Thats the mental trap of it all though. As you go up the ladder of education your more likely to think your personal job isnt at threat.
Bingo. Any job, no matter how high up the ladder faces some type of risk with technological changes. Even if indirectly due to unemployment rising which causes less consumption, then less cash to flow around, causing a lot of bad shit to the economy, the demand of services and products (which you motherfuckers' salaries are tied one way or another.)
Sooner or later that hits everyone except those at the very damned top.
I don't need AI or technical innovation to replace me for it to potentially affect me negatively.
Now, that doesn't mean I oppose technical innovation. The wheel must turn. Things need to go forward. We just have to prepare ourselves, be frugal, save, live a life of continuous learning, having plans B and C, be willing to go where the jobs are, etc.
Individuals, cliques and societies that fail at this are asking the universe to kick them in the balls somewhere down the road of life.
And if 30% of drivers are losing money, even if they are really bad on personal finances on average, wouldn't, say, half of them eventually realize it and the first time we'd be hearing about it would not be from a study?
Yes? Only 4% of Uber drivers stick with it for over 1 year, and the number one reason for leaving is the pay. So yes, it seems like well over half eventually realize it and leave.
Don't get me wrong, I've talked to a few drivers and I'd say most are not that happy with Uber, but the complaint is that they have to work more to make a proper income after their expenses - which means at least they are not on the red as in that case working more would not help...
Well, the median driver is in the black, just not very far in the black. And if, as another study said the drivers that do earn reasonable wages tend to be the ones that have been on the platform long enough to know where and when to be driving, it could be the vast majority of Uber drivers either don't stick around long enough to learn the ropes, aren't available at the right times, or aren't in a profitable area.
So if turnover is this high... what happens to Uber when the majority of the people likely to drive for Uber have already driven for Uber - and given up?
People are going to come and go, just the same way people do with other types of jobs (fast food come to mind). I would also suspect some of the people who left will come back.
It seems to me the biggest point of dissatisfaction is the expectation an Uber gig is enough to make a decent living. It isn't for most people
An Uber gig is good to stop bleeding money when you get laid off, or to use it as a source of supplementary income. I know of one senior level software engineer (who makes a very good salary) driving for Uber on his spare time, a trip here and there, just for the money.
Not because he truly needs it, but because if you have a few hours to spare on your free time, it won't kill you to drive around and make some extra cash.
I sincerely doubt the actual wage is $3-something as the author put it., even if mileage and maintenance is taken into account.
Where did the jobs go? It's hardly a mystery: automation.
The real question is, why is it so hard for displaced workers to train for better jobs - skilled trades and skilled manufacturing are very hungry for workers right now. The labor demand is there, what's up with the supply?
A lot of it is geography-based structural unemployment. There are more jobs in the big cities than in small town America. The former has been heavily service-oriented (but still with a good % of manufacturing) since the early 1900's, the later have been predominantly manufacturing. Big city has been able to re-absorb people, whereas small town America has not (quite unfortunately obviously.)
People that need jobs the most are not living where the jobs are. There's been a shift in the geography of jobs (read Enrico Moretti "The New Geography of Jobs", good book) since the 70's. The shift is heavily tilted towards automation, services and serviceable products, in particular IT, all of which do much better in demographically dense metropolitan areas.
America is shockingly bad at adult vocational training?
Effectively, there's no adult vocational training in America. Most of it is via private 3-6 months schools that are expensive. There's the option with community colleges (cheaper and better, but lengthier) which is also limited to areas that have community colleges within reasonable driving distance.
Where are the public schools for this?
Shop class is not substitute for adult vocational education. Several HSs have vocational adult education, but again, this is limited by geography. We should have a model of vocational education post-middle school as in Japan or Germany, but we do not.
Where's the corporate participation?
Corporate sponsorship is gone dude. Been dead since the early 90's. You only get corporate sponsorship in companies that are wealthy and big, and only for people that are already educated (say, IT training.)
Companies don't want to (pay to) train people because they'll just jump to another company once trained, but that's a solvable problem,
No. That's not it. Everything has been outsourced to somewhere else. Janitors used to be employees, and they could hope to get training in clerical work or IT to climb the ladder, while having health benefits. Then they got outsourced to companies that only give them multiple part time gigs with no benefits. Same with security guards, sometimes IT and certainly health care.
It's one of the features of "shareholder economy". As a colleague of mine reminded me once: the shift started when "personnel department" was renamed "human resources." The shift might appear just semantics, but it had yuuuge implications, which we see today.
The bigger issue is that people choose the path of least resistance. You aren't going to teach women to code as well as men simply because they can get a Hell of a lot further in life by learning how to put on a pushup bra and bat their eyes properly while giggling.
A girl rejected you once, did she?
I mean, seriously, you must be quite the charmer with the ladies.
If you replace "computer engineer" with "software engineer", the premise isn't quite as stupid as it seems at first. The software engineer's role is to make high-level technical decisions and tell the programmers what to write. In many companies, though, programmers are given the title "software engineer" and the people doing the high-level engineering are given titles like "software architect".
That's a description of a very dysfunctional place to work. Rarely do we see such a dichotomy between a "software engineer" and a "programmer". That might have been the case when programming was more of a cowboy activity. A software engineer is expected to do programming, and we expect the act of programming to follow some basic principles of software engineering, starting at the most junior positions (entry level software engineer or software engineer associate, or intern.)
More senior positions provide high level guidance, but the software engineering process is carried out from the grounds up. When this is not the case, shit ensues.
In that book, Barbie is the manager or lead engineer and the boys are the programmers. Whether or not Barbie is portrayed as a competent manager is a separate matter.
And therein lies the problem I had with that book (I'm a father of two girls.) Sure Barbie is the lead, but where did she start? How did she start? The book still harks to certain stereotypes where a woman still has to dictate how to do things without showing that she can actually roll her sleeves and get shit done.
This a reason why I keep showing my kids pictures of factory women during WWII or lady mathematicians working ballistic trajectories or programming vacuum tubes back in the day.
"Hair styling can be a vector of disease if you don't clean your tools well."
In my brief google search, I found plenty (sources like NIH, and OSHA) written on the risks to the employees due to long term exposure to chemicals, but virtually nothing from any reputable source on risks to customers. Though, there was plenty of fear mongering from the click bait sites. Do you have any sources to back up your concern?
Lice for starters. Accidental nipping with scissors or trimmers which obviously need to be disinfected. I can list a few more.
They did mention a few specifically: make up artists, hair stylists, cabinet making, to name some of the top of my head.
I'm on the fence on this. Hair styling can be a vector of disease if you don't clean your tools well. Then there's the issue of how difficult getting one really is. There's some math test requirements to get the license in some states... and many people simply fail to pass them, which then ask the question "why do I need this to get a license to cut hair."
But then I know people from other countries that pass the test and go the license because for them it was pretty much elementary school math.
So, in the case of hair styling, is it really licensing that is hurting, or is it people's inability to answer elementary school level questions?
And how do we propose that hair stylists conduct the proper hygienic procedures to run such an establishment? And how do we test them on a regular basis without a license?
Licenses can be a hindrance in some areas. In others, they are a hindrance with a public service purpose.
In other words, surprise, shit ain't always black and white.
Logs don't catch fire easily, but do burn well, as the roof beams of my grandparents' 17 century house burned very nicely.
Wood can be impregnated with fire retardent.
This, in addition to how houses are constructed, etc. First time I went to Japan to meet my inlaws I was surprised at the number of 1,2,3 floor houses and buildings that were made primarily of wood (my inlaws home for instance.) And this wasn't in rural Japan, but pretty much in Yokohama and Tokyo. Japanese authorities would have scrapped that out a long time ago if they had concerns about fire safety. They are still vulnerable to fire, just like any concrete building. It's the stuff inside that burns and kill people.
What facts? It was just some neckbearded geeks opinion. Most tech employees live in a bubble.
It is the type of "failed, degenerated meritocracy" Chris Hayes discuss in his book "Twilight of the Elites." The bubble tech employees live in (in particular SV), this brotopia, it's truly a degenerated bubble. And that shit is specific to SV, for you don't see such levels of fucked up crazy in other tech hubs.
"1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited."
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more.
Correct. For example making contrarian arguments like "women should belong in the kitchen", or "blacks are not smart" or "men should be able to fucking little kids", yeah, people cannot make those claims anymore.
Yeah, I went for the hyperbole, but it is to make a point. Not all contrary arguments are worth protecting, specially when those arguments have a history of being used to the detriment of entire classes of people.
$200k is tiny cost compare to cost to society of what cost to not have Linux Drivers. I find it sickening and short sighted that you did not come to same conclusion. Rethink your statement and post below.
So a private company must burn $200K out of its own pocket to reduce a cost to society, a cost members of society does not want to pay itself.
Apple dragged them kicking an screaming to non-DRM formats. I cannot buy on iTunes, bevause iTunes does not run on my systems.
This is true, but it is not relevant to the OP's original point, that DRM-free music has been available in iTunes or Amazon for years.
There are also rumors that iTunes will switch to streaming only. Once everything is streaming only, you won’t have any control any more. You won’t have the CD anymore to switch back to.
A rumor about something unlikely. Most people that have iTunes or Amazon collections do not stream unless they are connected to the Internet. In all other cases, the typical use case scenario is to offload to a usb device (a thumb driver or phone) and hook that up to a car or USB speaker. Otherwise, you'll have to stream over a cell phone data plan (mucho expensivo.)
Unless someone comes with a way to provide ubiquitous and convenient wifi everywhere, stream-only plans are a dumb idea.
You can look or you can accept, I suggest looking. Doing neither and debating isn't in the cards, bye.
Dude, I'm surrounded by Puerto Ricans. What you are telling me doesn't make sense. Either that, or the PR cohort I'm familiar with is made out of political outliers.
That's not what I recall, at all. Sure, the local computer shops were all pushing 95, but that's only because they wanted the business. Everyone else in small offices were sitting tight with what they had, in part because of how expensive things were back then.
That's what I meant, but perhaps my words weren't well chosen. Big shops were making the transition as well as small biznesses making new acquisition. The "laggards" would be those that had significant assets in old software and for whom making the transition wasn't an option (that includes small offices with computing assets already in place.)
Win 95 was NOT that big of deal. It was for the MS weenies, but it was not installed right away on all computers. DOS/Win3.1 ran on new ones for a LONG LONG TIME.
You are on drugs. Windows 95 was a hit back then. The moment it came most large companies moved immediately out of Windows 3.1/DOS and onto it. Smaller companies setting up their small offices also got new machines with Windows 95 slapped on them. It was the laggards (or people with serious Unix shops) that didn't make the move back then.
technically, none.
MS never had a hit on a software product on day 1.
It took them several decades to create a locked-in monopoly of office and OS. From there, they would do things like release their visual product for cheap, and then give it away for free until borland was pretty much gone. Then and only then did they worry about IP.
Dude. Excel has been a hit for years. And PowerPoint, and MS Word. People are typically content with Windows 10. And Windows XP was one of the most popular distributions they ever had. Azure is a solid competitor to Amazon in the IoT sphere. And so on and so on.
I used to hate MS... back in what 95, 96 when it was a cool fad to check billwatch.net twice a day. I grew the heck out of it. You should too.
Sure it might not stop but you sure as fuck need to point to one sign other than 'it happened in the past' as an indicator that it won't! That's all I'm saying.
You sure as fuck need to point to something other than denying a historical track record as an indicator that it will.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats the mental trap of it all though. As you go up the ladder of education your more likely to think your personal job isnt at threat.
Bingo. Any job, no matter how high up the ladder faces some type of risk with technological changes. Even if indirectly due to unemployment rising which causes less consumption, then less cash to flow around, causing a lot of bad shit to the economy, the demand of services and products (which you motherfuckers' salaries are tied one way or another.)
Sooner or later that hits everyone except those at the very damned top.
I don't need AI or technical innovation to replace me for it to potentially affect me negatively.
Now, that doesn't mean I oppose technical innovation. The wheel must turn. Things need to go forward. We just have to prepare ourselves, be frugal, save, live a life of continuous learning, having plans B and C, be willing to go where the jobs are, etc.
Individuals, cliques and societies that fail at this are asking the universe to kick them in the balls somewhere down the road of life.
And this is why Americans are assholes, because they believe such idiotic shit.
I hope you never get near children, anywhere in this world, regardless of laws.
And if 30% of drivers are losing money, even if they are really bad on personal finances on average, wouldn't, say, half of them eventually realize it and the first time we'd be hearing about it would not be from a study?
Yes? Only 4% of Uber drivers stick with it for over 1 year, and the number one reason for leaving is the pay. So yes, it seems like well over half eventually realize it and leave.
Don't get me wrong, I've talked to a few drivers and I'd say most are not that happy with Uber, but the complaint is that they have to work more to make a proper income after their expenses - which means at least they are not on the red as in that case working more would not help...
Well, the median driver is in the black, just not very far in the black. And if, as another study said the drivers that do earn reasonable wages tend to be the ones that have been on the platform long enough to know where and when to be driving, it could be the vast majority of Uber drivers either don't stick around long enough to learn the ropes, aren't available at the right times, or aren't in a profitable area.
So if turnover is this high ... what happens to Uber when the majority of the people likely to drive for Uber have already driven for Uber - and given up?
People are going to come and go, just the same way people do with other types of jobs (fast food come to mind). I would also suspect some of the people who left will come back.
It seems to me the biggest point of dissatisfaction is the expectation an Uber gig is enough to make a decent living. It isn't for most people
An Uber gig is good to stop bleeding money when you get laid off, or to use it as a source of supplementary income. I know of one senior level software engineer (who makes a very good salary) driving for Uber on his spare time, a trip here and there, just for the money.
Not because he truly needs it, but because if you have a few hours to spare on your free time, it won't kill you to drive around and make some extra cash.
I sincerely doubt the actual wage is $3-something as the author put it., even if mileage and maintenance is taken into account.
Where did the jobs go? It's hardly a mystery: automation.
The real question is, why is it so hard for displaced workers to train for better jobs - skilled trades and skilled manufacturing are very hungry for workers right now. The labor demand is there, what's up with the supply?
A lot of it is geography-based structural unemployment. There are more jobs in the big cities than in small town America. The former has been heavily service-oriented (but still with a good % of manufacturing) since the early 1900's, the later have been predominantly manufacturing. Big city has been able to re-absorb people, whereas small town America has not (quite unfortunately obviously.)
People that need jobs the most are not living where the jobs are. There's been a shift in the geography of jobs (read Enrico Moretti "The New Geography of Jobs", good book) since the 70's. The shift is heavily tilted towards automation, services and serviceable products, in particular IT, all of which do much better in demographically dense metropolitan areas.
America is shockingly bad at adult vocational training?
Effectively, there's no adult vocational training in America. Most of it is via private 3-6 months schools that are expensive. There's the option with community colleges (cheaper and better, but lengthier) which is also limited to areas that have community colleges within reasonable driving distance.
Where are the public schools for this?
Shop class is not substitute for adult vocational education. Several HSs have vocational adult education, but again, this is limited by geography. We should have a model of vocational education post-middle school as in Japan or Germany, but we do not.
Where's the corporate participation?
Corporate sponsorship is gone dude. Been dead since the early 90's. You only get corporate sponsorship in companies that are wealthy and big, and only for people that are already educated (say, IT training.)
Companies don't want to (pay to) train people because they'll just jump to another company once trained, but that's a solvable problem,
No. That's not it. Everything has been outsourced to somewhere else. Janitors used to be employees, and they could hope to get training in clerical work or IT to climb the ladder, while having health benefits. Then they got outsourced to companies that only give them multiple part time gigs with no benefits. Same with security guards, sometimes IT and certainly health care.
It's one of the features of "shareholder economy". As a colleague of mine reminded me once: the shift started when "personnel department" was renamed "human resources." The shift might appear just semantics, but it had yuuuge implications, which we see today.
The bigger issue is that people choose the path of least resistance. You aren't going to teach women to code as well as men simply because they can get a Hell of a lot further in life by learning how to put on a pushup bra and bat their eyes properly while giggling.
A girl rejected you once, did she?
I mean, seriously, you must be quite the charmer with the ladies.
But you can't teach creativity, creative innovation, nor artistic creative innovation
What?
Damn you slashdot and your markup. https://static01.nyt.com/image...
If you replace "computer engineer" with "software engineer", the premise isn't quite as stupid as it seems at first. The software engineer's role is to make high-level technical decisions and tell the programmers what to write. In many companies, though, programmers are given the title "software engineer" and the people doing the high-level engineering are given titles like "software architect".
That's a description of a very dysfunctional place to work. Rarely do we see such a dichotomy between a "software engineer" and a "programmer". That might have been the case when programming was more of a cowboy activity. A software engineer is expected to do programming, and we expect the act of programming to follow some basic principles of software engineering, starting at the most junior positions (entry level software engineer or software engineer associate, or intern.)
More senior positions provide high level guidance, but the software engineering process is carried out from the grounds up. When this is not the case, shit ensues.
In that book, Barbie is the manager or lead engineer and the boys are the programmers. Whether or not Barbie is portrayed as a competent manager is a separate matter.
And therein lies the problem I had with that book (I'm a father of two girls.) Sure Barbie is the lead, but where did she start? How did she start? The book still harks to certain stereotypes where a woman still has to dictate how to do things without showing that she can actually roll her sleeves and get shit done.
This a reason why I keep showing my kids pictures of factory women during WWII or lady mathematicians working ballistic trajectories or programming vacuum tubes back in the day.
"Hair styling can be a vector of disease if you don't clean your tools well."
In my brief google search, I found plenty (sources like NIH, and OSHA) written on the risks to the employees due to long term exposure to chemicals, but virtually nothing from any reputable source on risks to customers. Though, there was plenty of fear mongering from the click bait sites. Do you have any sources to back up your concern?
Lice for starters. Accidental nipping with scissors or trimmers which obviously need to be disinfected. I can list a few more.
How about licensed hair stylists?
They did mention a few specifically: make up artists, hair stylists, cabinet making, to name some of the top of my head.
I'm on the fence on this. Hair styling can be a vector of disease if you don't clean your tools well. Then there's the issue of how difficult getting one really is. There's some math test requirements to get the license in some states... and many people simply fail to pass them, which then ask the question "why do I need this to get a license to cut hair."
But then I know people from other countries that pass the test and go the license because for them it was pretty much elementary school math.
So, in the case of hair styling, is it really licensing that is hurting, or is it people's inability to answer elementary school level questions?
And how do we propose that hair stylists conduct the proper hygienic procedures to run such an establishment? And how do we test them on a regular basis without a license?
Licenses can be a hindrance in some areas. In others, they are a hindrance with a public service purpose.
In other words, surprise, shit ain't always black and white.
Logs don't catch fire easily, but do burn well, as the roof beams of my grandparents' 17 century house burned very nicely.
Wood can be impregnated with fire retardent.
This, in addition to how houses are constructed, etc. First time I went to Japan to meet my inlaws I was surprised at the number of 1,2,3 floor houses and buildings that were made primarily of wood (my inlaws home for instance.) And this wasn't in rural Japan, but pretty much in Yokohama and Tokyo. Japanese authorities would have scrapped that out a long time ago if they had concerns about fire safety. They are still vulnerable to fire, just like any concrete building. It's the stuff inside that burns and kill people.
When facts are deemed discriminatory, you know that ideological rot has set in.
I mean, for fuck's sake, the ruling is based on the people D'amore quoted, saying his conclusions were wrong.
What more do you need? What you call facts aren't. At all.
What facts? It was just some neckbearded geeks opinion. Most tech employees live in a bubble.
It is the type of "failed, degenerated meritocracy" Chris Hayes discuss in his book "Twilight of the Elites." The bubble tech employees live in (in particular SV), this brotopia, it's truly a degenerated bubble. And that shit is specific to SV, for you don't see such levels of fucked up crazy in other tech hubs.
When facts are deemed discriminatory, you know that ideological rot has set in.
It used to be a "scientific fact" that women needed to remain in the kitchen. You calling bullshit arguments "facts" do not make them so.
Unless, of course, the author just said that to avoid being driven out of academia for heresy.
This is threading closely into the "begging the question" territory.
"1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited."
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more.
Correct. For example making contrarian arguments like "women should belong in the kitchen", or "blacks are not smart" or "men should be able to fucking little kids", yeah, people cannot make those claims anymore.
Yeah, I went for the hyperbole, but it is to make a point. Not all contrary arguments are worth protecting, specially when those arguments have a history of being used to the detriment of entire classes of people.
$200k is tiny cost compare to cost to society of what cost to not have Linux Drivers. I find it sickening and short sighted that you did not come to same conclusion. Rethink your statement and post below.
So a private company must burn $200K out of its own pocket to reduce a cost to society, a cost members of society does not want to pay itself.
Got it.
Hook, line, and sinker.
Totally. And without a gag reflex to boot.
Apple dragged them kicking an screaming to non-DRM formats. I cannot buy on iTunes, bevause iTunes does not run on my systems.
This is true, but it is not relevant to the OP's original point, that DRM-free music has been available in iTunes or Amazon for years.
There are also rumors that iTunes will switch to streaming only. Once everything is streaming only, you won’t have any control any more. You won’t have the CD anymore to switch back to.
A rumor about something unlikely. Most people that have iTunes or Amazon collections do not stream unless they are connected to the Internet. In all other cases, the typical use case scenario is to offload to a usb device (a thumb driver or phone) and hook that up to a car or USB speaker. Otherwise, you'll have to stream over a cell phone data plan (mucho expensivo.)
Unless someone comes with a way to provide ubiquitous and convenient wifi everywhere, stream-only plans are a dumb idea.
You can look or you can accept, I suggest looking. Doing neither and debating isn't in the cards, bye.
Dude, I'm surrounded by Puerto Ricans. What you are telling me doesn't make sense. Either that, or the PR cohort I'm familiar with is made out of political outliers.
That's not what I recall, at all. Sure, the local computer shops were all pushing 95, but that's only because they wanted the business. Everyone else in small offices were sitting tight with what they had, in part because of how expensive things were back then.
That's what I meant, but perhaps my words weren't well chosen. Big shops were making the transition as well as small biznesses making new acquisition. The "laggards" would be those that had significant assets in old software and for whom making the transition wasn't an option (that includes small offices with computing assets already in place.)
been coding since the 70s. I was very much here.
Oooooo, a BBS l33t hax0r!
Win 95 was NOT that big of deal. It was for the MS weenies, but it was not installed right away on all computers. DOS/Win3.1 ran on new ones for a LONG LONG TIME.
You are on drugs. Windows 95 was a hit back then. The moment it came most large companies moved immediately out of Windows 3.1/DOS and onto it. Smaller companies setting up their small offices also got new machines with Windows 95 slapped on them. It was the laggards (or people with serious Unix shops) that didn't make the move back then.
technically, none. MS never had a hit on a software product on day 1. It took them several decades to create a locked-in monopoly of office and OS. From there, they would do things like release their visual product for cheap, and then give it away for free until borland was pretty much gone. Then and only then did they worry about IP.
Dude. Excel has been a hit for years. And PowerPoint, and MS Word. People are typically content with Windows 10. And Windows XP was one of the most popular distributions they ever had. Azure is a solid competitor to Amazon in the IoT sphere. And so on and so on.
I used to hate MS... back in what 95, 96 when it was a cool fad to check billwatch.net twice a day. I grew the heck out of it. You should too.
You can't debate facts.
I can debate your claims, which aren't facts.
Sure it might not stop but you sure as fuck need to point to one sign other than 'it happened in the past' as an indicator that it won't! That's all I'm saying.
You sure as fuck need to point to something other than denying a historical track record as an indicator that it will.