Right, but the proposal of this thread is to let a free market handle it, and that is not a free market solution. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the government is afraid of pissing everyone off and have companies leave the market.
I love to watch people who support all out capitalism squirm to solve problems like this.. The fact is, capitalism doesn't come close to solving anything. The only defense of it is that nothing better has been tried.
Anyone can run competing cable, but who is going to run more cable when there isn't enough market to support it? They'll already be at a huge disadvantage as a new entrant to the market, and be caught fighting for table scraps. The current carries would just swat them like a fly.
Well you can remove them, but then the service shrinks to just the largest cities. Something the Canadian government has fought very hard against, and rightfully so.
Exactly.. as long as someone owns the infrastructure, either A) that someone will have the advantage, or B) that someone will bitch and whine about that advantage being taken away, That's how capitalism sets things up to work.
So then the government should rip out the last mile of cable to everyone's home and install it themselves? And it would be considered a fairer market if the government owned that?
Apparently the future CEOs and executives of companies plan to do all the programming themselves? It is just a minor thing to do on the side? Or perhaps the CEOs will only need to know enough to determine which robot to use.
So people who live in more expensive places are somehow more valuable to the company? That's interesting. It seems like this is at the other far end of the scale, where it doesn't matter what you do for a company or how good you are, you will make the same regardless. Also it sounds like people who are settled with families need not apply.
I'm very surprised no one has answered with the usual rhetoric that we should bow down to our corporate overlords and move to some city where our mortgage is double and we live three times further away from work; practically abandoning any family quality time in the process.
Good thing the economy is so healthy! People should have no trouble finding positions at equal pay. Furthermore, I expect a suspension of the H1B program until all these people are employed again.
Is AI better than the worst 17 year old driver? Perhaps, not yet proven
Is AI better than the best 17 year old driver? Definitely no
Is AI better than the worst 71 year old driver? Perhaps, not yet proven
Is AI better than the best 71 year old driver? Definitely no
Am I ready to be in an AI car? Definitely no
Am I ready to be on the road trusting other AI cars driving around me? Definitely no.
But the important question is, who will eliminate the AI's errors? An AI is not human, therefore it produces an entirely different set of errors. Sure, a human may misgauge the speed of their vehicle and an AI would never do that. Yet a human would be very unlikely to drive into a bus at 2mph because of fear of repercussion. Not only are we asking AI to overcome human error, but we are also asking it to overcome its own. A truly tall order. It must not be just as good as a human, it must be much better.
As far as I am concerned, now that humans are wiser, we should insist on there being such failsafes in automated cars. Until they can be PROVEN 99.99% reliable similar to the way drugs are, they are too dangerous to be sold commercially. I grow concerned when people seem so excited about new tech they fail to consider the repercussions of it not being done absolutely correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but the proposal of this thread is to let a free market handle it, and that is not a free market solution. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the government is afraid of pissing everyone off and have companies leave the market.
I love to watch people who support all out capitalism squirm to solve problems like this.. The fact is, capitalism doesn't come close to solving anything. The only defense of it is that nothing better has been tried.
Sure, and that might work.. but let's not pretend that it is free market. It is just another brand of government intervention.
I don't think people in Canada can get all those for free.
Anyone can run competing cable, but who is going to run more cable when there isn't enough market to support it? They'll already be at a huge disadvantage as a new entrant to the market, and be caught fighting for table scraps. The current carries would just swat them like a fly.
But then Canadians have people calling them communist.
Well you can remove them, but then the service shrinks to just the largest cities. Something the Canadian government has fought very hard against, and rightfully so.
Except you can't just take something away from a company that owns it. Capitalists tend to bitch and moan about that until they get their way.
Exactly.. as long as someone owns the infrastructure, either A) that someone will have the advantage, or B) that someone will bitch and whine about that advantage being taken away, That's how capitalism sets things up to work.
Yes you did, that's a big part of the barrier to entry.
Then they just gouge for high speed internet access.
So then the government should rip out the last mile of cable to everyone's home and install it themselves? And it would be considered a fairer market if the government owned that?
Companies are so at odds with human life and values..
Apparently the future CEOs and executives of companies plan to do all the programming themselves? It is just a minor thing to do on the side? Or perhaps the CEOs will only need to know enough to determine which robot to use.
So people who live in more expensive places are somehow more valuable to the company? That's interesting. It seems like this is at the other far end of the scale, where it doesn't matter what you do for a company or how good you are, you will make the same regardless. Also it sounds like people who are settled with families need not apply.
So people who live in more expensive places are somehow more valuable to the company? That's interesting.
Does the calculator also take into account living expenses and commute times? That is a part of the total compensation picture as much as the salary.
Without a family to nurture with the salary coming from the work, I really don't see a point of a salary.
I'm very surprised no one has answered with the usual rhetoric that we should bow down to our corporate overlords and move to some city where our mortgage is double and we live three times further away from work; practically abandoning any family quality time in the process.
Good thing the economy is so healthy! People should have no trouble finding positions at equal pay. Furthermore, I expect a suspension of the H1B program until all these people are employed again.
That describes 95% of tech jobs these days. If you are not in such a job, then good on you.
Is AI better than the worst 17 year old driver? Perhaps, not yet proven
Is AI better than the best 17 year old driver? Definitely no
Is AI better than the worst 71 year old driver? Perhaps, not yet proven
Is AI better than the best 71 year old driver? Definitely no
Am I ready to be in an AI car? Definitely no
Am I ready to be on the road trusting other AI cars driving around me? Definitely no.
If AI drivers are better then most people, then why don't they just throw them in a standard driving test (for people) and see how they do?
But the important question is, who will eliminate the AI's errors? An AI is not human, therefore it produces an entirely different set of errors. Sure, a human may misgauge the speed of their vehicle and an AI would never do that. Yet a human would be very unlikely to drive into a bus at 2mph because of fear of repercussion. Not only are we asking AI to overcome human error, but we are also asking it to overcome its own. A truly tall order. It must not be just as good as a human, it must be much better.
As far as I am concerned, now that humans are wiser, we should insist on there being such failsafes in automated cars. Until they can be PROVEN 99.99% reliable similar to the way drugs are, they are too dangerous to be sold commercially. I grow concerned when people seem so excited about new tech they fail to consider the repercussions of it not being done absolutely correct.