Our utility box is in the basement. We bought the house with 95% of the basement ceiling drywalled. Our bedroom juts out mostly over the garage and the heat only gets upstairs through a maze of joists and ducts. Very difficult to cable. It's not impossible, we were doing renovations once and had a key part of the wall open that exposed the difficult part of the path upstairs but I thought screw it.. wireless routers work well enough. It has been a long time since I had the free hours for such endeavors. Roughly since before my kids were born.
If Trump used the same bag of tricks he used with Carrier some of that 700 million will be offset by tax cuts, and quickly you end up with a net gain of peanuts.
I can't imagine buying a laptop for a machine that sits in my basement to hold a lot of files for my family to use. Or a machine to back up that machine.
I suspected that actually, but I there isn't really far to go until Watson can do those things. Certainly if AI becomes capable of driving a car like everyone thinks it will, it will be capable of making good accounting decisions given enough training data. Most professional roles require far, far less real world understanding than driving a car through cameras and sensors.
Agreed, companies will be designed around using as little human intervention as possible. First they will use AI, then they will use cheap foreign labor, and only if those two options are completely impractical will they use domestic labor. Any business plan that depends on more than a small fraction of domestic labor (think Amazon's 1 minute of human handling per package) is likely to be considered unable to compete. I hate the buggy whip analogy, because using foreign (cheap) labor as freely as today was a pipe dream back then.
Ok, granted, there will still be 0.5% of the work left for humans. But companies will be able to fill these jobs Uber-style since there won't be enough to justify full time positions.
I'll say something meaningful when you can point out which one of Trump's cabinet made their wealth on a farmer's market and without being affiliated with a corporation.
I found out that my VPN client was actually requiring the performance GPU. I stopped my VPN client, but that only gave me a boost from 3.5 to 4 hours. I've done it a few times now and it is almost always 4 hours of battery life with very little variation.
Your question is complete. The correct question to ask is if these people were able to get hired elsewhere *at the same salary when adjusted for inflation*. To that, the answer is no. It hasn't been true on average since the 70's. Sure, some people will find equal or better jobs, but salaries have been steadily decreasing since the onset of technology. Given a job for less money or no job, most people will pick the job for less; and that is why we are not seeing a large change in the unemployment rate.
Then why don't you give at least one specific example.
There is a tremendous amount of judgement that goes into accounting and much of it is anything but rigid.
And this is where a system like Watson shines. While you may be able to fall back on personal experience to make these judgement calls, Watson can easily run thousands of simulations on each set of numbers, based on real world possibilities. You will always be making a guess based on what might happen, but Watson will come close to knowing what will happen.
See there is your problem. Every company is unique in some way.
Sure this is obvious. If every company were not unique in some way, then Watson would only need to learn from one company; thus the need for Watson to learn off of several hundred companies. The reason why the case for AI is hard to understand is because we are not able to fathom remembering every detail of every company and being able to isolate what was done differently in company 237 that allowed it to prosper versus company 938. We would have trouble even comparing two companies down to the detail that Watson would be capable of. Given 1000 companies, Watson will know what every single one did right and wrong. Watson will know where mistakes were made simply because it will be able to find another couple companies in its dataset that did better or worse in a similar circumstance.
This all said, I am far from an AI believer. I don't think AI will really be able to drive a car in the near future, at least not as dynamically as a human. However, most professions will benefit from Watson's ability to understand huge datasets down to excruciating detail and freely be able to pick out specific scenarios that worked in the past. This isn't really even AI, it is just a very organized search engine. The human mind almost does these things backwards through necessity, because we cannot process such large datasets.
I'm curious what you think you can do that Watson can't. Accounting is a very rigidly structured practice. All IBM really needs to do is let Watson sift through the books of a couple hundred companies and it will easily determine how to best achieve a defined set of objectives for a corporation.
Yes so let's not talk about the real situation. Sorry to rain on your parade. There is a thing called reality out there, but the fact that you are comparing this serious situation to football kind of tells me you won't understand it.
As I said before, I didn't blame the girl. I was pointing out the lack of understanding for her and the situation she lives in. None of this has helped her.
It's very sad that people would rather just enjoy a story like this and go on with their lives rather than address what is really needed to help this girl. It is a very selfish world we live in.
I'm not blaming the victim. I'm recognizing that there is a situation here that will not just go back to normal or undo itself because the girl was returned to her parents. Failure to recognize this does not help the girl at all, despite how good this story makes us feel.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.. Even mediocre news about Tesla makes it here. Surely there are other companies there are mediocre news about.
Our utility box is in the basement. We bought the house with 95% of the basement ceiling drywalled. Our bedroom juts out mostly over the garage and the heat only gets upstairs through a maze of joists and ducts. Very difficult to cable. It's not impossible, we were doing renovations once and had a key part of the wall open that exposed the difficult part of the path upstairs but I thought screw it.. wireless routers work well enough. It has been a long time since I had the free hours for such endeavors. Roughly since before my kids were born.
If Trump used the same bag of tricks he used with Carrier some of that 700 million will be offset by tax cuts, and quickly you end up with a net gain of peanuts.
He killed a 1.6 billion project and got 700 million. How is that winning?
That's why people get irate when criminals are sentenced lightly.
That sounds like the kind of thing tax software can do right now.
I can't imagine buying a laptop for a machine that sits in my basement to hold a lot of files for my family to use. Or a machine to back up that machine.
I suspected that actually, but I there isn't really far to go until Watson can do those things. Certainly if AI becomes capable of driving a car like everyone thinks it will, it will be capable of making good accounting decisions given enough training data. Most professional roles require far, far less real world understanding than driving a car through cameras and sensors.
Agreed, companies will be designed around using as little human intervention as possible. First they will use AI, then they will use cheap foreign labor, and only if those two options are completely impractical will they use domestic labor. Any business plan that depends on more than a small fraction of domestic labor (think Amazon's 1 minute of human handling per package) is likely to be considered unable to compete. I hate the buggy whip analogy, because using foreign (cheap) labor as freely as today was a pipe dream back then.
It's not a puff piece if the technology in question results in people starving. Uber-style jobs aren't meant to provide living wages.
Ok, granted, there will still be 0.5% of the work left for humans. But companies will be able to fill these jobs Uber-style since there won't be enough to justify full time positions.
I'll say something meaningful when you can point out which one of Trump's cabinet made their wealth on a farmer's market and without being affiliated with a corporation.
I found out that my VPN client was actually requiring the performance GPU. I stopped my VPN client, but that only gave me a boost from 3.5 to 4 hours. I've done it a few times now and it is almost always 4 hours of battery life with very little variation.
Your question is incomplete. *
Were those people able to get hired elsewhere?
Your question is complete. The correct question to ask is if these people were able to get hired elsewhere *at the same salary when adjusted for inflation*. To that, the answer is no. It hasn't been true on average since the 70's. Sure, some people will find equal or better jobs, but salaries have been steadily decreasing since the onset of technology. Given a job for less money or no job, most people will pick the job for less; and that is why we are not seeing a large change in the unemployment rate.
Seriously? Quite a bit actually.
Then why don't you give at least one specific example.
There is a tremendous amount of judgement that goes into accounting and much of it is anything but rigid.
And this is where a system like Watson shines. While you may be able to fall back on personal experience to make these judgement calls, Watson can easily run thousands of simulations on each set of numbers, based on real world possibilities. You will always be making a guess based on what might happen, but Watson will come close to knowing what will happen.
See there is your problem. Every company is unique in some way.
Sure this is obvious. If every company were not unique in some way, then Watson would only need to learn from one company; thus the need for Watson to learn off of several hundred companies. The reason why the case for AI is hard to understand is because we are not able to fathom remembering every detail of every company and being able to isolate what was done differently in company 237 that allowed it to prosper versus company 938. We would have trouble even comparing two companies down to the detail that Watson would be capable of. Given 1000 companies, Watson will know what every single one did right and wrong. Watson will know where mistakes were made simply because it will be able to find another couple companies in its dataset that did better or worse in a similar circumstance.
This all said, I am far from an AI believer. I don't think AI will really be able to drive a car in the near future, at least not as dynamically as a human. However, most professions will benefit from Watson's ability to understand huge datasets down to excruciating detail and freely be able to pick out specific scenarios that worked in the past. This isn't really even AI, it is just a very organized search engine. The human mind almost does these things backwards through necessity, because we cannot process such large datasets.
Trump's staff are all billionaires? How many people do you know that became a billionaire by selling at a farmer's market?
That's a pretty funny thing to say about a nation with more than a third on welfare.
So it wouldn't be an issue for you if the remaining 10% were automated as well?
I'm curious what you think you can do that Watson can't. Accounting is a very rigidly structured practice. All IBM really needs to do is let Watson sift through the books of a couple hundred companies and it will easily determine how to best achieve a defined set of objectives for a corporation.
I'm laughing that you think there is a difference. How do these people participate in a free market without setting up corporations?
Yes so let's not talk about the real situation. Sorry to rain on your parade. There is a thing called reality out there, but the fact that you are comparing this serious situation to football kind of tells me you won't understand it.
As I said before, I didn't blame the girl. I was pointing out the lack of understanding for her and the situation she lives in. None of this has helped her.
It's very sad that people would rather just enjoy a story like this and go on with their lives rather than address what is really needed to help this girl. It is a very selfish world we live in.
I'm not blaming the victim. I'm recognizing that there is a situation here that will not just go back to normal or undo itself because the girl was returned to her parents. Failure to recognize this does not help the girl at all, despite how good this story makes us feel.