I'm only Mexican-American so I'm not allowed to have a culture
I'm American. This is why civic nationalism is dead in this country. Nearly every non-white person identifies as a hyphenated American.
Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Everyone throws a fucking hyphen when they want to celebrate something. But nooooooo, that's only for minorituhs. #rollseyes.
Throwing a hyphen doesn't mean what you claim it is. It is simply a way to say "I'm American, and my ancestry experience is XYZ cuz my daddy or grandmommy came from over there, and spoke English with an accent, and we eat this weird dish shit on special occasions."
And sometimes the hyphen is used to denote a history of repression or discrimination (.ie. African-Americans, Native Americans, and depending on when you are watching "Gangs of New York" or some shit like that, Irish-American or whatever.)
That's all there is to it. There's no nefarious balkanization process (other than in the eyes of those who want to look for such a sign.)
The ability to freely say "I'm American, and these are my ancestors, their experiences, triumphs and struggles" without shame or fear of retribution (and actually with some pride), that's the damned essence of what America is, the philosophy of what makes this country distinct from every other country in the world.
It's what the zeitgeist is supposed to be. Or at least so goes the theory.
If you want to look at that differently, go ahead, but just be honest to admit you are making a choice in looking at it so.
Truly, we ask a Playboy playmate what's her background and she goes "I was born in Montanabraska, and I'm part German, part Italian, part Finnish with some hints of Cherokee, Chinese and organic, sugar-free Tibetan pistachio ice cream on the side" and everyone goes "yay cool hawt!".
But then a minority (Black, Jew, Asian or I dunno, Klingon) says "I'm X-American", and holy shit! trigger word balkanization apocalypse! the nation I used to love is death!
I'm only Mexican-American so I'm not allowed to have a culture
I'm American. This is why civic nationalism is dead in this country. Nearly every non-white person identifies as a hyphenated American.
Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Everyone throws a fucking hyphen when they want to celebrate something. But nooooooo, that's only for minorituhs. #rollseyes.
Throwing a hyphen doesn't mean what you claim it is. It is simply a way to say "I'm American, and my ancestry experience is XYZ cuz my daddy or grandmommy came from over there, and spoke English with an accent, and we eat this weird dish shit on special occasions."
And sometimes the hyphen is used to denote a history of repression or discrimination (.ie. African-Americans, Native Americans, and depending on when you are watching "Gangs of New York" or some shit like that, Irish-American or whatever.)
That's all there is to it. There's no nefarious balkanization process (other than in the eyes of those who want to look for such a sign.)
The ability to freely say "I'm American, and these are my ancestors, their experiences, triumphs and struggles" without shame or fear of retribution (and actually with some pride), that's the damned essence of what America is, the philosophy of what makes this country distinct from every other country in the world.
It's what the zeitgeist is supposed to be. Or at least so goes the theory.
If you want to look at that differently, go ahead, but just be honest to admit you are making a choice in looking at it so.
When will California adopt similar diversity quotas for State Senators?
And nurses? Firefighters? Garbage collectors? Strippers? Elementary school teachers?
And...***insert long list of jobs where gender (sex?) discrimination is obvious because one sex or the other dominates***?
Those careers you mention aren't susceptible to social capital the way boards are. And some of them have that gender tilt because of gender or cultural preferences, not because of glass ceiling barriers or lack of social capital.
I don't necessarily agree with this bill, but your counter-argument is reaching into the realm of the far-fetched.
and provide inside access to the resources that board member is associated: eg. inventment banker
In other words the notion of "most qualified" is laughable.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? That definitely seems like a qualification to me right there.
You left out the other (and far more relevant part):
or someone from a VC firm, or the President's son.
With all things equal, qualifications are the great equalizer. But not all things are equal. Never underestimate the power of social capital, and we don't have that many true meritocracies (we have self-perpetuating systems - read Chris Hayes' "Twilight of the Elites".)
I don't necessarily agree with the bill, but I see where it comes from. It won't necessarily alter boards' to deleterious effects, and it *might* extend the benefit of social capital to other capable people (women) that typically lack access to it.
It is neither a silver bullet panacea, nor stake in a board's heart. Time will tell how well it moves the needle (positively or negatively.)
It is nice that Paul Allen is actually funding things that really help society. Finding coral that can deal with the heat is really important to a lot of ocean life.
Probably different species involved than the species that can't survive the heat. Yeah, fantastic that there is a survivor; but there is still going to be a mass extinction of coral species unfortunately.
You are absolutely right. We are heading towards an extinction event. The only thing left to do (sans finding a way to revert global heat-up) is to repopulate devastated areas with more heat-resistance species.
I think that will be a necessity (since live reefs are an ecological necessity), but this implies we are going to start treating reefs the way we treat agriculture - using more resistant crops to phase out those that aren't.
A necessary step, but not a pretty one no matter how we slice it.
I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.
AWS and Azure each do over $20B a year (and growing), adding $1B a year more to either one will not create a monopoly.
I am talking about a cloud infrastructure monopoly when serving and creating a private, sec-cleared cloud infrastructure for the DoD. Once you (the generic "you") get an exclusive contract to create it all, that is, in effect, a monopoly in that space.
You could argue that it was the right thing to do.
If operations is losing money, but its being masked by some rental thing maybe economically would be better to lose the operational bit of the company.
(I know nothing about your particular case though)
The loses would be *masked* if the rental as an additional source of income were unknown or undocumented. Perhaps it might have been better to expand into rentals. I mean, it's all a guessing game w/o knowing the specifics of the company. It's ok to lose on ops and survive on alternative sources of income *if* there's an actual path/plan to get the ops into the green again (via more product development and what not.)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
I can't believe I have to explain this, but Amazon right now is more than Jeff Bezos + warehouse workers. Amazon actually has an HQ building where people have desk jobs. The idea is that HQ2 will have more of those desk jobs in it.
Dude, believe it. This is a country with millions of anti-vaxxers and many millions who hated Obamacare but loved the ACA. \_()_/
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
Because there's no differentiation between high-paying software engineer jobs and warehousing jobs. #rollseyes.
It's like Walmart. Walmart actually has an impressive software and R&D division with high paying jobs. We do not need a degree in Physics to know those jobs are not the same as those at the cashier lines, do we?
Instead of negotiating for tax breaks in shitty cities, just pick a place that already has decent taxes and cost of living. I suggest any nice town in any decent state. Amazon has already set up a warehouse in Fernley, NV. That's a nice city, so what's wrong with that for HQ? Dunno, so let's go down Highway 80 and Elko looks good. There is plenty of cheap land, but still a real city core. I am sure Elko would be glad to add a company that was not about gambling.
A nice town on a supposedly decent state with nice taxes is not enough for attracting (and keeping) tech talent. Read Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs". The mechanics that make such work possible are all about demographic agglomeration.
The point is that a city shouldn't be allowed to reduce or defer property tax or any other tax for a single entity.
Yes they should, and can (and sometimes must) *if* that benefits the community substantially. Job creation and the ability to attract magnet companies that net thousands of high paying jobs is part of a local government's jobs. Each one of those jobs have a "magnifying" effect of creating between 7 to 10 more jobs (read Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs."
The operative word here is *if*. The benefits must be tangible and the expectations reasonable. It makes no sense to defer property tax (or other forms of taxation) on "white elephant" projects.
I know where you are coming from. But that's not how local governments are supposed to work.
I fundamentally dislike Oracle. Its an exploitative company that functions purely on ensnaring companies into deals that are far too costly then using legal shenanigans to stop them to leave.
BUT, they are right here. Giving the whole contract , all ten billion of it, to a single contractor (And lets be clear here, its either AWS or Azure. Google are capable, but they dont have the govt mojo to compete in this space) is straight up monopoly building, and it creates a single point of vunerability to the DODs systems. By splitting things up over multiple providers, it enhances competition, and divides up responsibility in a way better suited to national security.
And after all, they could still write "NO ORACLES ALLOWED" in it, right. (Well probably not, but hey)
I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.
OTH, the benefit of having one cloud provider is seamless integration and scaling. If there are multiple contractors, then that will entail multiple providers, multiple cloud technologies, etc.
So the entire benefit of going to the cloud goes *poof*. If you (the generic "you") go to the cloud, you want to pick one provider, know the prons and cons and make it work. Otherwise, just don't - build your own facility.
Having worked at a defense contractor once, I have no high hopes that the government (or defense contractors) will come up with an efficient abstraction on top of multiple providers.
This is truly an interesting and challenging junction that goes beyond mere technicalities.
It depends on economy of scale. For a small company you are probably correct. As a larger, global company with multiple datacenters around the world we have done the cost comparison multiple times (about once a year for 5 years) and on-prem/private cloud was cheaper every time.
That's been my experience as well. I know for a fact and experience that large, global companies like NTT, ECB or CBS have hundreds of thousands of systems (computers, routers, gateways, etc) in-premise, their nature and business rationale being such taking them to the cloud makes no sense (financially and operationally.)
For some ops, it totally makes sense to go to the cloud.
First day of my first vacation this year was 800 miles. Yeah, people drive farther than 1 tank of gas.
If I were to make a trip longer than 500 miles, I'd rather rent a car and not add to my car's wear and tear. And I don't drive an electric car (though my wife and I own a Prius and a good old gas-powered Camry.) If we consider the standard estimated cost of $1 per mile (two-way), over 500 miles, or even 300, begins to justify a car rental, me thinks.
There isn't much left to do. Electric cars are great for short haul, but sometimes people need to drive farther. Small cars are fine for a lot of people, but try jamming a rear-facing car seat in one and you'll find the front seat is nearly unusable.
With almost 80% of the US population leaving in relatively dense metropolitan areas (and over 50% living in dense metro areas), and with relative short commutes, the general profile is that people do short hauls and electric cars is what makes sense for most of them.
Obviously this doesn't apply in micropolitan and rural areas where traveling distances can be 3 to 4 those of metropolitan areas (or even more). For those cases, gas engines rule (until the time electric engines become more efficient, in power and in economics... which they will.)
As it should be. No one becomes a bank-teller, because they like it. Like hundreds of other jobs, it needs to be done, pleasant or not... We are all better off as these jobs are replaced by machinery.
Who is this we you speak of?
Society *can* be better off, but so long as it prepares its social capital (its people) for the shift. We are seeing right now in this country what happens when society does not do that - low-value added jobs are shipped overseas or replaced by manufacturing, causing unprepared people (some of it their fault, some of it not their fault) to see the value of their 10-20-30 years of work experience amount to nothing.
Misery and bitterness ensues, people demanding a scapegoat, be it corporations or Muslicans. Millions of people finishing HS without knowing how to add fractions, no agency, and no hope to ever meaningfully participate in a modern service-based economy, in a country pretty much devoid of social safety nets.
What then? Most likely that havoc won't affect me or my children directly, but we all live in the same society (unless we go choose to go Lebensunwertes Leben on anyone left behind.
The Industrial Revolution made our modern life possible, but let's not forget that people that lost their jobs back then never recovered in their lifetimes, neither them nor their children. It was till their grandchildren that they could start reaping the benefits of industrialization. That shit did take a human toll.
We are about to embark in the same type of havoc, and unless we plan for it, no, it will not be better for *us*. It might be better for *me*, or for *you*, as individuals. But we do not get to define society as simply just *we*.
How do you call that an improvement? Lead stays around damn near forever. Horse crap, or an infectious patch of it doesn't. Lead exposure is causing health issues decades after the last horse and buggy were off the streets.
True, shit particles in the air didn't stay for long, but neither the people who breathed it. As bad as lead was (and still is, see Flint), bro, shit in the air was a lot worse. Sometimes people really do not grasp how bad shit was (and please do not take this as an endorsement of what came after, but we need to keep perspective on how bad things are/were with respect to one another.)
I could understand this is if we were in a 3rd world country. However, we are not.
At this point you may have to state where you are from. So far I thought this was bout the situation in the US?
I am originally from Nicaragua. I've been in the US since 1989. I'm describing the situation as I saw it when I went to college in the US.
And this wasn't just me - I saw plenty of US-born citizens going through that kind of poverty-related issue back in my college years.
My point again is that the way things are done here, that's a good way to destroy (not cultivate) social capital.
I do believe 4-year degrees are overtly inflated and that the country should do better in focusing in 2-year and vocational degrees and apprenticeship programs. However, there's nothing of the sort.
The entire attitude is a) go do something, then b) well, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't, then c) it's not my problem that there are no more options for you.
As a first world nation, we are unique in our ability to obliterate social capital.
Then maybe they should not have gone to college if they could not afford it?
And the option is then not go to college and go to work in whatever, see jobs gone to automation and what not and then being blamed for not pulling myself by the bootstraps?
I did get through, just barely. And I knew many who couldn't. And what happened to them? That's a terrible way to improve social capital, you know, the thing that gives us an advantage in the international arena.
Again, this type of status quo is OK for a developing nation. It's not OK for a nation who wants to retain its 1st world status.
Perhaps you missed the memo on robotics. Low wage jobs are here to stay, unless you do something yourself, or allow yourself to become a wage slave.
Strange, why are all those companies suddenly repatriating and re-opening factories in the US then?
Because as other countries rise up, cost of labor is increasing overseas. Then we bring factories... with increased automation. Bringing back factories =/= bringing back jobs. Look it up. After doing it many times, I just got tired of googling references for this anymore.
If you are aware that factories are coming back, then you are also quite capable of being aware that most of them are relying on automation.
How many college kids lived off of ramen noodles -- especially in tech -- and went on to do amazing things?
And how many did not or got sick? I remember those days when very often I'd survive with a muffin and a cup of coffee a day. It shits on your health, and then your grades. My college A-streak plummeted when I got my first C in trig - I had a serious bout of bronchitis on that semester (in no small part by not eating well), which seriously screwed me up. It was then that I started taking student loans (yeah, now I can eat some more and buy nyquil.) I shit you not.
I knew people back then that simply had to drop. I knew college students with broken shoes or health problems because of financial reasons.
We can all say "yay these kids survived on ramen and went on to invent the new mywhorefacebookgramspace", but many others fall through the cracks (not to mention the many more that crack even earlier in HS.
I could understand this is if we were in a 3rd world country. However, we are not. Not only are we in a rich country, we are in the richest one ever. This state of affairs, and the glamorization of it, it is atrocious and non-productive. This grind doesn't produce grit, it kills our potential social capital.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm only Mexican-American so I'm not allowed to have a culture
I'm American. This is why civic nationalism is dead in this country. Nearly every non-white person identifies as a hyphenated American.
Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Everyone throws a fucking hyphen when they want to celebrate something. But nooooooo, that's only for minorituhs. #rollseyes.
Throwing a hyphen doesn't mean what you claim it is. It is simply a way to say "I'm American, and my ancestry experience is XYZ cuz my daddy or grandmommy came from over there, and spoke English with an accent, and we eat this weird dish shit on special occasions."
And sometimes the hyphen is used to denote a history of repression or discrimination (.ie. African-Americans, Native Americans, and depending on when you are watching "Gangs of New York" or some shit like that, Irish-American or whatever.)
That's all there is to it. There's no nefarious balkanization process (other than in the eyes of those who want to look for such a sign.)
The ability to freely say "I'm American, and these are my ancestors, their experiences, triumphs and struggles" without shame or fear of retribution (and actually with some pride), that's the damned essence of what America is, the philosophy of what makes this country distinct from every other country in the world.
It's what the zeitgeist is supposed to be. Or at least so goes the theory.
If you want to look at that differently, go ahead, but just be honest to admit you are making a choice in looking at it so.
Truly, we ask a Playboy playmate what's her background and she goes "I was born in Montanabraska, and I'm part German, part Italian, part Finnish with some hints of Cherokee, Chinese and organic, sugar-free Tibetan pistachio ice cream on the side" and everyone goes "yay cool hawt!".
But then a minority (Black, Jew, Asian or I dunno, Klingon) says "I'm X-American", and holy shit! trigger word balkanization apocalypse! the nation I used to love is death!
I'm only Mexican-American so I'm not allowed to have a culture
I'm American. This is why civic nationalism is dead in this country. Nearly every non-white person identifies as a hyphenated American.
Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Everyone throws a fucking hyphen when they want to celebrate something. But nooooooo, that's only for minorituhs. #rollseyes.
Throwing a hyphen doesn't mean what you claim it is. It is simply a way to say "I'm American, and my ancestry experience is XYZ cuz my daddy or grandmommy came from over there, and spoke English with an accent, and we eat this weird dish shit on special occasions."
And sometimes the hyphen is used to denote a history of repression or discrimination (.ie. African-Americans, Native Americans, and depending on when you are watching "Gangs of New York" or some shit like that, Irish-American or whatever.)
That's all there is to it. There's no nefarious balkanization process (other than in the eyes of those who want to look for such a sign.)
The ability to freely say "I'm American, and these are my ancestors, their experiences, triumphs and struggles" without shame or fear of retribution (and actually with some pride), that's the damned essence of what America is, the philosophy of what makes this country distinct from every other country in the world.
It's what the zeitgeist is supposed to be. Or at least so goes the theory.
If you want to look at that differently, go ahead, but just be honest to admit you are making a choice in looking at it so.
And nurses? Firefighters? Garbage collectors? Strippers? Elementary school teachers?
And...***insert long list of jobs where gender (sex?) discrimination is obvious because one sex or the other dominates***?
Those careers you mention aren't susceptible to social capital the way boards are. And some of them have that gender tilt because of gender or cultural preferences, not because of glass ceiling barriers or lack of social capital.
I don't necessarily agree with this bill, but your counter-argument is reaching into the realm of the far-fetched.
and provide inside access to the resources that board member is associated: eg. inventment banker
In other words the notion of "most qualified" is laughable.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? That definitely seems like a qualification to me right there.
You left out the other (and far more relevant part):
or someone from a VC firm, or the President's son.
With all things equal, qualifications are the great equalizer. But not all things are equal. Never underestimate the power of social capital, and we don't have that many true meritocracies (we have self-perpetuating systems - read Chris Hayes' "Twilight of the Elites".)
I don't necessarily agree with the bill, but I see where it comes from. It won't necessarily alter boards' to deleterious effects, and it *might* extend the benefit of social capital to other capable people (women) that typically lack access to it.
It is neither a silver bullet panacea, nor stake in a board's heart. Time will tell how well it moves the needle (positively or negatively.)
It is nice that Paul Allen is actually funding things that really help society. Finding coral that can deal with the heat is really important to a lot of ocean life.
Probably different species involved than the species that can't survive the heat. Yeah, fantastic that there is a survivor; but there is still going to be a mass extinction of coral species unfortunately.
You are absolutely right. We are heading towards an extinction event. The only thing left to do (sans finding a way to revert global heat-up) is to repopulate devastated areas with more heat-resistance species.
I think that will be a necessity (since live reefs are an ecological necessity), but this implies we are going to start treating reefs the way we treat agriculture - using more resistant crops to phase out those that aren't.
A necessary step, but not a pretty one no matter how we slice it.
All currencies fluctuate and Bitcoin isn't going anywhere. When you grow up and stop relying on mommy and daddy, you might learn how economies work.
^^^ Projection
I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.
AWS and Azure each do over $20B a year (and growing), adding $1B a year more to either one will not create a monopoly.
I am talking about a cloud infrastructure monopoly when serving and creating a private, sec-cleared cloud infrastructure for the DoD. Once you (the generic "you") get an exclusive contract to create it all, that is, in effect, a monopoly in that space.
Privately held stocks just aren't traded on the public stock exchanges, there isn't any magic involved.
Bingo. Sometimes, private equity actually rules.
You could argue that it was the right thing to do. If operations is losing money, but its being masked by some rental thing maybe economically would be better to lose the operational bit of the company. (I know nothing about your particular case though)
The loses would be *masked* if the rental as an additional source of income were unknown or undocumented. Perhaps it might have been better to expand into rentals. I mean, it's all a guessing game w/o knowing the specifics of the company. It's ok to lose on ops and survive on alternative sources of income *if* there's an actual path/plan to get the ops into the green again (via more product development and what not.)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
I can't believe I have to explain this, but Amazon right now is more than Jeff Bezos + warehouse workers. Amazon actually has an HQ building where people have desk jobs. The idea is that HQ2 will have more of those desk jobs in it.
Dude, believe it. This is a country with millions of anti-vaxxers and many millions who hated Obamacare but loved the ACA. \_()_/
These are engineering positions. At Amazon, they tend to be high paid (as well as high hours and high turnover). This isn't some shitty warehouse.
Indeed. I know people that work at Amazon as engineers. It's hard work and you get what you put in. Salaries are very, very nice.
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
Because there's no differentiation between high-paying software engineer jobs and warehousing jobs. #rollseyes.
It's like Walmart. Walmart actually has an impressive software and R&D division with high paying jobs. We do not need a degree in Physics to know those jobs are not the same as those at the cashier lines, do we?
Instead of negotiating for tax breaks in shitty cities, just pick a place that already has decent taxes and cost of living. I suggest any nice town in any decent state. Amazon has already set up a warehouse in Fernley, NV. That's a nice city, so what's wrong with that for HQ? Dunno, so let's go down Highway 80 and Elko looks good. There is plenty of cheap land, but still a real city core. I am sure Elko would be glad to add a company that was not about gambling.
A nice town on a supposedly decent state with nice taxes is not enough for attracting (and keeping) tech talent. Read Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs". The mechanics that make such work possible are all about demographic agglomeration.
The point is that a city shouldn't be allowed to reduce or defer property tax or any other tax for a single entity.
Yes they should, and can (and sometimes must) *if* that benefits the community substantially. Job creation and the ability to attract magnet companies that net thousands of high paying jobs is part of a local government's jobs. Each one of those jobs have a "magnifying" effect of creating between 7 to 10 more jobs (read Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs."
The operative word here is *if*. The benefits must be tangible and the expectations reasonable. It makes no sense to defer property tax (or other forms of taxation) on "white elephant" projects.
I know where you are coming from. But that's not how local governments are supposed to work.
I fundamentally dislike Oracle. Its an exploitative company that functions purely on ensnaring companies into deals that are far too costly then using legal shenanigans to stop them to leave.
BUT, they are right here. Giving the whole contract , all ten billion of it, to a single contractor (And lets be clear here, its either AWS or Azure. Google are capable, but they dont have the govt mojo to compete in this space) is straight up monopoly building, and it creates a single point of vunerability to the DODs systems. By splitting things up over multiple providers, it enhances competition, and divides up responsibility in a way better suited to national security.
And after all, they could still write "NO ORACLES ALLOWED" in it, right. (Well probably not, but hey)
I'm on the fence here. I do think Oracle is in the right (Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view.") Such a 10B monopoly cannot be allowed to happen.
OTH, the benefit of having one cloud provider is seamless integration and scaling. If there are multiple contractors, then that will entail multiple providers, multiple cloud technologies, etc.
So the entire benefit of going to the cloud goes *poof*. If you (the generic "you") go to the cloud, you want to pick one provider, know the prons and cons and make it work. Otherwise, just don't - build your own facility.
Having worked at a defense contractor once, I have no high hopes that the government (or defense contractors) will come up with an efficient abstraction on top of multiple providers.
This is truly an interesting and challenging junction that goes beyond mere technicalities.
It depends on economy of scale. For a small company you are probably correct. As a larger, global company with multiple datacenters around the world we have done the cost comparison multiple times (about once a year for 5 years) and on-prem/private cloud was cheaper every time.
That's been my experience as well. I know for a fact and experience that large, global companies like NTT, ECB or CBS have hundreds of thousands of systems (computers, routers, gateways, etc) in-premise, their nature and business rationale being such taking them to the cloud makes no sense (financially and operationally.)
For some ops, it totally makes sense to go to the cloud.
For others, it totally makes sense *NOT TO*.
First day of my first vacation this year was 800 miles. Yeah, people drive farther than 1 tank of gas.
If I were to make a trip longer than 500 miles, I'd rather rent a car and not add to my car's wear and tear. And I don't drive an electric car (though my wife and I own a Prius and a good old gas-powered Camry.) If we consider the standard estimated cost of $1 per mile (two-way), over 500 miles, or even 300, begins to justify a car rental, me thinks.
There isn't much left to do. Electric cars are great for short haul, but sometimes people need to drive farther. Small cars are fine for a lot of people, but try jamming a rear-facing car seat in one and you'll find the front seat is nearly unusable.
With almost 80% of the US population leaving in relatively dense metropolitan areas (and over 50% living in dense metro areas), and with relative short commutes, the general profile is that people do short hauls and electric cars is what makes sense for most of them.
Obviously this doesn't apply in micropolitan and rural areas where traveling distances can be 3 to 4 those of metropolitan areas (or even more). For those cases, gas engines rule (until the time electric engines become more efficient, in power and in economics... which they will.)
As it should be. No one becomes a bank-teller, because they like it. Like hundreds of other jobs, it needs to be done, pleasant or not... We are all better off as these jobs are replaced by machinery.
Who is this we you speak of?
Society *can* be better off, but so long as it prepares its social capital (its people) for the shift. We are seeing right now in this country what happens when society does not do that - low-value added jobs are shipped overseas or replaced by manufacturing, causing unprepared people (some of it their fault, some of it not their fault) to see the value of their 10-20-30 years of work experience amount to nothing.
Misery and bitterness ensues, people demanding a scapegoat, be it corporations or Muslicans. Millions of people finishing HS without knowing how to add fractions, no agency, and no hope to ever meaningfully participate in a modern service-based economy, in a country pretty much devoid of social safety nets.
What then? Most likely that havoc won't affect me or my children directly, but we all live in the same society (unless we go choose to go Lebensunwertes Leben on anyone left behind.
The Industrial Revolution made our modern life possible, but let's not forget that people that lost their jobs back then never recovered in their lifetimes, neither them nor their children. It was till their grandchildren that they could start reaping the benefits of industrialization. That shit did take a human toll.
We are about to embark in the same type of havoc, and unless we plan for it, no, it will not be better for *us*. It might be better for *me*, or for *you*, as individuals. But we do not get to define society as simply just *we*.
How do you call that an improvement? Lead stays around damn near forever. Horse crap, or an infectious patch of it doesn't. Lead exposure is causing health issues decades after the last horse and buggy were off the streets.
True, shit particles in the air didn't stay for long, but neither the people who breathed it. As bad as lead was (and still is, see Flint), bro, shit in the air was a lot worse. Sometimes people really do not grasp how bad shit was (and please do not take this as an endorsement of what came after, but we need to keep perspective on how bad things are/were with respect to one another.)
I could understand this is if we were in a 3rd world country. However, we are not.
At this point you may have to state where you are from. So far I thought this was bout the situation in the US?
I am originally from Nicaragua. I've been in the US since 1989. I'm describing the situation as I saw it when I went to college in the US.
And this wasn't just me - I saw plenty of US-born citizens going through that kind of poverty-related issue back in my college years.
My point again is that the way things are done here, that's a good way to destroy (not cultivate) social capital.
I do believe 4-year degrees are overtly inflated and that the country should do better in focusing in 2-year and vocational degrees and apprenticeship programs. However, there's nothing of the sort.
The entire attitude is a) go do something, then b) well, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't, then c) it's not my problem that there are no more options for you.
As a first world nation, we are unique in our ability to obliterate social capital.
Then maybe they should not have gone to college if they could not afford it?
And the option is then not go to college and go to work in whatever, see jobs gone to automation and what not and then being blamed for not pulling myself by the bootstraps?
I did get through, just barely. And I knew many who couldn't. And what happened to them? That's a terrible way to improve social capital, you know, the thing that gives us an advantage in the international arena.
Again, this type of status quo is OK for a developing nation. It's not OK for a nation who wants to retain its 1st world status.
so, you admit to not being able to afford school (and all associated living expense costs), and you did it anyways. YOU are the problem.
Wow, reading comprehension ain't your forte.
Perhaps you missed the memo on robotics. Low wage jobs are here to stay, unless you do something yourself, or allow yourself to become a wage slave.
Strange, why are all those companies suddenly repatriating and re-opening factories in the US then?
Because as other countries rise up, cost of labor is increasing overseas. Then we bring factories... with increased automation. Bringing back factories =/= bringing back jobs. Look it up. After doing it many times, I just got tired of googling references for this anymore.
If you are aware that factories are coming back, then you are also quite capable of being aware that most of them are relying on automation.
How many college kids lived off of ramen noodles -- especially in tech -- and went on to do amazing things?
And how many did not or got sick? I remember those days when very often I'd survive with a muffin and a cup of coffee a day. It shits on your health, and then your grades. My college A-streak plummeted when I got my first C in trig - I had a serious bout of bronchitis on that semester (in no small part by not eating well), which seriously screwed me up. It was then that I started taking student loans (yeah, now I can eat some more and buy nyquil.) I shit you not.
I knew people back then that simply had to drop. I knew college students with broken shoes or health problems because of financial reasons.
We can all say "yay these kids survived on ramen and went on to invent the new mywhorefacebookgramspace", but many others fall through the cracks (not to mention the many more that crack even earlier in HS.
I could understand this is if we were in a 3rd world country. However, we are not. Not only are we in a rich country, we are in the richest one ever. This state of affairs, and the glamorization of it, it is atrocious and non-productive. This grind doesn't produce grit, it kills our potential social capital.