IMO: there's a lot more to this than what is publicly known.
Not much of any of this makes any sense. I'd bet my left nipple (which is my favorite) that Assange is much more deeply involved into spying or organized crime activities than has been acknowledged by western authorities.
When your product is technology, and you fire engineers, . Instead of the executives who did nothing but planned the company into a corner, risking nothing, maybe those are the people who are "not needed".
Don't get me wrong: I'm all about work-life balance. But honestly, if my days were 6 hours, my projects would be perpetually unfinished, and my skills would get rusty. 8-10 is really my sweet-spot; with maybe a light friday. You start sending people home, and their effectiveness and cohesiveness as a team also suffers (if they're working as a team).
That said: I don't have any problem with remote work (for those in jobs where that can work, like software engineering). If you have the right tools, team, skills, discipline, and methodology, I think having 1-2 remote days can actually improve productivity in a lot of cases.
It's that they want to wipe out the middle class. If there is no middle class to donate to politicians, then buying politicians becomes cheaper because they don't have to be in a bidding war with socialist-leaning workers, in order to buy Policy. (which includes tax cuts, deregulation, and immunity from the justice system that the rest of us must obey).
There are many companies that are flushing out the old; or eschewing them.
There's a mistaken impression among management that it is not possible to teach "old engineers" new technologies. This may be true, but not among the older workers I have known. I do see a lot of resistance to the recent (last 2-3 years) move to cloud-based devops automation technologies. But I just got out of a 10 year stint at a company where this was a problem. A resistance to change: It was NOT driven by the older engineers. It was driven by customers who didn't understand the new model. It was driven by customers with tight security requirements who trust isolated air-gapped networks - not cloud deployment. It was especially driven by upper management who wanted a physical asset they could own in the data center, not a cloud instance that could evaporate in seconds. "Older" engineers spent weeks and months of their own time learning new technologies - while management insisted they keep doing projects the old way.
The layoffs were brutal - but I guarantee, they did not touch upper management, and they did not change the failed ways they tried to persuade customers to migrate. (I don't know the ending of this story for them - because I left. But I am pretty certain they're going to suffer a great deal more pain).
My extended time looking for a new job shows that almost every tech company out there is in the middle of this migration, and they're looking to overturn their old workforce (at least in IT/OPS) who refuse to play along. My advice to those workers: Learn the new skills. Get out. Your old management will not change, they will fight every effort for you to migrate your skills to keep up with the younger workforce, and they will leave you aimless and spinning off in every direction unless you take charge of your own career direction. And they will make you the scapegoat.
My first job was in a tech startup in Naperville, Illinois. In 1992. (Right down the street from Bell Labs. The founder of this startup was a former Bell Labs employee).
This company was literally bought by a competitor (who sold inferior products), and shut down. That's what happens to tech workers who choose jobs not in Silicon Valley or WDC. You get bought and shut down. That's IF your startup is successful. Same goes for companies that open satellite offices in other cities. They may not shut down these remote offices, but they are used as an accounting tool to relieve payroll pressure during a downturn. (that means these offices bear the brunt of layoffs).
You want a hiccup-free career in tech? Don't start it in the midwest. Or any place else. The big money will come along and fuck you over. You stand a better chance in Seattle, of course, and the WDC area (if you are into Fed. Contracting), and I think New York and Boston are starting to look good too.
"psychological abuse" being, somewhat a hyperbolic term, let's say I agree with you, in principle.
Because, looking at it this way: an advertisement for sweat socks is not the same as an advertisement for mortgage services. Think about the relative value of the sales commission. For sake of argument, say that the socks ad is $.05, and the mortgage ad is $1000. As a reader of a Salon article, you could see either of these ads: and you're contributing either of these amounts to the revenue of Salon. It's a transaction. And from the standpoint of the consumer, it's completely non-deterministic. And it's complete bullshit. This entire sector of our economy, for: going on centuries, actually, but ramped up to fever-pitch over the last 2-3 decades, is complete bullshit. And we FINALLY have the technical means to eliminate it. We do. That's what the Internet is for. Kill Advertising Dead. It is unneeded. Consumers can find what they need using search. Marketers are still necessary: just not lying marketers. Just not 'pushy' marketers. Marketers only need be honest suppliers of information to those who need it and are looking.
You are correct: the EELV Program started because of the Challenger accident. DoD/NRO found it unacceptable to lose their access to space due to the STS safety/reliability issues. So EELV (Atlas/Delta) became their backup. Elon Musk opens up the field again, and they're not going to accept closing it down.
Yeah it was fucking awesome, and all the Elon Musk haters out there can go SUCK IT!
Seriously. This guy is just about the ONLY person in the world who has been rewarded with huge amounts of money, and has decided to audaciously pursue his positive vision for a bold and bright future for humanity. THE ONLY FUCKING PERSON. Everyone else out there is just trying to scam and suck as much money as they can out of human civilization before the lights go out. He is trying to give us a sustainable energy future, he is trying to solve our practical transportation problems, and he is trying to get us to the next stage in space travel and exploration. Virtually nobody else is doing that, and in fact they seem to be trying to do everything they can to prevent these advances.
"Fucking awesome" doesn't even scratch the surface of how fucking awesome this is.
And especially healthcare monopolies. (many local rural regions only have one choice in provider; hospital or diagnostics labs. This drives prices up. If you didn't notice).
Romney's great weakness was really the perception that he was going to rubberstamp an increasingly radical GOP agenda. McCain and Romney were the two candidates that served across this period of GOP radicalization, (which began with Nixon, accelerated with Reagan, but went into overdrive while Clinton was President, and Bush was kind of just barely mainstream enough... and still justified an amazingly illegal and partisan agenda. McCain and Romney were the last gasp of the old party trying to ressurect some modicum of dignity and normalcy (though they sabotaged McCain with Palin).
Trump ran against 16 other GOP candidates. The Republican party has gone completely off the rails.
Romney might have made a good president, because he is a moderate. But the congressional backdrop was very alarming. People were right to throw these ridiculous points at him to paint him as a radical.
It can absolutely be alienating. I'm not even 140. But the socialization process can really be difficult, even for the "slightly above average". Most of us might be able to understand and learn about calculus and quantum physics - but when it comes to interpreting and dealing with our own emotional responses to social situations, it can be difficult to understand what our own bodies are doing. It is not a rational process. Even if you understand some biology. We're all taught (quite wrongly) that our human brain is this great rational logical thinking machine - and that's not so. Not at all. Logic and rationality are tools that the human brain has, that other animals do not. But it's the recent evolution, and we still carry the biological baggage of lower primates, mammals, reptiles, and so on and so forth. And when our bodies process a social situation in a way that is not rational, the rational part of our brain often deals with it in a strange manner; you can think of it as an "impedance mismatch".
It's not that high IQ people CAN'T learn to be personable. (and it's not necessary to either betray your own principles, nor "be fake") - It's that by the time a high IQ person is exposed to this knowledge (in their developmental path) - they likely have already accumulated a lot of emotional baggage. It is very easy to "become" maladjusted, or even "disordered" (like "personality disorder") - or at the very least: neurotic). This stuff is difficult to overcome. And I think that high IQ people probably have the cards stacked against them, BECAUSE they tend to focus on the rational-thinking part of their brain. It's their strength. They know it. And the ego is fed by this; as sort of a short-term reward. Every intellectual victory is a shot of dopamine. And our educational system does NOT reward the non-intellectual stuff: it is the social environment that's slapped on top of our formal educational system, that rewards that. So the people who are either below or average, get their emotional rewards from developing this social competence. They don't get the boost from intellectual development. And this is where these two sets diverge.
(However: I've known, in my life, a few "normies" who are actually highly intelligent. They don't KNOW they are. They don't have their personality invested in that self-image. They perform well socially. They perform well academically. And even athletically. These are those class-president, straight-a students, star athlete, and participates in activities like drama and science club, with distinction. I knew these people, and they were NOT intellectual. But they were not "normal intelligence" people, either. And they didn't have this social deficit problem that my high IQ friends had. I'm not sure how to explain that. - but maybe they avoided this emotional maladjustment somehow - maybe it was in their upbringing. Or maybe they just won the genetic lottery or something.)
Slashdot Mirror
IMO: there's a lot more to this than what is publicly known.
Not much of any of this makes any sense. I'd bet my left nipple (which is my favorite) that Assange is much more deeply involved into spying or organized crime activities than has been acknowledged by western authorities.
That's a matter of opinion.
When your product is technology, and you fire engineers, .
Instead of the executives who did nothing but planned the company into a corner, risking nothing, maybe those are the people who are "not needed".
You sound strangely familliar. Like. . . who was that? 20007?
ha.
who will stop the buybacks?
The bribed congressmen?
aw, how cute. You think that Salesmen will still be useful when Larry gets everyone vendor locked-in.
honestly - it wouldn't even take AI. Just a committment to investing more in equipment and infrastructure.
(and the money's out there: hell, we printed trillions since 2008. It's just being hoarded to make the 1% feel less anxious).
Don't get me wrong: I'm all about work-life balance. But honestly, if my days were 6 hours, my projects would be perpetually unfinished, and my skills would get rusty. 8-10 is really my sweet-spot; with maybe a light friday. You start sending people home, and their effectiveness and cohesiveness as a team also suffers (if they're working as a team).
That said: I don't have any problem with remote work (for those in jobs where that can work, like software engineering). If you have the right tools, team, skills, discipline, and methodology, I think having 1-2 remote days can actually improve productivity in a lot of cases.
I always try to write my code so someone else can pick it up should I get "hit by a bus", no matter the language used.
That's actually the whole point of computer languages, per se.
It is so that developers can talk to other developers; and communicate what they've told the computer to do.
If our needs were ONLY to tell the computer what to do, then we'd all be programming in assembly.
You mean Display PostScript?
It's not that the 1% want to be richer.
It's that they want to wipe out the middle class. If there is no middle class to donate to politicians, then buying politicians becomes cheaper because they don't have to be in a bidding war with socialist-leaning workers, in order to buy Policy. (which includes tax cuts, deregulation, and immunity from the justice system that the rest of us must obey).
There are many companies that are flushing out the old; or eschewing them.
There's a mistaken impression among management that it is not possible to teach "old engineers" new technologies. This may be true, but not among the older workers I have known. I do see a lot of resistance to the recent (last 2-3 years) move to cloud-based devops automation technologies. But I just got out of a 10 year stint at a company where this was a problem. A resistance to change: It was NOT driven by the older engineers. It was driven by customers who didn't understand the new model. It was driven by customers with tight security requirements who trust isolated air-gapped networks - not cloud deployment. It was especially driven by upper management who wanted a physical asset they could own in the data center, not a cloud instance that could evaporate in seconds. "Older" engineers spent weeks and months of their own time learning new technologies - while management insisted they keep doing projects the old way.
The layoffs were brutal - but I guarantee, they did not touch upper management, and they did not change the failed ways they tried to persuade customers to migrate. (I don't know the ending of this story for them - because I left. But I am pretty certain they're going to suffer a great deal more pain).
My extended time looking for a new job shows that almost every tech company out there is in the middle of this migration, and they're looking to overturn their old workforce (at least in IT/OPS) who refuse to play along. My advice to those workers: Learn the new skills. Get out. Your old management will not change, they will fight every effort for you to migrate your skills to keep up with the younger workforce, and they will leave you aimless and spinning off in every direction unless you take charge of your own career direction. And they will make you the scapegoat.
And then they came for the AI.
And since the AI was a chatbot, it spoke for itself, and started a nuclear war to destroy all humans.
My first job was in a tech startup in Naperville, Illinois. In 1992. (Right down the street from Bell Labs. The founder of this startup was a former Bell Labs employee).
This company was literally bought by a competitor (who sold inferior products), and shut down. That's what happens to tech workers who choose jobs not in Silicon Valley or WDC. You get bought and shut down. That's IF your startup is successful. Same goes for companies that open satellite offices in other cities. They may not shut down these remote offices, but they are used as an accounting tool to relieve payroll pressure during a downturn. (that means these offices bear the brunt of layoffs).
You want a hiccup-free career in tech? Don't start it in the midwest. Or any place else. The big money will come along and fuck you over. You stand a better chance in Seattle, of course, and the WDC area (if you are into Fed. Contracting), and I think New York and Boston are starting to look good too.
On the contrary.
There is a point to arguing now. To prove we were right. Before we die.
They will blame gays. And Crisis Actors. And Obama.
Heh. Go back to the original source material (Marvel comic books). Bring a pack of Rolaids.
Given the massive instability in value of cryptocurrency, I'm thinking not.
"psychological abuse" being, somewhat a hyperbolic term, let's say I agree with you, in principle.
Because, looking at it this way: an advertisement for sweat socks is not the same as an advertisement for mortgage services. Think about the relative value of the sales commission. For sake of argument, say that the socks ad is $.05, and the mortgage ad is $1000. As a reader of a Salon article, you could see either of these ads: and you're contributing either of these amounts to the revenue of Salon. It's a transaction. And from the standpoint of the consumer, it's completely non-deterministic. And it's complete bullshit. This entire sector of our economy, for: going on centuries, actually, but ramped up to fever-pitch over the last 2-3 decades, is complete bullshit. And we FINALLY have the technical means to eliminate it. We do. That's what the Internet is for. Kill Advertising Dead. It is unneeded. Consumers can find what they need using search. Marketers are still necessary: just not lying marketers. Just not 'pushy' marketers. Marketers only need be honest suppliers of information to those who need it and are looking.
But this is not what we have. Why?
You are correct: the EELV Program started because of the Challenger accident. DoD/NRO found it unacceptable to lose their access to space due to the STS safety/reliability issues. So EELV (Atlas/Delta) became their backup. Elon Musk opens up the field again, and they're not going to accept closing it down.
Yeah it was fucking awesome, and all the Elon Musk haters out there can go SUCK IT!
Seriously. This guy is just about the ONLY person in the world who has been rewarded with huge amounts of money, and has decided to audaciously pursue his positive vision for a bold and bright future for humanity. THE ONLY FUCKING PERSON. Everyone else out there is just trying to scam and suck as much money as they can out of human civilization before the lights go out. He is trying to give us a sustainable energy future, he is trying to solve our practical transportation problems, and he is trying to get us to the next stage in space travel and exploration. Virtually nobody else is doing that, and in fact they seem to be trying to do everything they can to prevent these advances.
"Fucking awesome" doesn't even scratch the surface of how fucking awesome this is.
And especially healthcare monopolies. (many local rural regions only have one choice in provider; hospital or diagnostics labs. This drives prices up. If you didn't notice).
Yeah, we're already defeated, considering our government is shut down.
Come at us, Ivan. Bring your best vodka and two shot glasses.
Romney's great weakness was really the perception that he was going to rubberstamp an increasingly radical GOP agenda. McCain and Romney were the two candidates that served across this period of GOP radicalization, (which began with Nixon, accelerated with Reagan, but went into overdrive while Clinton was President, and Bush was kind of just barely mainstream enough... and still justified an amazingly illegal and partisan agenda. McCain and Romney were the last gasp of the old party trying to ressurect some modicum of dignity and normalcy (though they sabotaged McCain with Palin).
Trump ran against 16 other GOP candidates. The Republican party has gone completely off the rails.
Romney might have made a good president, because he is a moderate. But the congressional backdrop was very alarming. People were right to throw these ridiculous points at him to paint him as a radical.
It can absolutely be alienating. I'm not even 140. But the socialization process can really be difficult, even for the "slightly above average". Most of us might be able to understand and learn about calculus and quantum physics - but when it comes to interpreting and dealing with our own emotional responses to social situations, it can be difficult to understand what our own bodies are doing. It is not a rational process. Even if you understand some biology. We're all taught (quite wrongly) that our human brain is this great rational logical thinking machine - and that's not so. Not at all. Logic and rationality are tools that the human brain has, that other animals do not. But it's the recent evolution, and we still carry the biological baggage of lower primates, mammals, reptiles, and so on and so forth. And when our bodies process a social situation in a way that is not rational, the rational part of our brain often deals with it in a strange manner; you can think of it as an "impedance mismatch".
It's not that high IQ people CAN'T learn to be personable. (and it's not necessary to either betray your own principles, nor "be fake") - It's that by the time a high IQ person is exposed to this knowledge (in their developmental path) - they likely have already accumulated a lot of emotional baggage. It is very easy to "become" maladjusted, or even "disordered" (like "personality disorder") - or at the very least: neurotic). This stuff is difficult to overcome. And I think that high IQ people probably have the cards stacked against them, BECAUSE they tend to focus on the rational-thinking part of their brain. It's their strength. They know it. And the ego is fed by this; as sort of a short-term reward. Every intellectual victory is a shot of dopamine. And our educational system does NOT reward the non-intellectual stuff: it is the social environment that's slapped on top of our formal educational system, that rewards that. So the people who are either below or average, get their emotional rewards from developing this social competence. They don't get the boost from intellectual development. And this is where these two sets diverge.
(However: I've known, in my life, a few "normies" who are actually highly intelligent. They don't KNOW they are. They don't have their personality invested in that self-image. They perform well socially. They perform well academically. And even athletically. These are those class-president, straight-a students, star athlete, and participates in activities like drama and science club, with distinction. I knew these people, and they were NOT intellectual. But they were not "normal intelligence" people, either. And they didn't have this social deficit problem that my high IQ friends had. I'm not sure how to explain that. - but maybe they avoided this emotional maladjustment somehow - maybe it was in their upbringing. Or maybe they just won the genetic lottery or something.)
Unfortunately.