The "measurement" part in your example is "what's your favorite color". Rather trivial. But how do you measure "receptivity to information"? Coming up with the measure itself requires real science, including a hypothesis about why the questions asked in fact reflect receptivity to information.
Like I said, that part is real science, it's just not very useful.
Why does a Chevy Malibu cost slightly more today than it did in 1970 if automation makes such a huge difference?
Seriously? Compare the cars. Safety, performance, emissions, the old Malibu would be illegal on every axis today. This is my point: you get vastly more car (whether you want it or not).
There's lots of "soft science" work that is, in fact, real science. There are repeatable experiments, falsifiable hypotheses, and so on. We're not talking string theory or gender studies here!
But those sciences are mostly limited to measurement. You can construct tests that measure someone's receptivity to information, or IQ, or bias on some issue. You can do this in a way that's repeatable by different observers in different conditions. That's science, right there.
It's just basically useless. Being able to measure things, perhaps even quantitatively, is a necessary first step. But until you can make useful predictions about human behavior (aside from the measurements themselves), it's not that interesting, is it? Sadly, many of these fields have been taken over by agendas and fashions, and don't seem to be making much progress.
Philosophy as a field struggles with this constantly. It still draws some of the most brilliant human minds, and still makes some of the most important realizations, but because it's mostly full of garbage, and idiots who publish whatever's fashionable because that's what you do if you're dumb, it moves very slowly indeed.
Them's the rules. It's like saying "racist" or comparing your opponent to Hitler. It's stating publicly that you've run out of rational argument, and are now just talking.
In Judo you tap out. In a schoolyard fight you say "uncle". In chess you tip your king. In a political discussion you say "racist". In an economics discussion you say "Somalia".
You don't have less because CEOs have more - they're statistically insignificant. Especially if you look at consumption inequality, it's minimal.
If you look at the details, your money goes a lot farther than it did 30 years ago, especially regarding anything related to computers and entertainment, cars are much better, houses are much larger, medicine is materially more advanced, and so on. Often price points don't come down because people instead want more at the price point, but that doesn't mean you aren't getting more.
And yes, all of technological advancement and the rapid improvement of the human condition over the past 400 years has been due to greed, not people acting for the betterment of society. Funny how markets work out, if you don't let monopolies happen.
Protip: I've never actually typed an include statement in Java. My IDE magically takes care of that. I usually need to type only the first couple letters of any library function name, as well.
Also, I can use two libraries that happen to have a function with the same name. Strange but true (much like C++ namespaces).
When it comes to the federal government, states should have more power. When it comes to local government, states should have more power. This seems perfectly straightforward, consistent, and exactly what any reasonable person would expect a state government to believe. Why are you confused?
The solution to corporate greed is the greed of a different corporation. Believing in some dystopia isn't good for your mental health, and doesn't help you succeed in life, so why do you do it? Why believe in some fantasy that the next 100 years will be magically different than the past 400? It will only make you both sad and poor - a bad combination.
Yes, the world isn't fair. Didn't you learn that by the time you were 8? But retirees have worked for a living, they just chose not to spend it all at once. And Bill Gates worked for a living, he just chose not to spend it all at once (and I do believe his kids will get fairly unimpressive trust funds, he's not going to make them billionaires)..
BTW, the model of ancient Greece, where 90% of the state budget was from tribute extracted from military threat of neighbors, is one the US could certainly follow. But would you advocate for that?
You're arguing against an extreme absolutism that's not my argument. I'm not claiming there are 0 such people, but they are quite rare.
But I've interview several hundred people in my career, and I know whereof I speak, as far as the 99% case. Most, almost all, people can't cross over. Sad, perhaps, but true.
We're not talking about "able to code". I can train a monkey or a college student to be able to code. So you learned the syntax - so what?
We're talking about professionally skilled, which takes years of understanding of best practices, domain-specific libraries, and so on. There are families of languages that are similar because the bast practices and libraries are similar, so much of the years of learning carry over, with just the occasional gotcha.
But very few people can learn more than one set of best practices - there's a tendency to think there's One True Way to do things. So C programmers writing Java do crazy crap like not returning from the middle of a function, and Java programmers doing C do crazy crap like returning from the middle of a function.
Sure, there are a few, but very rare. I've never found one in an interview. People who are great C programmers can't seem to solve even simple interview problems (in their language of choice) of the normal, daily sort in Java. They just don't have the mental toolbox. Python is a bit closer, but it's still uncommon to see someone who can cross over - some can, some can't.
No, silly, the people whose jobs are unaffected will have more purchasing power, as has been the norm for 4 centuries of automation. This will create new jobs providing goods and services for the middle class which only the rich could previously afford, as has been the norm for 4 centuries of automation.
Is this really that complicated? Technology makes things cheaper by eliminating some labor cost. So people can buy more (and do, since we're greedy), thus new jobs.
You deserve nothing for free, so you must work for a living. Clear enough? The interesting question is "but what will we do?" The answer of course is that we'll collectively produces whatever non-automated goods and services we collectively consume. And we'll want to consume lots, because human.
They are an important part of the means of production that, soon enough, anyone can own. We're talking about increasing automation here. I see a world of "universal basic robots", as opposed to some distopia where one guy owns all the robots, which fill warehouses full of stuff no one can buy.
they're not going to magically free us from the materials, goods, and services we need that are produced and provided by others.
Nor will any sort of automation, so we'll all have jobs, yes? But we'll also not lose the ability to invest that income, if we choose.
Supply doesn't equal demand when the technology isn't there to deliver at an acceptable price. But that's what technology does: is makes production more efficient. Where there's unmet demand and people sitting idle, there will usually be supply.
If I knew the specific industry, I'd be pouring all my investment capital into it. But, in general, I expect personal services to expand. The aging baby boom has caused an explosion in demand for handyman labor, and many of the traditional skilled trades have a serious labor shortage. There's a serious labor shortage for skilled manufacturing (over a million jobs unfilled). Skilled manual labor won't go away any time soon.
As material possessions become cheaper they lose social signalling value, but customization can restore that value - I expect real growth in "enthusiast jobs" for any sort of customization, from decorating to the details of customized manufactured goods.
These are all semi-skilled or skilled jobs, but in such variety that everyone will be good at something. Being the interior design version of a hairdresser may not pay well, but neither does flipping burgers, and fashion sense won't be automated in my lifetime.
The Constitution explicitly protects your right to bear arms. Threatening the president is explicitly excluded from your 1st Amendment freedoms of expression. This is very clear - misunderstanding must be willful.
Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms are what we make compromises to ensure, not what we compromise.
Wake me when either language runs on small tiny embedded applications.
They work fine on phones. Phones were "tiny embedded applications" for most of my life. Now they run a full OS and Java or C# easily. Funny old world. You don't think it will be common for, say, a microwave to run Linux and Java soon enough? That that won't be a $0.25 chip?
Want good C/C++ code? Get a good C/C++ programmer.
There is no such thing as good "C/C++" code. There is no such thing as a good "C/C++" programmer. The languages are very different; and what good code looks like in each language is very different.
Generally, someone using the term "C/C++" is either not a coder, or a C coder who fails to understand C++.
A good C coder can write good C code, or good assembly code. C++, Java, and C# are a different set, written with a different style. Python is over there in the corner, wearing the horse head mask and purple speedo, doing things very much its own way. We don't talk about JS in polite company, other then to note that there's no such thing as good JS.
Slashdot Mirror
The "measurement" part in your example is "what's your favorite color". Rather trivial. But how do you measure "receptivity to information"? Coming up with the measure itself requires real science, including a hypothesis about why the questions asked in fact reflect receptivity to information.
Like I said, that part is real science, it's just not very useful.
Why does a Chevy Malibu cost slightly more today than it did in 1970 if automation makes such a huge difference?
Seriously? Compare the cars. Safety, performance, emissions, the old Malibu would be illegal on every axis today. This is my point: you get vastly more car (whether you want it or not).
There's lots of "soft science" work that is, in fact, real science. There are repeatable experiments, falsifiable hypotheses, and so on. We're not talking string theory or gender studies here!
But those sciences are mostly limited to measurement. You can construct tests that measure someone's receptivity to information, or IQ, or bias on some issue. You can do this in a way that's repeatable by different observers in different conditions. That's science, right there.
It's just basically useless. Being able to measure things, perhaps even quantitatively, is a necessary first step. But until you can make useful predictions about human behavior (aside from the measurements themselves), it's not that interesting, is it? Sadly, many of these fields have been taken over by agendas and fashions, and don't seem to be making much progress.
Philosophy as a field struggles with this constantly. It still draws some of the most brilliant human minds, and still makes some of the most important realizations, but because it's mostly full of garbage, and idiots who publish whatever's fashionable because that's what you do if you're dumb, it moves very slowly indeed.
"We are living in a post truth world, where opinions and offended feelings dictate our social policy rather than objective, dispassionate analysis."
Fortunately, societies that cling to truth always win out over post-truth societies.
Eventually. In the long run, that's true. But in the long run, you're dead, so it's not much comfort.
Them's the rules. It's like saying "racist" or comparing your opponent to Hitler. It's stating publicly that you've run out of rational argument, and are now just talking.
In Judo you tap out. In a schoolyard fight you say "uncle". In chess you tip your king. In a political discussion you say "racist". In an economics discussion you say "Somalia".
You don't have less because CEOs have more - they're statistically insignificant. Especially if you look at consumption inequality, it's minimal.
If you look at the details, your money goes a lot farther than it did 30 years ago, especially regarding anything related to computers and entertainment, cars are much better, houses are much larger, medicine is materially more advanced, and so on. Often price points don't come down because people instead want more at the price point, but that doesn't mean you aren't getting more.
And yes, all of technological advancement and the rapid improvement of the human condition over the past 400 years has been due to greed, not people acting for the betterment of society. Funny how markets work out, if you don't let monopolies happen.
Yes, you do like to change things that other people take for granted.
Protip: I've never actually typed an include statement in Java. My IDE magically takes care of that. I usually need to type only the first couple letters of any library function name, as well.
Also, I can use two libraries that happen to have a function with the same name. Strange but true (much like C++ namespaces).
Maybe there's a clue in the first word of "States' Rights".
Austin is a drop of Liberal society in a sea of rednecks and is surely better able to govern itself than a bunch of hicks representing other areas.
Ah, a bigot.
When it comes to the federal government, states should have more power. When it comes to local government, states should have more power. This seems perfectly straightforward, consistent, and exactly what any reasonable person would expect a state government to believe. Why are you confused?
The solution to corporate greed is the greed of a different corporation. Believing in some dystopia isn't good for your mental health, and doesn't help you succeed in life, so why do you do it? Why believe in some fantasy that the next 100 years will be magically different than the past 400? It will only make you both sad and poor - a bad combination.
Yes, the world isn't fair. Didn't you learn that by the time you were 8? But retirees have worked for a living, they just chose not to spend it all at once. And Bill Gates worked for a living, he just chose not to spend it all at once (and I do believe his kids will get fairly unimpressive trust funds, he's not going to make them billionaires)..
BTW, the model of ancient Greece, where 90% of the state budget was from tribute extracted from military threat of neighbors, is one the US could certainly follow. But would you advocate for that?
You're arguing against an extreme absolutism that's not my argument. I'm not claiming there are 0 such people, but they are quite rare.
But I've interview several hundred people in my career, and I know whereof I speak, as far as the 99% case. Most, almost all, people can't cross over. Sad, perhaps, but true.
You're upset about slight different syntax in the include statement?
We're not talking about "able to code". I can train a monkey or a college student to be able to code. So you learned the syntax - so what?
We're talking about professionally skilled, which takes years of understanding of best practices, domain-specific libraries, and so on. There are families of languages that are similar because the bast practices and libraries are similar, so much of the years of learning carry over, with just the occasional gotcha.
But very few people can learn more than one set of best practices - there's a tendency to think there's One True Way to do things. So C programmers writing Java do crazy crap like not returning from the middle of a function, and Java programmers doing C do crazy crap like returning from the middle of a function.
Sure, there are a few, but very rare. I've never found one in an interview. People who are great C programmers can't seem to solve even simple interview problems (in their language of choice) of the normal, daily sort in Java. They just don't have the mental toolbox. Python is a bit closer, but it's still uncommon to see someone who can cross over - some can, some can't.
No, silly, the people whose jobs are unaffected will have more purchasing power, as has been the norm for 4 centuries of automation. This will create new jobs providing goods and services for the middle class which only the rich could previously afford, as has been the norm for 4 centuries of automation.
Is this really that complicated? Technology makes things cheaper by eliminating some labor cost. So people can buy more (and do, since we're greedy), thus new jobs.
Can't you just let your obsession with race go?
Why would you want to define anything in the global namespace? That's just icky. Java functions mandate a non-global namespace, is all.
You deserve nothing for free, so you must work for a living. Clear enough? The interesting question is "but what will we do?" The answer of course is that we'll collectively produces whatever non-automated goods and services we collectively consume. And we'll want to consume lots, because human.
They are an important part of the means of production that, soon enough, anyone can own. We're talking about increasing automation here. I see a world of "universal basic robots", as opposed to some distopia where one guy owns all the robots, which fill warehouses full of stuff no one can buy.
they're not going to magically free us from the materials, goods, and services we need that are produced and provided by others.
Nor will any sort of automation, so we'll all have jobs, yes? But we'll also not lose the ability to invest that income, if we choose.
Supply doesn't equal demand when the technology isn't there to deliver at an acceptable price. But that's what technology does: is makes production more efficient. Where there's unmet demand and people sitting idle, there will usually be supply.
If I knew the specific industry, I'd be pouring all my investment capital into it. But, in general, I expect personal services to expand. The aging baby boom has caused an explosion in demand for handyman labor, and many of the traditional skilled trades have a serious labor shortage. There's a serious labor shortage for skilled manufacturing (over a million jobs unfilled). Skilled manual labor won't go away any time soon.
As material possessions become cheaper they lose social signalling value, but customization can restore that value - I expect real growth in "enthusiast jobs" for any sort of customization, from decorating to the details of customized manufactured goods.
These are all semi-skilled or skilled jobs, but in such variety that everyone will be good at something. Being the interior design version of a hairdresser may not pay well, but neither does flipping burgers, and fashion sense won't be automated in my lifetime.
The Constitution explicitly protects your right to bear arms. Threatening the president is explicitly excluded from your 1st Amendment freedoms of expression. This is very clear - misunderstanding must be willful.
Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms are what we make compromises to ensure, not what we compromise.
The entire world has gone to Java or .Net
Wake me when either language runs on small tiny embedded applications.
They work fine on phones. Phones were "tiny embedded applications" for most of my life. Now they run a full OS and Java or C# easily. Funny old world. You don't think it will be common for, say, a microwave to run Linux and Java soon enough? That that won't be a $0.25 chip?
Want good C/C++ code? Get a good C/C++ programmer.
There is no such thing as good "C/C++" code. There is no such thing as a good "C/C++" programmer. The languages are very different; and what good code looks like in each language is very different.
Generally, someone using the term "C/C++" is either not a coder, or a C coder who fails to understand C++.
A good C coder can write good C code, or good assembly code. C++, Java, and C# are a different set, written with a different style. Python is over there in the corner, wearing the horse head mask and purple speedo, doing things very much its own way. We don't talk about JS in polite company, other then to note that there's no such thing as good JS.