I don't think it's that easy. There are going to be edge cases that happen during that 90% of the time that are also unsafe. A child or pet that didn't quite appear in a sensor, a sudden storm. What are you going to do if those occur, park by the side of the road and force a walk home?
So families are supposed to live in high-rises instead? That's a crappy way to live. The problem is that corporations expect people to concentrate themselves in the first place.
Wait are we still talking about autopilot here? Because last time I got rear ended was by some idiot playing with his phone. At least with an autopilot he may have stood a chance.
Just count yourself lucky you're not a truck driver that has to cross a street!
With all these edge to edge displays, I hope they have technology that can prevent my phone from doing totally unpredictable things when I pick it up. Is that too much to ask for? This is a problem with my regular bezel edge phone, can't imagine what it will be like with an edge to edge phone.
I recently read an article in which they picked five common household items and checked Whole Food's prices against five local stores; only one of the local grocery chains came to a higher total. So in other words there is no price war happening.
150 years ago when tractors started to be used for farming, Henry Ford couldn't build a factory in China and throw some bags of rice around and have people work for him to build cars. He needed those ex-farmers to build cars for him; there was no option. Today corps get to pick the cheapest place in the world to manufacture and have the benefit of automation, yet a Chevy Malibu from 1970 actually cost a little less than a Chevy Malibu of today when adjusted for todays dollars. Yes, the Malibu of today has more technology and is much more complex, but there's the rub. People don't generally benefit from greater technology, because as technology advances, expectations grow, requirements grow. We cannot increase our wealth by buying a cheaply manufactured Chevelle of the 70's because it would be illegal to sell. Another point that many people miss is that every single family today should not just be slightly more wealthy than they were in the 70's, they should be roughly doubly as wealthy because of the massive shift from single earner families to double earner families in the 1970s. What you perceive as 'even the poor are more wealthy' today is a small bump from what should have been a doubling of wealth that never manifested. Most farming communities were actually far better off when you take into consideration purchasing potential divided by actual work hours. In the seventies a family was affording a vehicle on one income, today it takes two. Houses have gotten bigger, but again, not so much bigger that it accounts for the much higher efficiency and speed of creating a house today.
Stop saying people are more wealthy today. They are not. Families are doing largely the same on two salaries as they did on one. For a time there was job security in that you could work for a single company for your entire career if you wanted to, but today even that is going.
I'd say this is an almost perfect end game for the wealthy. Build a walled compound, establish a supply line for the things you need which is now dirt cheap because everyone else is desperate, live forever off your wealth without having to do anything.
Well I didn't say people have a right to money, however, I do believe it is a government's responsibility to ensure that people have a reasonable opportunity to fill a role in order to make money to survive. That is what is at stake here.
First of all, a lot of people may be caught with their EV on 50% or less charge unless they were able to predict that there would be an evacuation order and not used it the day before, unless they have a high speed charging station in their garage. It takes a fairly apocalyptic event to not be able to find gas.
Social services will fail way before companies stop having people to sell to, because the middle class will be gone and we all know the wealthy have a limit to the amount of taxes they will want to way. Once people are starving on the street, that's when things will start to get dicey.
Please name a time in history when robots were capable of replacing 80% of the educated jobs that people do, and 100% of the uneducated jobs. I'd like to know exactly what period you are comparing to here, perhaps then we can have an intelligent conversation.
Because the only way this becomes a good thing is for the owners of the automation to give up wealth to the people with no work, and it's already clear that isn't going to happen without some bloody revolution.
No one I know uses Amazon, prices are on average quite higher there than they are in local stores. I guess maybe people use Amazon where the cost of living is high, but smart people don't move to places like that. Good thing I always have the choice to go to an accountant that's smart enough to find a cheaper place to buy a laptop.
So presumably if your kid had thrown a brick through the window and scratched the side of the car with a key, Uber wouldn't expect the driver to make a claim on his own insurance and cover that damage as well? I guess being an Uber driver is a better deal than I thought.
We're not talking about costs going up for everyone. We're talking about costs going up for Google and Amazon. Besides, no tax code is ever going to be so simplistic as to rise costs equally for every business across the board everywhere. It just doesn't work that way.
I work in many languages, because I like to use the correct tool for the job. Sure one solution to the problems is to have the compiler spoon feed it to you. ORMs are rotten only to the point that if they are too inefficient to do what you need for them to do, or too high level, then you shouldn't use them. Otherwise I really don't see the logic in wasting your time doing native SQL calls. If you are such an expert than static typing should not be a necessity for you. It just adds to the lines of code you have to write.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's that easy. There are going to be edge cases that happen during that 90% of the time that are also unsafe. A child or pet that didn't quite appear in a sensor, a sudden storm. What are you going to do if those occur, park by the side of the road and force a walk home?
It's courageous to drop 200 on headphones with batteries.
So families are supposed to live in high-rises instead? That's a crappy way to live. The problem is that corporations expect people to concentrate themselves in the first place.
Wait are we still talking about autopilot here? Because last time I got rear ended was by some idiot playing with his phone. At least with an autopilot he may have stood a chance.
Just count yourself lucky you're not a truck driver that has to cross a street!
I have a note 5 and it doesn't have it. Perhaps it was introduced in the note 7?
With all these edge to edge displays, I hope they have technology that can prevent my phone from doing totally unpredictable things when I pick it up. Is that too much to ask for? This is a problem with my regular bezel edge phone, can't imagine what it will be like with an edge to edge phone.
When there's a "working from home" option, you're one step away from being outsourced.
Unless you're the only one who knows how to get any decent work out of the ones who *are* outsourced.
I recently read an article in which they picked five common household items and checked Whole Food's prices against five local stores; only one of the local grocery chains came to a higher total. So in other words there is no price war happening.
150 years ago when tractors started to be used for farming, Henry Ford couldn't build a factory in China and throw some bags of rice around and have people work for him to build cars. He needed those ex-farmers to build cars for him; there was no option. Today corps get to pick the cheapest place in the world to manufacture and have the benefit of automation, yet a Chevy Malibu from 1970 actually cost a little less than a Chevy Malibu of today when adjusted for todays dollars. Yes, the Malibu of today has more technology and is much more complex, but there's the rub. People don't generally benefit from greater technology, because as technology advances, expectations grow, requirements grow. We cannot increase our wealth by buying a cheaply manufactured Chevelle of the 70's because it would be illegal to sell. Another point that many people miss is that every single family today should not just be slightly more wealthy than they were in the 70's, they should be roughly doubly as wealthy because of the massive shift from single earner families to double earner families in the 1970s. What you perceive as 'even the poor are more wealthy' today is a small bump from what should have been a doubling of wealth that never manifested. Most farming communities were actually far better off when you take into consideration purchasing potential divided by actual work hours. In the seventies a family was affording a vehicle on one income, today it takes two. Houses have gotten bigger, but again, not so much bigger that it accounts for the much higher efficiency and speed of creating a house today.
Stop saying people are more wealthy today. They are not. Families are doing largely the same on two salaries as they did on one. For a time there was job security in that you could work for a single company for your entire career if you wanted to, but today even that is going.
If you must use your vehicle, you can fill up with gas easily before you park it. Not so easy with an EV that can take hours to recharge.
I'd say this is an almost perfect end game for the wealthy. Build a walled compound, establish a supply line for the things you need which is now dirt cheap because everyone else is desperate, live forever off your wealth without having to do anything.
Well I didn't say people have a right to money, however, I do believe it is a government's responsibility to ensure that people have a reasonable opportunity to fill a role in order to make money to survive. That is what is at stake here.
First of all, a lot of people may be caught with their EV on 50% or less charge unless they were able to predict that there would be an evacuation order and not used it the day before, unless they have a high speed charging station in their garage. It takes a fairly apocalyptic event to not be able to find gas.
Social services will fail way before companies stop having people to sell to, because the middle class will be gone and we all know the wealthy have a limit to the amount of taxes they will want to way. Once people are starving on the street, that's when things will start to get dicey.
Please name a time in history when robots were capable of replacing 80% of the educated jobs that people do, and 100% of the uneducated jobs. I'd like to know exactly what period you are comparing to here, perhaps then we can have an intelligent conversation.
Well that sucks, because using insurance isn't free. Premiums go up.
Because the only way this becomes a good thing is for the owners of the automation to give up wealth to the people with no work, and it's already clear that isn't going to happen without some bloody revolution.
No one I know uses Amazon, prices are on average quite higher there than they are in local stores. I guess maybe people use Amazon where the cost of living is high, but smart people don't move to places like that. Good thing I always have the choice to go to an accountant that's smart enough to find a cheaper place to buy a laptop.
On the other hand, if you have to flee an emergency that isn't quite so highly publicized, anyone with an EV will be on their own.
So presumably if your kid had thrown a brick through the window and scratched the side of the car with a key, Uber wouldn't expect the driver to make a claim on his own insurance and cover that damage as well? I guess being an Uber driver is a better deal than I thought.
Pssst.. I think that was an AI bot.
We're not talking about costs going up for everyone. We're talking about costs going up for Google and Amazon. Besides, no tax code is ever going to be so simplistic as to rise costs equally for every business across the board everywhere. It just doesn't work that way.
I work in many languages, because I like to use the correct tool for the job. Sure one solution to the problems is to have the compiler spoon feed it to you. ORMs are rotten only to the point that if they are too inefficient to do what you need for them to do, or too high level, then you shouldn't use them. Otherwise I really don't see the logic in wasting your time doing native SQL calls. If you are such an expert than static typing should not be a necessity for you. It just adds to the lines of code you have to write.
What kind of ORM is going to give you a string on an int column? If you're doing the raw SQL yourself, then you're complaining about a solved problem.
I never really got this argument. You're a programmer writing numbers to a variable that should have a string, and that's the LANGUAGE's problem?