Japan had decades of stagnant economy. They tried all sorts of ways to cause inflation - well, really, to cause the economy to take off, and thus bring inflation as a good sign. None of it worked. Pouring all the money you want into the money supply doesn't cause money demand.
If you want helicopter money as a way to stimulate the economy, it seems unlikely to help except in some narrow circumstances (maybe in 2008 - the payroll tax holiday failed, but maybe that was the wrong approach). If you just want free stuff, well, unless you stimulate the economy there's no more stuff to be had.
The younger generation seems more comfortable with remote collaboration, and use it better.
Even 20 years ago, software geeks were very comfortable using the tools we had invented. Also, get off my lawn!
The economy's water pressure is below the ideal.
Wrong metaphor - it's not a system of tubes. The money supply is a weight towed behind the economy. Too little and the weight gets too heavy, but it doesn't go the other way: you can't push on a rope. It's very easy to borrow money now, but that's meaningless without demand for goods and services. Japan tried for 20 years to stimulate the economy by making money cheap, without success.
Helicopter money might help a little, short term, as people might make capital purchases a little earlier. At the bottom of an economic downturn, that's important (but that's not where we are at all). Other than that not so much: most people don't spend all the money they have, they spend all the money they can borrow. After the 2008 downturn we had a unique problem where, even though interest rates were very low, the banks were scared to lend anyone money. 8 years ago helicopter money might have been just the thing. But now it's "fighting the last war".
They could have snake-like appendages and/or little micro-probes to crawl into pipes. And sonograms, X-rays, specrographs, etc. If it takes the remote-bot 3x longer than a human, it may not matter if the controller in Timbuktu is paid 1/4 a local plumber.
Yeah, and aliens could invade and offer to do the would from free from their space ships. But it's not likely. Much more likely is plumbers getting better tools, and becoming more efficient. Plumbers (and Electricians even more so) have been doing that since the beginning, and yet we still need more.
Plus, organizations don't know how to take advantage of offshored labor yet.
I've worked with people in other countries for almost 20 years now. Organizations have figured out all they're likely to.
Yes, but you seem to be saying that 80% not working is inevitable, which is generally my point.
No, I'm saying many existing and new jobs will need new workers, as we'll be spending money on new things (and more on existing things). Any one of them only needs to be a small percentage of the workforce. Farming and manufacturing have both gone from dominating the workforce to being a small percentage, with the result that whole new industries were created since people can afford goods and mostly services they couldn't before.
In arguments like this I really sense this attitude of "most people are just too stupid to ever contribute anything of value to society other then mindless labor". Well, I disagree. I think people were doing mindless labor because any other sort of service else was a luxury few could afford. The cheaper (in human labor) existing goods and services become, the more "luxury" we as a society can consume.
I'd like to see "helicopter money" tried.
Who doesn't want free stuff? But money is a distraction. What we have is what we make. Our standard of living goes up because we produce more. If everyone had 2x as much spending money, but the same amount of factories and service workers, well, we'd all have the same amount of goods and services, wouldn't we? Automation brings more goods and services. Printing money is pretty meaningless (unless you go too far and wreck the currency, which is just a huge pain in the ass for everyone).
And for right now, the middle class doesn't have enough spare cash to pay for sufficient fashion/customization to grow that field.
People spend all they have, so they never have spare cash. But we're getting so much more now than before, if you measure anything but status symbols (which by definition are limited). We just take so many miracles for granted.
Is MakeMKV the perma-Beta one you have to install every 30 days? It seems to run into more discs that it doesn't know how to decrypt than the paid guys. I had great success with AnyDVD for years, though I don't know yet about the new "Red Fox" (they claim to be the same team, just ignoring previous lifetime subscriptions are making people pay again, which is a bit shitty, but whatever.)
Plumber and electrician could be partly replaced by remote-controlled robots, operated out of 3rd-world countries.
Not in my lifetime. Union aside, it's much more involved than you might think. Robots still suck in spaces where legs and a flexible torso are needed to do anything.
Plus, the demand for those has been relatively stagnant,
All are starved for labor now. It only looks stagnant relative to the housing bubble. It won't soak everyone who delivers packages today, but any one job doesn't have to.
Software and R&D can be done in Timbuktu.
And yet my employer pays me vast sums to do it here. While also fully capable of recruiting in Elbonia. Same is true of every large software company. "IT" (i.e. helpdesk call centers) outsources well. Software development and packet-head network ops doesn't.
It's peanuts compared to the quantity loss.
If all our basic needs were nearly free, you don't think we could support 10-20% of our population in entertaining the other 80-90% (using "entertainment" very broadly here) or in customizing those nearly-free things to be fashionable? I'm not sure what % are actually any good at anything creative, but it's somewhere in there
Even interior decorating... by having a remote-controlled robot come in your house*, take photos, which are then used for reconstructing a 3D model of your house mostly via automation (which already exists), and a "tuner" in Timbuktu working at $2/hr makes some human-needed adjustments to the computer-generated portfolio
[Archer]You can just say "decorator" now[/Archer]
They won't understand local fashion, and it's all about local fashion. The whole point is you pay someone else to figure out what will make you happy, based on you ambiguous, poorly-defined inputs. Remember, people who can order their thoughts well enough to specify in unambiguous detail what they want so that a robot can execute that are software developers. The other 99% of people will need help form someone who has some domain expertise. And most people are actually enthusiasts with "expert" advice to offer about some element of their life, some hobby.
Again, cheapness means all the social status comes from customization, you'll want an expert to help with that, and we have an unending desire for social status.
ike what? I'd like examples of something that is not at risk of automation and/or offshoring.
Plumber. Electrician. Backhoe operator (the apex predator of the internet). Dump truck driver. (Those are just the ones I see out my window right now.)
Beautician. Decorator. Home theater installer. Style adviser. Pretty much every job that only the rich can afford to pay people to do today, but that the middle class can afford once manufactured goods are so cheap. Plus of course anything creative and the guys who write the automation. Plus all the jobs for all the new businesses that will only make sense once the current stuff is automated (if I knew what those were, I'd be investing in them.)
Only a few people will lose their jobs to those drones. Everyone else will get their product cheaper. Net across the system, people will have more money to spend on other things. Those other-thing-makers will need more workers to keep up with demand. And there will be new-thing-makers too, whose business only makes sense now that drone delivery is so darn cheap.
Automating every job in the world all at once would be a disaster, but for all the hype we're in no danger of that. People never stop wanting more, and people never stop finding clever ways to use new automation to satisfy that hunger in new ways.
"Free market" and "regulation" aren't even opposites! Look at the big commodities markets. They are very definitely "free markets", yet there are a ton of regulations about trading (most imposed by the markets themselves, mind you, not the government). Those regulations are there because of 500 years of smart people finding ways to game the market and cheat out an advantage, and most of the ways to do that are solidly prevented now.
What the government doesn't do in a free market is set the price, or limit who can be a buyer or seller in a discriminatory way. Having corn pass a quality inspection before being sold is a free market to the exact extent the inspection process is fair, rather than influence or bribery-based. (Did you know you can fulfill a corn contract with lower quality corn? You just have to deliver more of it, in an amount carefully chosen to seem fair to both buyer and seller. That's still a "regulation", though.)
Actually, that's exactly how I always explain it. If we all invested rather than depending on a trust like Social Security, the workers would own the means of production. I wouldn't call it communism, but I would call it better. Better still is we all own the means of production directly, in the sense of 3D printer/mill/casting to move much production into the home. Most of the economy will inevitably be services, however, so it's still mostly stock ownership.
You'll find it takes 20 years to get where you want even saving 50%. You'll find it's worth it, even so. I'm 15 years in, and there are places in America I could retire now, if I wanted to (which makes works significantly less stressful.) Just remember that the young dramatically underestimate the cost of health care when you're old.
I just wish I had the patience and lack-of-laziness to do solid real estate investing (not something one should do half-assed), as the inherent volatility of stock investing makes retirement planning hard, despite being the best to grow your wealth, and investment-grade bonds just match inflation. (There's solid math on this, BTW: when you're saving up volatility is your friend, when you draw down, then it's returns over volatility squared).
the two main means for this (without discharging mass and the like) is to have an ammonia-water phase change envelope located within the ballonets, against the outer wall (to avoid the risk of ammonia permeation into the living envelope).
That's very cool (so to speak).
Very, very hard to sink.
Sure, but it would be a serious emergency. And patching a small tear somewhere on the main balloon doesn't sound like fun work (starting with finding it). I guess beyond a certain scale you'd be doing it from the inside, at least.
You may note that Earth's jet streams are also very fast, yet they're popular for passenger jet travel. And they're far closer to the surface.
Good point, though I was more thinking about storms. Earth certainly gets storms energetic enough to tear apart anything flying, though I have no clue how high up on Venus you have to be before that stops being a worry.
your propulsion is down all night every night
That sounds a lot safer - depending on moving parts never failing is just asking for trouble.
Are you referring to contamination from permeation, or separating the H2O and SO2 gas streams during production?
During production, but only because I hadn't thought of the other. It doesn't take must sulfur to be pretty unpleasant. But then, I'm sure we have plenty of data on how much sulfur crops can absorb before it's an issue - just hope it isn't cumulative.
Some examples I've done that are entirely non-work-related: * Automating workflow to transcode DVD images with exactly the settings I want, filtering out titles like copyright warnings. * Writing bots for 2D games (which is always more fun than the game) * Writing automated character sheets for tabletop RPGs (good excuse to write something with a GUI for once)
None of these are important problems, even to me, but "a writer writes". It's less about "what do I really need to automate" and more about "what's an excuse to code something fun for once."
All modern physics/astronomy/cosmology is about statistical analysis of likely causes of observations. From the Higgs Boson to an Exoplanet, it's all about the confidence interval.
And, really, when we find something that's the mass of a planet orbiting the star at the distance that planets do, not shining on its own, what else would you call it? Whatever it looks like, it's still a "planet".
I'm curious where your 48-hour day came from. Is there a wind band that actually moves that fast? The propulsion is to stay in the band?
The nice thing about a floating city is the lift is passive (though I guess you trade the dangers of living in a pressure vessel on Mars for living on a pressure vessel on Venus), but very fast winds seems like they'd have some very energetic turbulence, which is less good. It would be nice if the propulsion could be down for repairs without that being a crisis.
As far as water goes - you'd certainly want some way to get the sulfur out, and keep the pH no lower than Coke (which, admittedly, is lot of leeway) using materials you could also forage from the environment.
Their news (not opinion shows) is actually the most "balanced" of any of the cable news networks. That should tell you how bad the overall problem is. Their bias is calculated solely to maximize revenue, and since there's no major channel to the right of them, they make the most money by keeping their news somewhat close to center. (Their opinion shows, which may be most of the airtime these days, are basically reality TV and seek mostly to be outrageous to get eyeballs, like 90% of all media.)
To be fair, Republicans probably don't view him as a 'true' Republican, and he isn't exactly a classic conservative.
The voters didn't get that memo.
No, that's wrong: the voters don't care. That's the huge shock the GOP is dealing with right now. And I think it's a big win for America.
The old, now clearly wrong, belief was that the Republican candidate had to make the social cons happy on abortion, gays, whatever, which would then drag him down in the general election. Seems that's not true. This opens the door to a sane, socially moderate, GOP candidate in future elections (since obviously an insane socially moderate candidate can win the primary).
But children are not chattel, and parents don't have the freedom to abuse their kids.
The question here: is oversharing a form of abuse? I think it is, though a mild one. What you do as a young child should not follow you into adulthood.
No, you don't get it... sooner or later it will become law...
Right, like Comcast would let a law happen that would cost it money. We can't even get cell providers to push patches to Android phones, and isn't that the majority of machines on the internet now?
Just wait for the fun the Internet of Unpatched Things!
Don't be surprised if 10 years from now, ISPs don't allow your out of date computer to connect to the Internet at all
That's about the dumbest thing I've read on/., just as dumb as when I read it 10 years ago, just as dumb as when I read it when/. was young. The ISPs give approximately 0 fucks about how horrible their customers' machines are - they just want the money.
Meanwhile, MS has an obligation to keep patching their OSs until they're ready to piss off their corporate customer base, when is about when the number of corporate customers still on the old OS approaches 0. When people pay actual money for an OS, they do expect long term support.
EOL for Win7 will eventually come, of course, but the forced WIn10 upgrades aren't about that - the upgrades aren't even being forced on corporate customers, so there's no advantage in terms of EOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan had decades of stagnant economy. They tried all sorts of ways to cause inflation - well, really, to cause the economy to take off, and thus bring inflation as a good sign. None of it worked. Pouring all the money you want into the money supply doesn't cause money demand.
If you want helicopter money as a way to stimulate the economy, it seems unlikely to help except in some narrow circumstances (maybe in 2008 - the payroll tax holiday failed, but maybe that was the wrong approach). If you just want free stuff, well, unless you stimulate the economy there's no more stuff to be had.
The younger generation seems more comfortable with remote collaboration, and use it better.
Even 20 years ago, software geeks were very comfortable using the tools we had invented. Also, get off my lawn!
The economy's water pressure is below the ideal.
Wrong metaphor - it's not a system of tubes. The money supply is a weight towed behind the economy. Too little and the weight gets too heavy, but it doesn't go the other way: you can't push on a rope. It's very easy to borrow money now, but that's meaningless without demand for goods and services. Japan tried for 20 years to stimulate the economy by making money cheap, without success.
Helicopter money might help a little, short term, as people might make capital purchases a little earlier. At the bottom of an economic downturn, that's important (but that's not where we are at all). Other than that not so much: most people don't spend all the money they have, they spend all the money they can borrow. After the 2008 downturn we had a unique problem where, even though interest rates were very low, the banks were scared to lend anyone money. 8 years ago helicopter money might have been just the thing. But now it's "fighting the last war".
They could have snake-like appendages and/or little micro-probes to crawl into pipes. And sonograms, X-rays, specrographs, etc. If it takes the remote-bot 3x longer than a human, it may not matter if the controller in Timbuktu is paid 1/4 a local plumber.
Yeah, and aliens could invade and offer to do the would from free from their space ships. But it's not likely. Much more likely is plumbers getting better tools, and becoming more efficient. Plumbers (and Electricians even more so) have been doing that since the beginning, and yet we still need more.
Plus, organizations don't know how to take advantage of offshored labor yet.
I've worked with people in other countries for almost 20 years now. Organizations have figured out all they're likely to.
Yes, but you seem to be saying that 80% not working is inevitable, which is generally my point.
No, I'm saying many existing and new jobs will need new workers, as we'll be spending money on new things (and more on existing things). Any one of them only needs to be a small percentage of the workforce. Farming and manufacturing have both gone from dominating the workforce to being a small percentage, with the result that whole new industries were created since people can afford goods and mostly services they couldn't before.
In arguments like this I really sense this attitude of "most people are just too stupid to ever contribute anything of value to society other then mindless labor". Well, I disagree. I think people were doing mindless labor because any other sort of service else was a luxury few could afford. The cheaper (in human labor) existing goods and services become, the more "luxury" we as a society can consume.
I'd like to see "helicopter money" tried.
Who doesn't want free stuff? But money is a distraction. What we have is what we make. Our standard of living goes up because we produce more. If everyone had 2x as much spending money, but the same amount of factories and service workers, well, we'd all have the same amount of goods and services, wouldn't we? Automation brings more goods and services. Printing money is pretty meaningless (unless you go too far and wreck the currency, which is just a huge pain in the ass for everyone).
And for right now, the middle class doesn't have enough spare cash to pay for sufficient fashion/customization to grow that field.
People spend all they have, so they never have spare cash. But we're getting so much more now than before, if you measure anything but status symbols (which by definition are limited). We just take so many miracles for granted.
Is MakeMKV the perma-Beta one you have to install every 30 days? It seems to run into more discs that it doesn't know how to decrypt than the paid guys. I had great success with AnyDVD for years, though I don't know yet about the new "Red Fox" (they claim to be the same team, just ignoring previous lifetime subscriptions are making people pay again, which is a bit shitty, but whatever.)
Plumber and electrician could be partly replaced by remote-controlled robots, operated out of 3rd-world countries.
Not in my lifetime. Union aside, it's much more involved than you might think. Robots still suck in spaces where legs and a flexible torso are needed to do anything.
Plus, the demand for those has been relatively stagnant,
All are starved for labor now. It only looks stagnant relative to the housing bubble. It won't soak everyone who delivers packages today, but any one job doesn't have to.
Software and R&D can be done in Timbuktu.
And yet my employer pays me vast sums to do it here. While also fully capable of recruiting in Elbonia. Same is true of every large software company. "IT" (i.e. helpdesk call centers) outsources well. Software development and packet-head network ops doesn't.
It's peanuts compared to the quantity loss.
If all our basic needs were nearly free, you don't think we could support 10-20% of our population in entertaining the other 80-90% (using "entertainment" very broadly here) or in customizing those nearly-free things to be fashionable? I'm not sure what % are actually any good at anything creative, but it's somewhere in there
Even interior decorating ... by having a remote-controlled robot come in your house*, take photos, which are then used for reconstructing a 3D model of your house mostly via automation (which already exists), and a "tuner" in Timbuktu working at $2/hr makes some human-needed adjustments to the computer-generated portfolio
[Archer]You can just say "decorator" now[/Archer]
They won't understand local fashion, and it's all about local fashion. The whole point is you pay someone else to figure out what will make you happy, based on you ambiguous, poorly-defined inputs. Remember, people who can order their thoughts well enough to specify in unambiguous detail what they want so that a robot can execute that are software developers. The other 99% of people will need help form someone who has some domain expertise. And most people are actually enthusiasts with "expert" advice to offer about some element of their life, some hobby.
Again, cheapness means all the social status comes from customization, you'll want an expert to help with that, and we have an unending desire for social status.
ike what? I'd like examples of something that is not at risk of automation and/or offshoring.
Plumber. Electrician. Backhoe operator (the apex predator of the internet). Dump truck driver. (Those are just the ones I see out my window right now.)
Beautician. Decorator. Home theater installer. Style adviser. Pretty much every job that only the rich can afford to pay people to do today, but that the middle class can afford once manufactured goods are so cheap. Plus of course anything creative and the guys who write the automation. Plus all the jobs for all the new businesses that will only make sense once the current stuff is automated (if I knew what those were, I'd be investing in them.)
Only a few people will lose their jobs to those drones. Everyone else will get their product cheaper. Net across the system, people will have more money to spend on other things. Those other-thing-makers will need more workers to keep up with demand. And there will be new-thing-makers too, whose business only makes sense now that drone delivery is so darn cheap.
Automating every job in the world all at once would be a disaster, but for all the hype we're in no danger of that. People never stop wanting more, and people never stop finding clever ways to use new automation to satisfy that hunger in new ways.
"Free market" and "regulation" aren't even opposites! Look at the big commodities markets. They are very definitely "free markets", yet there are a ton of regulations about trading (most imposed by the markets themselves, mind you, not the government). Those regulations are there because of 500 years of smart people finding ways to game the market and cheat out an advantage, and most of the ways to do that are solidly prevented now.
What the government doesn't do in a free market is set the price, or limit who can be a buyer or seller in a discriminatory way. Having corn pass a quality inspection before being sold is a free market to the exact extent the inspection process is fair, rather than influence or bribery-based. (Did you know you can fulfill a corn contract with lower quality corn? You just have to deliver more of it, in an amount carefully chosen to seem fair to both buyer and seller. That's still a "regulation", though.)
Actually, that's exactly how I always explain it. If we all invested rather than depending on a trust like Social Security, the workers would own the means of production. I wouldn't call it communism, but I would call it better. Better still is we all own the means of production directly, in the sense of 3D printer/mill/casting to move much production into the home. Most of the economy will inevitably be services, however, so it's still mostly stock ownership.
You'll find it takes 20 years to get where you want even saving 50%. You'll find it's worth it, even so. I'm 15 years in, and there are places in America I could retire now, if I wanted to (which makes works significantly less stressful.) Just remember that the young dramatically underestimate the cost of health care when you're old.
I just wish I had the patience and lack-of-laziness to do solid real estate investing (not something one should do half-assed), as the inherent volatility of stock investing makes retirement planning hard, despite being the best to grow your wealth, and investment-grade bonds just match inflation. (There's solid math on this, BTW: when you're saving up volatility is your friend, when you draw down, then it's returns over volatility squared).
the two main means for this (without discharging mass and the like) is to have an ammonia-water phase change envelope located within the ballonets, against the outer wall (to avoid the risk of ammonia permeation into the living envelope).
That's very cool (so to speak).
Very, very hard to sink.
Sure, but it would be a serious emergency. And patching a small tear somewhere on the main balloon doesn't sound like fun work (starting with finding it). I guess beyond a certain scale you'd be doing it from the inside, at least.
You may note that Earth's jet streams are also very fast, yet they're popular for passenger jet travel. And they're far closer to the surface.
Good point, though I was more thinking about storms. Earth certainly gets storms energetic enough to tear apart anything flying, though I have no clue how high up on Venus you have to be before that stops being a worry.
your propulsion is down all night every night
That sounds a lot safer - depending on moving parts never failing is just asking for trouble.
Are you referring to contamination from permeation, or separating the H2O and SO2 gas streams during production?
During production, but only because I hadn't thought of the other. It doesn't take must sulfur to be pretty unpleasant. But then, I'm sure we have plenty of data on how much sulfur crops can absorb before it's an issue - just hope it isn't cumulative.
Some examples I've done that are entirely non-work-related:
* Automating workflow to transcode DVD images with exactly the settings I want, filtering out titles like copyright warnings.
* Writing bots for 2D games (which is always more fun than the game)
* Writing automated character sheets for tabletop RPGs (good excuse to write something with a GUI for once)
None of these are important problems, even to me, but "a writer writes". It's less about "what do I really need to automate" and more about "what's an excuse to code something fun for once."
Disagree. You can call out Scientologists as being nuts without painting other religions as so.
Yes, but that makes you bigoted against Scientologists. Not that I have a problem with that, mind you, but call it what it is.
And?
All modern physics/astronomy/cosmology is about statistical analysis of likely causes of observations. From the Higgs Boson to an Exoplanet, it's all about the confidence interval.
And, really, when we find something that's the mass of a planet orbiting the star at the distance that planets do, not shining on its own, what else would you call it? Whatever it looks like, it's still a "planet".
Calling out the superstitious on the subject of their delusions is not being a bigot.
Only doing that for one religion is. Calling out a man for being lazy is not bigotry. Only ever calling out black men for being lazy is.
The habitat requires propulsion no matter what.
I'm curious where your 48-hour day came from. Is there a wind band that actually moves that fast? The propulsion is to stay in the band?
The nice thing about a floating city is the lift is passive (though I guess you trade the dangers of living in a pressure vessel on Mars for living on a pressure vessel on Venus), but very fast winds seems like they'd have some very energetic turbulence, which is less good. It would be nice if the propulsion could be down for repairs without that being a crisis.
As far as water goes - you'd certainly want some way to get the sulfur out, and keep the pH no lower than Coke (which, admittedly, is lot of leeway) using materials you could also forage from the environment.
Their news (not opinion shows) is actually the most "balanced" of any of the cable news networks. That should tell you how bad the overall problem is. Their bias is calculated solely to maximize revenue, and since there's no major channel to the right of them, they make the most money by keeping their news somewhat close to center. (Their opinion shows, which may be most of the airtime these days, are basically reality TV and seek mostly to be outrageous to get eyeballs, like 90% of all media.)
To be fair, Republicans probably don't view him as a 'true' Republican, and he isn't exactly a classic conservative.
The voters didn't get that memo.
No, that's wrong: the voters don't care. That's the huge shock the GOP is dealing with right now. And I think it's a big win for America.
The old, now clearly wrong, belief was that the Republican candidate had to make the social cons happy on abortion, gays, whatever, which would then drag him down in the general election. Seems that's not true. This opens the door to a sane, socially moderate, GOP candidate in future elections (since obviously an insane socially moderate candidate can win the primary).
But children are not chattel, and parents don't have the freedom to abuse their kids.
The question here: is oversharing a form of abuse? I think it is, though a mild one. What you do as a young child should not follow you into adulthood.
Arabic numerals, combined with the new evidence he was carrying methods of math instruction, all lead to one conclusion...
He was a member of Al-j'bra? "Broken bones" - such a menacing name.
So you keep asserting in the face of all history. Well, keep your fantasy, if it makes you happy to imagine it.
No, you don't get it... sooner or later it will become law...
Right, like Comcast would let a law happen that would cost it money. We can't even get cell providers to push patches to Android phones, and isn't that the majority of machines on the internet now?
Just wait for the fun the Internet of Unpatched Things!
Is that ISP still in business?
Don't be surprised if 10 years from now, ISPs don't allow your out of date computer to connect to the Internet at all
That's about the dumbest thing I've read on /., just as dumb as when I read it 10 years ago, just as dumb as when I read it when /. was young. The ISPs give approximately 0 fucks about how horrible their customers' machines are - they just want the money.
Meanwhile, MS has an obligation to keep patching their OSs until they're ready to piss off their corporate customer base, when is about when the number of corporate customers still on the old OS approaches 0. When people pay actual money for an OS, they do expect long term support.
EOL for Win7 will eventually come, of course, but the forced WIn10 upgrades aren't about that - the upgrades aren't even being forced on corporate customers, so there's no advantage in terms of EOL.
Your sig is a dead link, more's the pity.