Shouldn't the DOD know exactly what our missile defense system is running? Why did they need to generate a report for this?
The DOD (and any organization for that matter) requires audit reports to confirm that what they know in inventory is actually true.
Shit moves.
Think data centers for instance. Routers move, get displaced, get fried, replaced, etc. You'll keep some type of inventory (hopefully tied to some sort of monitoring and procuring system), even if only manual. But every once in a while you need to double check that the list is sufficiently accurate to represent what you have.
Same with software systems.
So it is not surprising that the DOD generates such reports.
What is surprising, no, what is depressing is the confirmation that their systems are shit as far as security updates are concerned.
Has there been any product released by Microsoft in the last, say, 5 years, that doesn't have a scriptable PowerShell interface?
Have you actually tried to use PowerShell on a regular basis? I have. Just because it exists, it doesn't mean it's easy, or even possible to install the powershell version you want without a) upgrading the OS or b) breaking something.
I've worked and maintain large multi-platform COTS that run on Linux and Windows which require some type of scriptable configuration. Every single time, the Windows/PowerShell part was an effing nightmare compared to doing its Linux counterpart.
Honestly I don't mind the weirdness of PowerShell. It's the discrepancies from one version of PowerShell to the next. And there are somethings that you just say fuck it, don't use Powershell API, but use it to call REG to manipulate the registry or something like that.
I always read that Microsoft had a policy of using its Own software, so the staff could easily identify bugs & bad user interfaces (and improve them). Maybe they've abandoned that philosophy.
Windows, the OS itself, that was developed and built on AIX or DEC Alpha, I don't remember which.
They surely use their own software, but they need to cater to where customers are going, so...
I'm gonna lose the rep I give in this thread by posting here, but fuck it.
I would. I work (and have worked) on both Linux (RH, Ubunto, CentOS), and Windows 2012/2016 (as well as a variety of other operating systems, including real-time OSs as well as old stuff from long ago - DOS, VAX, PICK).
I would not ever start a bizness or a system with the backend running on Windows simply because of the price.
But Windows has come a long way on the server side. I could run a good shop on Windows alone with SQL Server and C# (or even VB, VB isn't bad unless you suck at development.) And it does pay to develop some types of apps for Windows customers.
Again, my preference is on Linux, but it's because of the cost, not quality. The argument against Windows quality was valid 10, 15 years ago. Now? Not really.
It was probably more an act of stupidity under influence than a premeditated attempt at a short squeeze, but if you're wearing the CEO hat, you have less leeway for stupidity.
So, fraud charges secured.
Indeed. Musk needs to chill the frak out. With that said the SEC is trying to oust him, and I think that's a bridge too far. It should be up to shareholders to make that call, given that this was an act of stupidity (and/or too much pot) rather than actual criminal act.
Quite honestly, there's a lot white collar crime going on out there, and yet the SEC comes out all guns blazing... for this??? SMDH.
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
Um. No.
Firstly, you usually *can* afford an education, you just can't necessarily afford to get diploma from a decent college other than the state college.
State colleges are decent colleges. People shouldn't go to expensive colleges unless they can afford it or they have scholarships or low-income grants provided by said private institutions.
A lot (not all, not the majority, but a lot) of student debt is due to bad money management. Getting a 6-digit debt for a major in literature at a out-of-state private university, that's a major fuck-up, specially if one could get the same education with a Pell Grant or a 1/4 to 1/5 of that type of debt at a local university (with the first two years completed at an even much cheaper community college.)
But then again, some of these kids know shit at 17 and get horrible advise by useless college advisors. By the time they wise up, they are already up to their eyeballs in debt that cannot be discharged via bankruptcy laws (and that's totally fucking unfair considering anyone can get into a stupid business and default over and over and over.)
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
Depends. A household income of $130K in San Francisco is not the same as the same raw number for a household in Wichita. Similarly, there are other factors to consider. Is $130K the product of two earners, or only one. Does the household has zero kids, one or two, or more. This is important since if there are two earners, then there are additional expenses from cradle to college (in terms of child care during work hours.) And if there's only one income earner, then sure there are no child care expenses, but there is a loss of income potential. Either scenario is affected by the number of kids involved.
And let us not get started if a household is a single-parent one.
A $130K household in Wichita should not qualify for free college, but one in an expensive metro might qualify to some form of voucher.
The money shot is in that line where median income *per locality* is. Households at or below it qualify for free college. Anyone between that point and the top middle income can qualify for some sort of assistance which decreases proportionally as income increases.
Quite honestly, I would prefer that the first years of college be free altogether, or that we give more preference to apprenticeship and vocational programs as well as associate in science degrees that lead to immediate job opportunities.
Holy shit sweet fucking Jesus on a mopped. WWII ended 73 years ago. The socio-economic context in which that bloody shit show started and ended had little bearing to the socio-economic context of today.
Good. Then mandate it, or at least mandate overtime for ALL workers who are required to work over 40 hrs per week. If people are taken away from their families and lives, they should be compensated for it appropriately.
And having to pay 1.5x or 2x time should encourage employers to hire more workers vs having unreasonable expectations from their existing workforce.
Automation.
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment behind your post. I'm simply pointing out a real hole in parts of your proposed solution.
We are moving to self-checkout and cashierless stores. So why close at all? My local grocery store is open 24/7. The lights are on motion sensors, so no electricity is being used unless someone is walking down that aisle. There is a skeleton crew doing restocking, but I just self-checkout so I don't bother them.
Have you ever been to a 3rd world country? You will notice many many people selling a small collection of goods spread out on blankets or tables on the side of the road. This is WHY they are poor. Retail is unproductive and an economic dead end. It is a transaction cost, not a cost of producing goods or services. The larger the retail workforce, the poorer the country.
The purpose of jobs is to produce goods and services, not "keeping people busy", and retail doesn't produce anything. The sooner we can eliminate most retail jobs, the better. This will free up labor for actual productive activities.
Provide said activities are created at a rate sufficient to employ people. In a free or mixed-but-mostly-free economies (the only models with an actual success record), private enterprises in general do not create them, nor act in a nation's long term interest without government intervention, either via subsidies or tax breaks, or by force the way Park Chung-hee cajoled private businesses to industrialize South Korea.
Countries need economic mandates and development plans. Development plans never end, even for developed nations. And here in the US, we clearly do not have one (and for decades the country didn't need any when, after WWII, the country was the only industrial hegemony left standing.)
So without a concerted effort from Washington with which to create the necessary synergies with the private sector, I don't see us utilizing that newly freed labor force in any meaningful way (to those people's detriment.)
Now, I am not advocating state capitalism or a command economy or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out an existing challenge that cannot be successfully and humanely addressed merely by extreme, purist notions of capitalism or socialism (or any form of extremism for that matter.)
There's a thing called a rotating schedule. 8 hours on a set number of days. Hospitals and factories use this so that when a service needed is that important e.g hospitals, or that cannot actually shut down e.g nuclear reactors, power plants, hospitals, T.V, they can have 3 sets of 8 hours or 2 sets of 12 for people to go to work so that service can continue. The problem is solved, and you can hire more people if you really need to. The reason for 8 hours is so that the day is divisible into 3 clean divisions or 2 for 12 hours. This problem that you think you're trying to create is already solved, and is just logistical.
Also rotating shift workplaces give vacation time around 1 week per month, by design. So you can spend that whole week doing things in advance like buying stuff for a month. Pick a time most convenient during that week.
While there are many more, and more important, things to consider; Pontevedra just made my list of cities that I might like to call home one day.
Not to take away anything from the city, but we have suburbs larger than Pontevedra (which makes its social experiment possible.)
If you can afford to move and live there, by all means. I just hope you are paying attention to job prospects in such a small city with double digit unemployment rate, with the Spaniard economy experiencing a lot of hurting.
It would be a nice place for retirement (though not necessarily the cheapest.)
Well, well, well. So state rights and small, local gubmints are good till they ain't. And big gubmint is bad until it tries to control someone's uterus or stifle net neutrality. Who didn't see this one coming?
This IBM move shows why as you get older, it's not a good idea to just sit and while away the hours at a large company.
Anything can and will happen, including sadly layoffs...
If you move around from company to company every so often, you keep your skills much more current, and at the same time expand a network of contacts you might be able to find other jobs through.
The more current skills combined with experience can also be used to maintain higher salary levels if you work at it and negotiate some.
Bingo. This and this and this, forever. I just don't get why people fail to grasp at the reality of it.
If someone wants to try their luck and grey it out at a large company, be my guest. It can be a smart move, specially for accruing benefits (and large severance packages.) But one should be ready for the big hammer to come down. That is, getting laid off would be part of the plan.
Moving strategically from job to job is *the* way to raise one's salaries and benefits (I call it "dynamic job security"). Or move and move, then stay put at one place and count on getting a pink slip and a sufficiently large severance package to make your next move.
Not planning for the inevitable upheaval is fucking bonkers as far as I'm concerned.
With that said, I do hope IBM get slammed by that lawsuit. Ageism isn't right (and it forces the rest of us into this labor nomadic modus operandi.)
But in the past few years, students have started calling out in-class presentations as discriminatory to those with anxiety, demanding that teachers offer alternative options
Provided there's an actual medical justification (say a person is truly suffering from a verifiable anxiety disorder or something part of the autism spectrum), I don't think this is justifiable. If you can't come out of your shell when you are medically capable of doing then you shouldn't expect to be a functioning member of society.
The whole point of education is to prepare people to face the real world. Real world doesn't give a shit about real trauma (which is unfair mind you), so why should it give a shit about someone's discomfort?
Unless someone develops some sort of telepathy chip, this is ridiculous. I typically take heed of people's challenges, for there's a lot of real pain in this world. But his is fucking bollocks.
Man. That's brutal but true. Somewhat at least. I dunno about the bitching about "hyphenated Americans", German-Americans and Irish-Americans melted in the pot but retained flavors of their heritage. And that's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. To hell with you if you claim otherwise. But there was a big push to stop speaking german right around WWI. A lot of that was due to fear. But in a divisive time they sought to conform and being American "came first". And later they celebrated their roots. (or at least found an excuse to drink). It comes and goes.
You are either an "American" regardless of race and ancestry or you are not
No. Too strict. It implies they're traitors. Foreign agents. Non-citizens. Something along those lines. That's just going too far. Trying to demonize the other side is never going to work out well in the long run. Try "You are either an American regardless of race, ancestry, creed, color, and gender or you are an asshole stirring up shit for no reason".
And just wtf do you mean by "political economy"?
BUT ANYWAY, I have to agree that this guy is really dancing around the issue that this is an argument that AI need to understand different cultures and... let it affect it's outcomes. In a word, "Diversity". Frankly I think that's bullshit. The great thing about automated systems is that they're impartial 3rd parties and can REMOVE cultural bullshit getting in the way of merit-based systems and shave off cultural bias. Think about an automated system that selects people for therapy. No more "men don't cry" bullshit. We don't WANT those cultural trends to influence medical decisions. Think about "should we vaccinate our child?" No more hairbrained fame-seekers inventing issues. (Also the shortest "AI" ever: echo "yes"). But of course such things wouldn't be fool-proof. Don't appeal to robots as some sort of uncorruptible paragon of truth. There are a LOT of parallels here with IQ tests. They were originally lauded by liberals (and rightly so) as impartial merit-based systems. And they largely still are. But early tests suffered a lot from bias creeping into questions. "A train leaves from London to York 500km away at 30mph, when doe sit arrive?" will get you different scores for different groups than "Hommie drops 3g's on 2kilos, cuts half, and pushes at 20% less, what's his take?". And that's true. No test is perfectly unbiased. In the same way, AI systems are made by people. Like how the facial recognition sucked at Chinese and Africans because all the devs were white dudes training on themselves. But despite the flaws, the automated systems are still HELLA better than the previous clusterfuck of bias and bullshit and political crap.
Even if we were to assume we nuke diversity somehow in this country because that's the key to smooth out cultural-aware AI, how the hell will you create useful AI at all? We trade with other countries, other cultures. We have tourists and shit. We sell stuff and services to other countries (and we buy in return.)
And somehow we'll be successful in creating AI in this type of world by... getting rid of diversity? Please don't go into sales as a career.
For AI to be truly powerful will require machines to comprehend that norms can vary tremendously from group to group, making them seem unnecessary, yet it can be critical to follow them in a given community.
Sounds to me like they're dancing around the real issue: they know that "diversity" leads to problems. The more diverse society becomes, the more difficult the "social algorithms" for humans become. If humans often get it wrong (by the standards of those who push diversity), then AI is hopelessly screwed for a century or more.
The solution, of course, is a cultural and political. That is to impose a restoration of E Pluribus Unum in those areas fetishizing diversity. You scared that "white nationalism" is on the rise? Embrace the old motto and make it clear that there will no longer be hyphenated Americans. You are either an "American" regardless of race and ancestry or you are not. If you choose the latter, you will not share in the political economy of the Americans.
Tell that to Native Americans or African Americans or Jewish Americans or Hispanic Americans (who have been in the continental US for centuries). And don't fucking ever tell me about Irish-American or Italian-American or the Scott-Irish (and many other X-American) pride and cultural contributions to what was pretty much a WASP'y core.
You people have been hyphenated for a long time. Hyphenated-Americans won you WWI. And "E Pluribus Unum" doesn't mean ignore (let alone obliterate and outlaw) your roots. It means one nation out of many roots.
What exactly is this diversity thing that you so much fear that is being turned into a fetish and destroying the nation?
And what the hell does it have to do with AI and cultural parsing? Do you think that being a ethnic mono-culture will somehow smooth out cultural norms to the point that they are parse-able? The greatest challenge is not cultural norms between immigrants, but generational norms (consider acceptance of gay marriage or pot), language evolution (even within a monoculture).
Get out of your bubble, travel, if just by a little. The nation is not being destroyed by whatever boogeyman that keeps you up in the middle of the night.
Being this afraid of people this much, that shit requires therapy and good dose of ambien.
the election is decided...by all the people of America
Well in this case, it clearly didn't work out that way.
It actually did. Almost half of the voters opted out. And in voting, opting out means letting others vote on their behalf. So by act or omission, the American people voted for this shit show.
Democracy, be it direct or representative, it is a function of its people. Shit in. Shit out. It ain't a Harry Potter magic wand that will prevent popular stupidity from generating its own Darwin awards.
Since you're such an America expert then you must know this is a republic so the election is not decided by the mob rule of NYC and LA, but by all the people of America. Nice attempt to be misleading via fake news tho.
Only 1 quarter of Americans voted for Trump. A slightly larger quarter voted for HRC, and the rest didn't bother or threw their votes away for 3rd party candidates. So something went terribly wrong with American politics and democracy.
Regardless of how you feel about urban centers (who happen to host 80% of the population and are responsible for the bulk of the US economic and technological achievements), that the EC tilted that way is simply a brief delay of the inevitable (as urban flight continues to vacuum out fly over country.)
This will sooner or later (actually sooner) will reflect in the balance of powers in the legislative, both in the Senate and in the House (specially in the House), which will alter the balance of power to present an actual representation of where (and how) the bulk of Americans live and think.
Whether you (the generic you) accepts this is irrelevant.
First amendment applies to government, not to a private company on his own infrastructure. Please don't talk about democracy before learning the ropes of it first.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't the DOD know exactly what our missile defense system is running? Why did they need to generate a report for this?
The DOD (and any organization for that matter) requires audit reports to confirm that what they know in inventory is actually true.
Shit moves.
Think data centers for instance. Routers move, get displaced, get fried, replaced, etc. You'll keep some type of inventory (hopefully tied to some sort of monitoring and procuring system), even if only manual. But every once in a while you need to double check that the list is sufficiently accurate to represent what you have.
Same with software systems.
So it is not surprising that the DOD generates such reports.
What is surprising, no, what is depressing is the confirmation that their systems are shit as far as security updates are concerned.
Agreed.
Has there been any product released by Microsoft in the last, say, 5 years, that doesn't have a scriptable PowerShell interface?
Have you actually tried to use PowerShell on a regular basis? I have. Just because it exists, it doesn't mean it's easy, or even possible to install the powershell version you want without a) upgrading the OS or b) breaking something.
I've worked and maintain large multi-platform COTS that run on Linux and Windows which require some type of scriptable configuration. Every single time, the Windows/PowerShell part was an effing nightmare compared to doing its Linux counterpart.
Honestly I don't mind the weirdness of PowerShell. It's the discrepancies from one version of PowerShell to the next. And there are somethings that you just say fuck it, don't use Powershell API, but use it to call REG to manipulate the registry or something like that.
I always read that Microsoft had a policy of using its Own software, so the staff could easily identify bugs & bad user interfaces (and improve them). Maybe they've abandoned that philosophy.
Windows, the OS itself, that was developed and built on AIX or DEC Alpha, I don't remember which.
They surely use their own software, but they need to cater to where customers are going, so...
If only Windows Server OS was free as in beer.
I still wouldn't trust it.
I'm gonna lose the rep I give in this thread by posting here, but fuck it.
I would. I work (and have worked) on both Linux (RH, Ubunto, CentOS), and Windows 2012/2016 (as well as a variety of other operating systems, including real-time OSs as well as old stuff from long ago - DOS, VAX, PICK).
I would not ever start a bizness or a system with the backend running on Windows simply because of the price.
But Windows has come a long way on the server side. I could run a good shop on Windows alone with SQL Server and C# (or even VB, VB isn't bad unless you suck at development.) And it does pay to develop some types of apps for Windows customers.
Again, my preference is on Linux, but it's because of the cost, not quality. The argument against Windows quality was valid 10, 15 years ago. Now? Not really.
It was probably more an act of stupidity under influence than a premeditated attempt at a short squeeze, but if you're wearing the CEO hat, you have less leeway for stupidity.
So, fraud charges secured.
Indeed. Musk needs to chill the frak out. With that said the SEC is trying to oust him, and I think that's a bridge too far. It should be up to shareholders to make that call, given that this was an act of stupidity (and/or too much pot) rather than actual criminal act.
Quite honestly, there's a lot white collar crime going on out there, and yet the SEC comes out all guns blazing... for this??? SMDH.
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
Um. No.
Firstly, you usually *can* afford an education, you just can't necessarily afford to get diploma from a decent college other than the state college.
State colleges are decent colleges. People shouldn't go to expensive colleges unless they can afford it or they have scholarships or low-income grants provided by said private institutions.
A lot (not all, not the majority, but a lot) of student debt is due to bad money management. Getting a 6-digit debt for a major in literature at a out-of-state private university, that's a major fuck-up, specially if one could get the same education with a Pell Grant or a 1/4 to 1/5 of that type of debt at a local university (with the first two years completed at an even much cheaper community college.)
But then again, some of these kids know shit at 17 and get horrible advise by useless college advisors. By the time they wise up, they are already up to their eyeballs in debt that cannot be discharged via bankruptcy laws (and that's totally fucking unfair considering anyone can get into a stupid business and default over and over and over.)
If your family is pulling in $130,000 and you can't afford an education then the problem's in the Universities.
Maybe those $100 million sports facilities and plasma TVs in every bedroom aren't really needed.
Depends. A household income of $130K in San Francisco is not the same as the same raw number for a household in Wichita. Similarly, there are other factors to consider. Is $130K the product of two earners, or only one. Does the household has zero kids, one or two, or more. This is important since if there are two earners, then there are additional expenses from cradle to college (in terms of child care during work hours.) And if there's only one income earner, then sure there are no child care expenses, but there is a loss of income potential. Either scenario is affected by the number of kids involved.
And let us not get started if a household is a single-parent one.
A $130K household in Wichita should not qualify for free college, but one in an expensive metro might qualify to some form of voucher.
The money shot is in that line where median income *per locality* is. Households at or below it qualify for free college. Anyone between that point and the top middle income can qualify for some sort of assistance which decreases proportionally as income increases.
Quite honestly, I would prefer that the first years of college be free altogether, or that we give more preference to apprenticeship and vocational programs as well as associate in science degrees that lead to immediate job opportunities.
We focus too much in 4-year university degrees.
Yeah, didn't Russia kick their butt once before?
Holy shit sweet fucking Jesus on a mopped. WWII ended 73 years ago. The socio-economic context in which that bloody shit show started and ended had little bearing to the socio-economic context of today.
Intelligence is inheritable. Duh. Like I said, 'same as their parents'.
No, it isn't.
Good. Then mandate it, or at least mandate overtime for ALL workers who are required to work over 40 hrs per week. If people are taken away from their families and lives, they should be compensated for it appropriately. And having to pay 1.5x or 2x time should encourage employers to hire more workers vs having unreasonable expectations from their existing workforce.
Automation.
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment behind your post. I'm simply pointing out a real hole in parts of your proposed solution.
We are moving to self-checkout and cashierless stores. So why close at all? My local grocery store is open 24/7. The lights are on motion sensors, so no electricity is being used unless someone is walking down that aisle. There is a skeleton crew doing restocking, but I just self-checkout so I don't bother them.
Have you ever been to a 3rd world country? You will notice many many people selling a small collection of goods spread out on blankets or tables on the side of the road. This is WHY they are poor. Retail is unproductive and an economic dead end. It is a transaction cost, not a cost of producing goods or services. The larger the retail workforce, the poorer the country.
The purpose of jobs is to produce goods and services, not "keeping people busy", and retail doesn't produce anything. The sooner we can eliminate most retail jobs, the better. This will free up labor for actual productive activities.
Provide said activities are created at a rate sufficient to employ people. In a free or mixed-but-mostly-free economies (the only models with an actual success record), private enterprises in general do not create them, nor act in a nation's long term interest without government intervention, either via subsidies or tax breaks, or by force the way Park Chung-hee cajoled private businesses to industrialize South Korea.
Countries need economic mandates and development plans. Development plans never end, even for developed nations. And here in the US, we clearly do not have one (and for decades the country didn't need any when, after WWII, the country was the only industrial hegemony left standing.)
So without a concerted effort from Washington with which to create the necessary synergies with the private sector, I don't see us utilizing that newly freed labor force in any meaningful way (to those people's detriment.)
Now, I am not advocating state capitalism or a command economy or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out an existing challenge that cannot be successfully and humanely addressed merely by extreme, purist notions of capitalism or socialism (or any form of extremism for that matter.)
There's a thing called a rotating schedule. 8 hours on a set number of days. Hospitals and factories use this so that when a service needed is that important e.g hospitals, or that cannot actually shut down e.g nuclear reactors, power plants, hospitals, T.V, they can have 3 sets of 8 hours or 2 sets of 12 for people to go to work so that service can continue. The problem is solved, and you can hire more people if you really need to. The reason for 8 hours is so that the day is divisible into 3 clean divisions or 2 for 12 hours. This problem that you think you're trying to create is already solved, and is just logistical.
Also rotating shift workplaces give vacation time around 1 week per month, by design. So you can spend that whole week doing things in advance like buying stuff for a month. Pick a time most convenient during that week.
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswer...
Rotating or not, those are not 9-5 (ergo giving a point to the OP replying to ya.)
While there are many more, and more important, things to consider; Pontevedra just made my list of cities that I might like to call home one day.
Not to take away anything from the city, but we have suburbs larger than Pontevedra (which makes its social experiment possible.)
If you can afford to move and live there, by all means. I just hope you are paying attention to job prospects in such a small city with double digit unemployment rate, with the Spaniard economy experiencing a lot of hurting.
It would be a nice place for retirement (though not necessarily the cheapest.)
Well, well, well. So state rights and small, local gubmints are good till they ain't. And big gubmint is bad until it tries to control someone's uterus or stifle net neutrality. Who didn't see this one coming?
This IBM move shows why as you get older, it's not a good idea to just sit and while away the hours at a large company.
Anything can and will happen, including sadly layoffs...
If you move around from company to company every so often, you keep your skills much more current, and at the same time expand a network of contacts you might be able to find other jobs through.
The more current skills combined with experience can also be used to maintain higher salary levels if you work at it and negotiate some.
Bingo. This and this and this, forever. I just don't get why people fail to grasp at the reality of it.
If someone wants to try their luck and grey it out at a large company, be my guest. It can be a smart move, specially for accruing benefits (and large severance packages.) But one should be ready for the big hammer to come down. That is, getting laid off would be part of the plan.
Moving strategically from job to job is *the* way to raise one's salaries and benefits (I call it "dynamic job security"). Or move and move, then stay put at one place and count on getting a pink slip and a sufficiently large severance package to make your next move.
Not planning for the inevitable upheaval is fucking bonkers as far as I'm concerned.
With that said, I do hope IBM get slammed by that lawsuit. Ageism isn't right (and it forces the rest of us into this labor nomadic modus operandi.)
Fixed the title for you. :)
It's not the fate that's an issue. It's the rate at which a company products or platforms from cradle to grave in such short order.
That's abnormal, and sometimes I wonder the wisdom of such a practice.
But in the past few years, students have started calling out in-class presentations as discriminatory to those with anxiety, demanding that teachers offer alternative options
Provided there's an actual medical justification (say a person is truly suffering from a verifiable anxiety disorder or something part of the autism spectrum), I don't think this is justifiable. If you can't come out of your shell when you are medically capable of doing then you shouldn't expect to be a functioning member of society.
The whole point of education is to prepare people to face the real world. Real world doesn't give a shit about real trauma (which is unfair mind you), so why should it give a shit about someone's discomfort?
Unless someone develops some sort of telepathy chip, this is ridiculous. I typically take heed of people's challenges, for there's a lot of real pain in this world. But his is fucking bollocks.
Citing 'Moral Requirement To Make Money', Pharma CEO Jacks Drug Price 400%
You know, some developed, capitalist countries do have this thing called "price controls" for things like, medicines and health-care related things.
We need that in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, but nooooo, that's szhozhulusm!!!
This sounds like some Vitto Corleone shit being delivered by Hagen (and enforced by Luca Brassi.)
Man. That's brutal but true. Somewhat at least. I dunno about the bitching about "hyphenated Americans", German-Americans and Irish-Americans melted in the pot but retained flavors of their heritage. And that's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. To hell with you if you claim otherwise. But there was a big push to stop speaking german right around WWI. A lot of that was due to fear. But in a divisive time they sought to conform and being American "came first". And later they celebrated their roots. (or at least found an excuse to drink). It comes and goes.
You are either an "American" regardless of race and ancestry or you are not
No. Too strict. It implies they're traitors. Foreign agents. Non-citizens. Something along those lines. That's just going too far. Trying to demonize the other side is never going to work out well in the long run. Try "You are either an American regardless of race, ancestry, creed, color, and gender or you are an asshole stirring up shit for no reason".
And just wtf do you mean by "political economy"?
BUT ANYWAY, I have to agree that this guy is really dancing around the issue that this is an argument that AI need to understand different cultures and... let it affect it's outcomes. In a word, "Diversity". Frankly I think that's bullshit. The great thing about automated systems is that they're impartial 3rd parties and can REMOVE cultural bullshit getting in the way of merit-based systems and shave off cultural bias. Think about an automated system that selects people for therapy. No more "men don't cry" bullshit. We don't WANT those cultural trends to influence medical decisions. Think about "should we vaccinate our child?" No more hairbrained fame-seekers inventing issues. (Also the shortest "AI" ever: echo "yes"). But of course such things wouldn't be fool-proof. Don't appeal to robots as some sort of uncorruptible paragon of truth. There are a LOT of parallels here with IQ tests. They were originally lauded by liberals (and rightly so) as impartial merit-based systems. And they largely still are. But early tests suffered a lot from bias creeping into questions. "A train leaves from London to York 500km away at 30mph, when doe sit arrive?" will get you different scores for different groups than "Hommie drops 3g's on 2kilos, cuts half, and pushes at 20% less, what's his take?". And that's true. No test is perfectly unbiased. In the same way, AI systems are made by people. Like how the facial recognition sucked at Chinese and Africans because all the devs were white dudes training on themselves. But despite the flaws, the automated systems are still HELLA better than the previous clusterfuck of bias and bullshit and political crap.
Even if we were to assume we nuke diversity somehow in this country because that's the key to smooth out cultural-aware AI, how the hell will you create useful AI at all? We trade with other countries, other cultures. We have tourists and shit. We sell stuff and services to other countries (and we buy in return.)
And somehow we'll be successful in creating AI in this type of world by... getting rid of diversity? Please don't go into sales as a career.
Sounds to me like they're dancing around the real issue: they know that "diversity" leads to problems. The more diverse society becomes, the more difficult the "social algorithms" for humans become. If humans often get it wrong (by the standards of those who push diversity), then AI is hopelessly screwed for a century or more.
The solution, of course, is a cultural and political. That is to impose a restoration of E Pluribus Unum in those areas fetishizing diversity. You scared that "white nationalism" is on the rise? Embrace the old motto and make it clear that there will no longer be hyphenated Americans. You are either an "American" regardless of race and ancestry or you are not. If you choose the latter, you will not share in the political economy of the Americans.
Tell that to Native Americans or African Americans or Jewish Americans or Hispanic Americans (who have been in the continental US for centuries). And don't fucking ever tell me about Irish-American or Italian-American or the Scott-Irish (and many other X-American) pride and cultural contributions to what was pretty much a WASP'y core.
You people have been hyphenated for a long time. Hyphenated-Americans won you WWI. And "E Pluribus Unum" doesn't mean ignore (let alone obliterate and outlaw) your roots. It means one nation out of many roots.
What exactly is this diversity thing that you so much fear that is being turned into a fetish and destroying the nation?
And what the hell does it have to do with AI and cultural parsing? Do you think that being a ethnic mono-culture will somehow smooth out cultural norms to the point that they are parse-able? The greatest challenge is not cultural norms between immigrants, but generational norms (consider acceptance of gay marriage or pot), language evolution (even within a monoculture).
Get out of your bubble, travel, if just by a little. The nation is not being destroyed by whatever boogeyman that keeps you up in the middle of the night. Being this afraid of people this much, that shit requires therapy and good dose of ambien.
the election is decided...by all the people of America
Well in this case, it clearly didn't work out that way.
It actually did. Almost half of the voters opted out. And in voting, opting out means letting others vote on their behalf. So by act or omission, the American people voted for this shit show.
Democracy, be it direct or representative, it is a function of its people. Shit in. Shit out. It ain't a Harry Potter magic wand that will prevent popular stupidity from generating its own Darwin awards.
Since you're such an America expert then you must know this is a republic so the election is not decided by the mob rule of NYC and LA, but by all the people of America. Nice attempt to be misleading via fake news tho.
Only 1 quarter of Americans voted for Trump. A slightly larger quarter voted for HRC, and the rest didn't bother or threw their votes away for 3rd party candidates. So something went terribly wrong with American politics and democracy.
Regardless of how you feel about urban centers (who happen to host 80% of the population and are responsible for the bulk of the US economic and technological achievements), that the EC tilted that way is simply a brief delay of the inevitable (as urban flight continues to vacuum out fly over country.)
This will sooner or later (actually sooner) will reflect in the balance of powers in the legislative, both in the Senate and in the House (specially in the House), which will alter the balance of power to present an actual representation of where (and how) the bulk of Americans live and think.
Whether you (the generic you) accepts this is irrelevant.
Queue Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra". Quick! Time is of the essence!
If Trump cannot block people on Twitter because that violates the first amendment, then I don't think that Twitter can block Trump either for the same reason. Double standards are bad for a democracy.
First amendment applies to government, not to a private company on his own infrastructure. Please don't talk about democracy before learning the ropes of it first.