Tell that to your boss if you live in a right-to-work state.
Concealed is concealed. No reason to tell your boss anything.
Yeah, if something happens that requires you to draw your gun and reveal your violation of company policy, you'll probably lose your job. But if something happens that requires you to draw your gun, your job is the least of your concerns.
The problem is a shortage of workers willing to work for starvation wages.
I don't know... my company pays pretty damned well, doesn't care a bit about age, gender or any other thing if you can do the work, and we're having a heck of a time trying to fill positions. For going on three years my team has had an open authorization to hire anyone we can find, regardless of officially-allocated headcount, and we simply can't find people. I don't think the problem is that we're not offering enough money, because it's extremely rare that someone rejects our offer. We just can't find people who are both good software engineers (we don't care about languages or toolsets; just that they're smart and can write code) and know how to think about security.
We do hire people fresh out of school and train them, but we can't grow fast enough that way because it takes a lot of time (years) before they're capable of working without much supervision, and until then the supervision takes a lot of productive time away from the experienced engineers, reducing their ability to get the more challenging stuff done.
At least in the area of security software engineering, there's just a serious lack of talent out there to hire, AFAICT.
Note that everything you talk about is only the RFID part of NFC. NFC actually includes two entire categories of communication technologies, operating on two different frequencies. The more interesting (IMO) part of NFC is the embodiment of the contactless smart card technologies, which enable two-way conversations between a pair of intelligent endpoints, not merely reading and writing of different data formats.
Any that have NFC-capable door locks. I doubt there are many (if any) of those, though, because until this update only Android phones could operate them. Hotels have used Bluetooth for their digital key systems, because it would work with all mobile devices. Not that iPhones are catching up, maybe we'll see hotels switching to NFC.
Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive. You need to have sufficient generation capacity for the winter when daylight hours are short, which means you are greatly over-capacity in summer.
Peak usage is in the summer because cooling is electrical while heating is predominantly fossil-fueled. In many areas, the production and usage line up much better than what you describe.
Probably just refering to kiosks to order your own fast food rather than having counter people type in your order for you. I keep predicting that if $15/hr minimum wage is put in place, McDonald's will start using that system in the US as well, they already use it in several other countries.
Most US McDonald's already have kiosks, and many of them have gone to exclusive kiosk ordering.
It isn't clear if the process you described is good or bad. It depends entirely on the content of the scripts. Where did they come from? What was the motivation and competence of the people who did? If the scripts were very well done, then the efforts of the QA manager and FDA auditors to ensure that they were followed precisely and the results were correct was exactly what was needed.
Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion
"Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
And you could die if you get into a high-speed auto accident while not wearing a seat belt. Or you could live. But your odds are better if you wear the seat belt.
If you're going to dismiss any argument that isn't based on ironclad guarantees, you can't predict much of anything. The future is unknown. Accept it. The best we can do is maximize the likelihood of good outcomes.
Faked and overhyped disaster scenarios about the death of all life if we don't stop global warming is no different then faked and overhyped disaster scenarios that it'll be super-dooper expensive if you don't buy my snake oil now.
Yes, if you assume the whole scientific community is just lying to you then you'll believe there's no point in listening to them.
Of course, since you're nutty enough to believe in a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people, any one of whom could make a huge name for themselves by disclosing it, there's no point listening to you.
I haven't looked into this particular analysis at all, but this is exactly what we should be doing. Rather than making arguments that humans suck and are destroying life-giving Gaia, or trying to scare people with horror stories of runway warming, we should be carefully, rationally, constructing the best possible estimates of the cost of global warming under various scenarios, and then comparing them with the best possible estimates of the cost of various mitigation strategies, including not only cutting carbon emissions (which requires a sub-field of analyses to figure out the best and least impactful way to motivate cutting of carbon production) but also schemes to recapture carbon and schemes to directly cool the planet's climate other ways, such as orbital sunscreens to reduce insolation. And at the same time we should continue investing in climate and economic modeling to refine the estimates.
And we should act on the strategy that produces the best outcome, according to those estimates, even as we continue working to revise the estimates -- and adjust the strategy aprpropriately, in cautious, incremental steps.
This is the rational, Bayesian approach to the problem. And it's the right approach even in the (extremely unlikely) case that the warming isn't anthropogenic, or even if the planet isn't really even warming! Act on the best information you have, cautiously and adjusting for your level of confidence in that information, and keep working to get better information and adjust your approach accordingly. This is rational, logical, and the approach most likely to yield the most favorable outcomes. "Most likely" and "most favorable" are key words; there are no guarantees, but maximizing the probability of good outcomes is the the best way forward.
The politically driven process is inherently more expensive. Simply because the most efficient and cheapest way to conduct business is usually not the chosen path.
Where are all the lefty slashdotters who should be jumping in to point out that government is inherently more efficient than private enterprise because it doesn't have to add a profit margin to its costs?
They are in a health care thread where that's actually true.
I don't believe that's true. It's hard to say for sure, because no rich nation has tried a free market health care system since medicine came into its modern form and capability. The US has a particularly nasty mixture of regulated and market structures, with government payers effectively establishing price floors rather than ceilings, providers being forced to provide care for free which they must amortize across their paying patients, the fact that this free care is all emergency service rather than preventive care where it would be much cheaper in most cases, paying patients generally being price-insensitive due to the fact that their insurer is covering the bulk of the costs, and much more.
I think a truly free market healthcare system could be very efficient, though there are some obstacles. One is that the nature of modern healthcare is sufficiently complex that price comparison shopping is hard. Another is the mandatory and urgent nature of care in many cases. I think those could be managed, though. The biggest obstacle is a moral one: A truly free market health care system would have to allow providers to turn people away when they cannot pay. Since we as a society are unwilling to allow them to do that, free riding will always be a huge problem, which in turn leads to most of the misaligned incentives that create all the rest of the issues.
My conclusion is that we'll never accept the requirements of a real free market in healthcare, and the semi-regulated mishmash we have is even less efficient than single-payer, so I support single-payer, at the state level.
Its also true that without the space race (a government/political event), private industry would likely be nowhere with space tech.
I don't believe that's true, either. Oh, certainly, private industry would never have engaged in the space race in the 60s, but that's because that was purely an international pissing match, and there's no reason private industry would throw hundreds of billions into that sort of hole. But at the point where we started to see actual economic benefit from space launches (communications and navigation satellites, mostly), I see no reason why private industry wouldn't have begun investing. They'd have taken a radically different approach than the powers in the Space Race did, starting with the smallest, cheapest rockets that could launch a useful payload, and it's very unlikely that they'd have been putting people in space even now (though perhaps ideologues like Musk would be doing it). But I think we'd have satellites in space now even without any government involvement.
Its almost as if being ideological about such points ensures that you are wrong part of the time, but that can't be it...
Ideology is the enemy of rationality in many cases, true.
Actually, you're missing the largest piece of what makes government operations inefficient: the lack of incentives for efficiency.
The cost of misaligned incentives is much larger than the cost of a profit margin. There are a nearly infinite number of ways to organize and run an operation of any signficant size, even more so when the purpose of the operation is to accomplish highly-technical tasks. This means there are huge numbers of choices to be made, every one of which involves balancing of various concerns, so incentives are critically important. The OP mentioned on particularly nasty set of bad incentives that nearly always exist in politically-controlled processes, but there are lots of others.
Of course, private enterprise can have its own set of misaligned incentives. If the customers can be convinced that they want something different from what they actually do (not easy, but not impossible), the business can reduce costs and increase profits by providing something that isn't the best product for the customers. Lack of competition enables businesses to make all sorts of less-than-optimal choices as well. And, of course, in some cases there are externalities that organizations can ignore, and which can only be forced to be internalized through regulation.
But, on average, misaligned incentives result in government being far less efficient than private enterprise, even while the latter generates a healthy profit margin.
The politically driven process is inherently more expensive. Simply because the most efficient and cheapest way to conduct business is usually not the chosen path.
Where are all the lefty slashdotters who should be jumping in to point out that government is inherently more efficient than private enterprise because it doesn't have to add a profit margin to its costs?
Chevy Bolt is on the market right now with 238 miles range and a $37.5k price tag before incentives. It's a little slower off the mark and slightly less range than the most optimistic Tesla predictions.... but it exists and you can buy one today.
Can you really? Have you tried? I have. Couldn't do it.
Oh, I suspect that I could get a Bolt before a model 3, but that's only because demand is so much lower. The Bolt production line is only producing about 2000 vehicles per month... Tesla is making more Model 3s every week, even though their production numbers aren't where they'd like them to be. But even with the lower demand, it would take me several months to get a Bolt. My Model 3 reservation is probably six months further out. Last month I gave up waiting and bought a 2014 Model S.
The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.
False equivalence.
Several organizations undertook the effort of filtering the duplicates and the fakes, and while there were some pro-neutrality fakes they were swamped by the anti-neutrality fakes. And once both were cleaned out, public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of NN, a fact that was strongly supported by every competent poll on the subject.
The FCC absolutely should have listened to public sentiment on this one, and under any other administration, would have.
Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.
They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.
I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.
I don't think anyone is surprised that there were lots of fake comments. What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones. They were very obvious. Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality) submitted by people with names in alphabetical order.
Of course, Ajit Pai really had no interest in getting public comments, much less in seriously considering them.
obama had a special. unique blackberry with it own set of rules and requirement. President trump is not and has separate rules which according to this article he is following.
Apparently you read a different article. I quote:
While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.
The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts.
The point is that he is not following the security rules that his security advisors have defined for how to keep his phone reasonably safe.
Then why quote snopes? That's very 90's as they have been extremely left leaning for a long while. They are the type that likes to split hairs when it suits them while other times conflating immigrant with illegal immigrant all the while pretending that they are above board and honest.
Sigh. They cite their sources. If you have actual evidence that they're wrong about this post it, rather than engaging in ad hominem.
Did you read the article? Trump uses a special iPhone too with restricted apps issued by the Federal government. Check your bias at the door.
And Obama apparently followed the security policies defined for his use of the BB. Trump does not. It's not just the device, it's also the policies and procedures around its use that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to your boss if you live in a right-to-work state.
Concealed is concealed. No reason to tell your boss anything.
Yeah, if something happens that requires you to draw your gun and reveal your violation of company policy, you'll probably lose your job. But if something happens that requires you to draw your gun, your job is the least of your concerns.
The problem is a shortage of workers willing to work for starvation wages.
I don't know... my company pays pretty damned well, doesn't care a bit about age, gender or any other thing if you can do the work, and we're having a heck of a time trying to fill positions. For going on three years my team has had an open authorization to hire anyone we can find, regardless of officially-allocated headcount, and we simply can't find people. I don't think the problem is that we're not offering enough money, because it's extremely rare that someone rejects our offer. We just can't find people who are both good software engineers (we don't care about languages or toolsets; just that they're smart and can write code) and know how to think about security.
We do hire people fresh out of school and train them, but we can't grow fast enough that way because it takes a lot of time (years) before they're capable of working without much supervision, and until then the supervision takes a lot of productive time away from the experienced engineers, reducing their ability to get the more challenging stuff done.
At least in the area of security software engineering, there's just a serious lack of talent out there to hire, AFAICT.
Note that everything you talk about is only the RFID part of NFC. NFC actually includes two entire categories of communication technologies, operating on two different frequencies. The more interesting (IMO) part of NFC is the embodiment of the contactless smart card technologies, which enable two-way conversations between a pair of intelligent endpoints, not merely reading and writing of different data formats.
my Android phone from 2014 has that.
And in how many hotels could you use it yet ?
Any that have NFC-capable door locks. I doubt there are many (if any) of those, though, because until this update only Android phones could operate them. Hotels have used Bluetooth for their digital key systems, because it would work with all mobile devices. Not that iPhones are catching up, maybe we'll see hotels switching to NFC.
Your peak usage maybe. Where I live, domestic air conditioning is a rare thing.
We're talking about California (which isn't where I live).
Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive. You need to have sufficient generation capacity for the winter when daylight hours are short, which means you are greatly over-capacity in summer.
Peak usage is in the summer because cooling is electrical while heating is predominantly fossil-fueled. In many areas, the production and usage line up much better than what you describe.
Probably just refering to kiosks to order your own fast food rather than having counter people type in your order for you. I keep predicting that if $15/hr minimum wage is put in place, McDonald's will start using that system in the US as well, they already use it in several other countries.
Most US McDonald's already have kiosks, and many of them have gone to exclusive kiosk ordering.
What was the motivation and competence of the people who did?
s/did/created them/
It isn't clear if the process you described is good or bad. It depends entirely on the content of the scripts. Where did they come from? What was the motivation and competence of the people who did? If the scripts were very well done, then the efforts of the QA manager and FDA auditors to ensure that they were followed precisely and the results were correct was exactly what was needed.
outright de-monetization (but Google will gladly still run ads on the video, just the person who created it, doesn't get a thing)
Cite?
I don't think you read the comment you replied to. I addressed all of the points you raised.
"Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
And you could die if you get into a high-speed auto accident while not wearing a seat belt. Or you could live. But your odds are better if you wear the seat belt.
If you're going to dismiss any argument that isn't based on ironclad guarantees, you can't predict much of anything. The future is unknown. Accept it. The best we can do is maximize the likelihood of good outcomes.
Faked and overhyped disaster scenarios about the death of all life if we don't stop global warming is no different then faked and overhyped disaster scenarios that it'll be super-dooper expensive if you don't buy my snake oil now.
Yes, if you assume the whole scientific community is just lying to you then you'll believe there's no point in listening to them.
Of course, since you're nutty enough to believe in a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people, any one of whom could make a huge name for themselves by disclosing it, there's no point listening to you.
I haven't looked into this particular analysis at all, but this is exactly what we should be doing. Rather than making arguments that humans suck and are destroying life-giving Gaia, or trying to scare people with horror stories of runway warming, we should be carefully, rationally, constructing the best possible estimates of the cost of global warming under various scenarios, and then comparing them with the best possible estimates of the cost of various mitigation strategies, including not only cutting carbon emissions (which requires a sub-field of analyses to figure out the best and least impactful way to motivate cutting of carbon production) but also schemes to recapture carbon and schemes to directly cool the planet's climate other ways, such as orbital sunscreens to reduce insolation. And at the same time we should continue investing in climate and economic modeling to refine the estimates.
And we should act on the strategy that produces the best outcome, according to those estimates, even as we continue working to revise the estimates -- and adjust the strategy aprpropriately, in cautious, incremental steps.
This is the rational, Bayesian approach to the problem. And it's the right approach even in the (extremely unlikely) case that the warming isn't anthropogenic, or even if the planet isn't really even warming! Act on the best information you have, cautiously and adjusting for your level of confidence in that information, and keep working to get better information and adjust your approach accordingly. This is rational, logical, and the approach most likely to yield the most favorable outcomes. "Most likely" and "most favorable" are key words; there are no guarantees, but maximizing the probability of good outcomes is the the best way forward.
The politically driven process is inherently more expensive. Simply because the most efficient and cheapest way to conduct business is usually not the chosen path.
Where are all the lefty slashdotters who should be jumping in to point out that government is inherently more efficient than private enterprise because it doesn't have to add a profit margin to its costs?
They are in a health care thread where that's actually true.
I don't believe that's true. It's hard to say for sure, because no rich nation has tried a free market health care system since medicine came into its modern form and capability. The US has a particularly nasty mixture of regulated and market structures, with government payers effectively establishing price floors rather than ceilings, providers being forced to provide care for free which they must amortize across their paying patients, the fact that this free care is all emergency service rather than preventive care where it would be much cheaper in most cases, paying patients generally being price-insensitive due to the fact that their insurer is covering the bulk of the costs, and much more.
I think a truly free market healthcare system could be very efficient, though there are some obstacles. One is that the nature of modern healthcare is sufficiently complex that price comparison shopping is hard. Another is the mandatory and urgent nature of care in many cases. I think those could be managed, though. The biggest obstacle is a moral one: A truly free market health care system would have to allow providers to turn people away when they cannot pay. Since we as a society are unwilling to allow them to do that, free riding will always be a huge problem, which in turn leads to most of the misaligned incentives that create all the rest of the issues.
My conclusion is that we'll never accept the requirements of a real free market in healthcare, and the semi-regulated mishmash we have is even less efficient than single-payer, so I support single-payer, at the state level.
Its also true that without the space race (a government/political event), private industry would likely be nowhere with space tech.
I don't believe that's true, either. Oh, certainly, private industry would never have engaged in the space race in the 60s, but that's because that was purely an international pissing match, and there's no reason private industry would throw hundreds of billions into that sort of hole. But at the point where we started to see actual economic benefit from space launches (communications and navigation satellites, mostly), I see no reason why private industry wouldn't have begun investing. They'd have taken a radically different approach than the powers in the Space Race did, starting with the smallest, cheapest rockets that could launch a useful payload, and it's very unlikely that they'd have been putting people in space even now (though perhaps ideologues like Musk would be doing it). But I think we'd have satellites in space now even without any government involvement.
Its almost as if being ideological about such points ensures that you are wrong part of the time, but that can't be it...
Ideology is the enemy of rationality in many cases, true.
Actually, you're missing the largest piece of what makes government operations inefficient: the lack of incentives for efficiency.
The cost of misaligned incentives is much larger than the cost of a profit margin. There are a nearly infinite number of ways to organize and run an operation of any signficant size, even more so when the purpose of the operation is to accomplish highly-technical tasks. This means there are huge numbers of choices to be made, every one of which involves balancing of various concerns, so incentives are critically important. The OP mentioned on particularly nasty set of bad incentives that nearly always exist in politically-controlled processes, but there are lots of others.
Of course, private enterprise can have its own set of misaligned incentives. If the customers can be convinced that they want something different from what they actually do (not easy, but not impossible), the business can reduce costs and increase profits by providing something that isn't the best product for the customers. Lack of competition enables businesses to make all sorts of less-than-optimal choices as well. And, of course, in some cases there are externalities that organizations can ignore, and which can only be forced to be internalized through regulation.
But, on average, misaligned incentives result in government being far less efficient than private enterprise, even while the latter generates a healthy profit margin.
The politically driven process is inherently more expensive. Simply because the most efficient and cheapest way to conduct business is usually not the chosen path.
Where are all the lefty slashdotters who should be jumping in to point out that government is inherently more efficient than private enterprise because it doesn't have to add a profit margin to its costs?
Chevy Bolt is on the market right now with 238 miles range and a $37.5k price tag before incentives. It's a little slower off the mark and slightly less range than the most optimistic Tesla predictions.... but it exists and you can buy one today.
Can you really? Have you tried? I have. Couldn't do it.
Oh, I suspect that I could get a Bolt before a model 3, but that's only because demand is so much lower. The Bolt production line is only producing about 2000 vehicles per month... Tesla is making more Model 3s every week, even though their production numbers aren't where they'd like them to be. But even with the lower demand, it would take me several months to get a Bolt. My Model 3 reservation is probably six months further out. Last month I gave up waiting and bought a 2014 Model S.
So... you just choose to dismiss the article and ignore it. Okay. You're not worth talking to.
The ones all supporting net neutrality were just as obvious, if you were looking, or if you didn't just accept them at face value because they agree with your opinion. Fakes were coming in on both sides. They were obvious to anyone who wanted to see them, and there is no reason to think that either side carried any weight in any decision making.
False equivalence.
Several organizations undertook the effort of filtering the duplicates and the fakes, and while there were some pro-neutrality fakes they were swamped by the anti-neutrality fakes. And once both were cleaned out, public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of NN, a fact that was strongly supported by every competent poll on the subject.
The FCC absolutely should have listened to public sentiment on this one, and under any other administration, would have.
The comment form probably looked like this:
Comment: _______________________________________
Please enter your name: _____
Please enter your address: _____
[ ] Check this box to certify this is really you.
Pretty much, without even the checkbox. The actual form is here.
They also allowed bulk submissions via an API or uploading a CSV per here.
I can't believe anyone is truly shocked over this.
I don't think anyone is surprised that there were lots of fake comments. What people are surprised about is that the FCC doesn't seem to have bothered to try to weed out the fake ones. They were very obvious. Millions of identical comments (all opposing net neutrality) submitted by people with names in alphabetical order.
Of course, Ajit Pai really had no interest in getting public comments, much less in seriously considering them.
obama had a special. unique blackberry with it own set of rules and requirement. President trump is not and has separate rules which according to this article he is following.
Apparently you read a different article. I quote:
The point is that he is not following the security rules that his security advisors have defined for how to keep his phone reasonably safe.
It's funny how you don't bring up the pizza thing....
Do even the most wacko anti-Clintonistas still buy that?
I just prefer facts to conspiracy theories.
Then why quote snopes? That's very 90's as they have been extremely left leaning for a long while. They are the type that likes to split hairs when it suits them while other times conflating immigrant with illegal immigrant all the while pretending that they are above board and honest.
Sigh. They cite their sources. If you have actual evidence that they're wrong about this post it, rather than engaging in ad hominem.
Did you read the article? Trump uses a special iPhone too with restricted apps issued by the Federal government. Check your bias at the door.
And Obama apparently followed the security policies defined for his use of the BB. Trump does not. It's not just the device, it's also the policies and procedures around its use that matters.