Simple solution: make links indistinguishable from regular text unless you hover over them with your mouse pointer. For mobile devices, make links appear only while scrolling or through a floating toggle of sorts.
Not complaining (I'm not affected:)) but stating that the study ignores the fact that people who got higher paid jobs are DIFFERENT from the people who lost the lower paid jobs. i'm glad that some people found higher paid jobs in e-commerce, but at the same time I realize that some of those who lost the lower paid jobs are now living on benefits and that reduces economic development.
Keep smoking that weird shit, mate. The stupid will always win, simply because there's a lot more of them. You just live in a bubble which distorts reality.
I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but holy shit that's strong! There are so many things awfully wrong in your entry that I don't even know where to start.
Our ongoing technological ascension continues to create a world where higher cognitive abilities are required in order to thrive
No, it doesn't. It's not even valid for the whole USA, let alone the entire world. Out of the whole world population, maybe 10% live in a technologically-advanced society, the rest are decades behind (centuries in some cases). Owning a smartphone doesn't count, but even if you'd go as far as that, the number of smartphone users worldwide is estimated to be at around 2.3 billion, that's 30% of the world's population.
This is very good for our species. Since we don't have any predators to apply selective pressure, we need something else instead.
As in wars? Because when people are hungry enough or poor enough (and in enough quantities), they start being restless, then they riot, then there's revolutions, civil wars, and then those expand into wars between countries and soon enough your high horse will be knocked off from under you by a bunch of foreigners fleeing from poverty-stricken (and/or war-stricken) countries, some of them blowing themselves off just for kicks (not their personal kicks though).
I am sure the unskilled workers that lost their jobs are not happy about this. But, the recipient of the short end of the natural-selection stick is never happy about it.
Have you even the slightest clue what "natural selection" even means? Sorry it was a rhetorical question, of course you don't.
Adapt or die.
Yeah, only in contemporary society "adapt" could mean "get a bunch of guns and kill the bloody bastards who made me lose my job or business". The less violent alternative would be for those people to live off benefits, and the society finds itself carrying a burden of tens of thousands of unhappy people who are fed, clothed and sheltered off YOUR taxes, without producing shit. That's why these types of situations should worry us, it's because they slow down society as a whole.
Not only that, but the article (the original one, not the summary slashdot copied almost word-per-word) says:
If wages are a rough proxy of employers’ demand for certain skillsets, then these two categories of jobs would seem to have different skill requirements: in 2012, the average online retail job paid slightly over $50,000, while the average department store job paid just $20,500. By 2016, the average wage for nonstore workers exceeded $59,000, while the average wage for department store workers remained roughly the same. Part of this pay gap reflects the fact that department store jobs are more likely to be part-time. Nevertheless, the difference is staggering, suggesting that nonstore retailers demand a different type of worker than department stores do. So, even if laid-off department store workers were willing and able to move to, say, King County, they might lack the skillsets sought by e-tailers.
The amount of jobs stayed the same, but the people who got axed from brick-and -mortar stores are the ones that would never be able to "switch jobs" and become e-market employees. Higher-skilled workers got more jobs, while lower-skilled workers got the shaft.
The deed is its own reward only so many times. It doesn't go like that forever. Five years, a decade, two decades down the line you realize everyone you helped is now well-off (helped by your deeds) and you're still nowhere better, and the deed paying itself starts losing sense. Basically you figure out you're a sucker.
From this point of view, "truly selfless" equals "abused" - and yes, it's unfair and you should stop being a sucker, erm I mean "truly selfless".
I can confirm that depression also makes a lot of affected people not care anymore. That doesn't make them selfish, it just makes them not care. Different things.
True. WW2 (and WW1 for that matter) only helped further increase its success.
The USA was successful because it had (as a whole) huge opportunities: - A crapton of untapped natural resources, basically "all you want is here somewhere"; - Native population which was easy to get rid of through technological superiority (smallpox also helped); - A steady influx of people from various nations who really-really-REALLY wanted to succeed (the fact that land was simply given away also helped); - No neighboring countries who would pose a threat to its borders.
In a nutshell, the land of plenty and no competition. It would have been a miracle NOT to become successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple solution: make links indistinguishable from regular text unless you hover over them with your mouse pointer. For mobile devices, make links appear only while scrolling or through a floating toggle of sorts.
Not complaining (I'm not affected :)) but stating that the study ignores the fact that people who got higher paid jobs are DIFFERENT from the people who lost the lower paid jobs. i'm glad that some people found higher paid jobs in e-commerce, but at the same time I realize that some of those who lost the lower paid jobs are now living on benefits and that reduces economic development.
Keep smoking that weird shit, mate.
The stupid will always win, simply because there's a lot more of them. You just live in a bubble which distorts reality.
Did you just put an equal sign between a bar chit-chat and actual work?
I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but holy shit that's strong!
There are so many things awfully wrong in your entry that I don't even know where to start.
Our ongoing technological ascension continues to create a world where higher cognitive abilities are required in order to thrive
No, it doesn't. It's not even valid for the whole USA, let alone the entire world. Out of the whole world population, maybe 10% live in a technologically-advanced society, the rest are decades behind (centuries in some cases). Owning a smartphone doesn't count, but even if you'd go as far as that, the number of smartphone users worldwide is estimated to be at around 2.3 billion, that's 30% of the world's population.
This is very good for our species. Since we don't have any predators to apply selective pressure, we need something else instead.
As in wars? Because when people are hungry enough or poor enough (and in enough quantities), they start being restless, then they riot, then there's revolutions, civil wars, and then those expand into wars between countries and soon enough your high horse will be knocked off from under you by a bunch of foreigners fleeing from poverty-stricken (and/or war-stricken) countries, some of them blowing themselves off just for kicks (not their personal kicks though).
I am sure the unskilled workers that lost their jobs are not happy about this. But, the recipient of the short end of the natural-selection stick is never happy about it.
Have you even the slightest clue what "natural selection" even means? Sorry it was a rhetorical question, of course you don't.
Adapt or die.
Yeah, only in contemporary society "adapt" could mean "get a bunch of guns and kill the bloody bastards who made me lose my job or business". The less violent alternative would be for those people to live off benefits, and the society finds itself carrying a burden of tens of thousands of unhappy people who are fed, clothed and sheltered off YOUR taxes, without producing shit. That's why these types of situations should worry us, it's because they slow down society as a whole.
Not only that, but the article (the original one, not the summary slashdot copied almost word-per-word) says:
If wages are a rough proxy of employers’ demand for certain skillsets, then these two categories of jobs would seem to have different skill requirements: in 2012, the average online retail job paid slightly over $50,000, while the average department store job paid just $20,500. By 2016, the average wage for nonstore workers exceeded $59,000, while the average wage for department store workers remained roughly the same. Part of this pay gap reflects the fact that department store jobs are more likely to be part-time. Nevertheless, the difference is staggering, suggesting that nonstore retailers demand a different type of worker than department stores do. So, even if laid-off department store workers were willing and able to move to, say, King County, they might lack the skillsets sought by e-tailers.
The amount of jobs stayed the same, but the people who got axed from brick-and -mortar stores are the ones that would never be able to "switch jobs" and become e-market employees. Higher-skilled workers got more jobs, while lower-skilled workers got the shaft.
...because other people are too selfish to realize we're not selfish?
My head is spinning.
...except that at the time, there was no USA.
That too.
The deed is its own reward only so many times. It doesn't go like that forever. Five years, a decade, two decades down the line you realize everyone you helped is now well-off (helped by your deeds) and you're still nowhere better, and the deed paying itself starts losing sense. Basically you figure out you're a sucker.
From this point of view, "truly selfless" equals "abused" - and yes, it's unfair and you should stop being a sucker, erm I mean "truly selfless".
many times suicide is a selfish act which shows that depressed people can still be selfish.
What the actual fuck are you talking about???
I can confirm that depression also makes a lot of affected people not care anymore. That doesn't make them selfish, it just makes them not care. Different things.
"AC" stands for "All Clothes", then?
True. WW2 (and WW1 for that matter) only helped further increase its success.
The USA was successful because it had (as a whole) huge opportunities:
- A crapton of untapped natural resources, basically "all you want is here somewhere";
- Native population which was easy to get rid of through technological superiority (smallpox also helped);
- A steady influx of people from various nations who really-really-REALLY wanted to succeed (the fact that land was simply given away also helped);
- No neighboring countries who would pose a threat to its borders.
In a nutshell, the land of plenty and no competition. It would have been a miracle NOT to become successful.
Because, those others...had opportunity to do what you did and better themselves due their own individual efforts.
Heh, keep telling yourself that.
Yes if you like the music and know them songs by heart.
generic radio songs don't matter, they could play through CowboyNeal's asshole for all I care.
Your math still failed, unless slazzy is your bot.
Yeah, everybody does that.
Lately this started happening even in the mighty beacon of anti-Facebook artist movement called Ello.
I guess it was a winning "Gamble"?
"paraphrase", not "quote".
But good one nevertheless.
I'm that friend.
There are zounds of used bookstores where I live. I hope they never go extinct.
..chose what?
Can someone please do a Hummer analogy now?
Only after we've got a pretty good idea what we're trying to do will we actually start coding.
And many, many times that would read as "never".