thing that will kill cloud is arbitrary service alterations when the duopoly gets cocky, and the fact that smaller providers can just pack up and leave.
Basically if you use too many privately owned, nonstandard APIs/infrastructure, you are in for hurt when those stop being offered on a whim. It will probably take a few decades before this lesson filters up to PHBs, but someday there will come a buzzword down the tubes that means "stop using any old thing a company offers and stick to standards."
"That played well before the election. Now? We don't care."
Besides, he has to ensure the H-2B program is running smoothly as well, so he can staff Mar-A-Lago.
revoking all the recent laws laws governing recreational and medical marijuana?
Legislatively we are already there. The question is whether Sessions is going to tell the federal law enforcement troops to start an enforcement campaign in those states.
Something tells me a Hillary administration appointing just one GS alum to a minor undersecretary role would have elicited a tweet storm from the right.
Trump has a long track record of ruining hundreds of business ventures.
FTFY.
Clinton never stole money from joe sixpack. Trump's MLM schemes have. And the reason he doesn't want to divest is because his debt would have to be reconciled too, and all the places where he's double-dipping into his asset values would be exposed.