are so obsessed with identifying and calling out anything that looks like a "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field" that you are unable to acknowledge that we are witnessing the future happening.
Elon Musk is indisputably a tech visionary--or else that phrase has no meaning at all.
BTW: so was Steve Jobs. It doesn't make you "immune to groupthink" to claim otherwise, it makes a fucking idiot.
Beowulf is in the public domain, I can make as many copies of it as I want and re-distribute that to anyone I want.
But, if somebody publishes a copy of Beowulf marked up with annotations and explanations (and copyrights the derivative work), obviously I can't republish that. That's what we're talking about here, right?
Laws are in the public domain, but they aren't GPLed.
1. Did you factor in that your home is a heavily leveraged investment? Yes you are paying more interest in the city, but you also have a more valuable asset; an asset that appreciates. You get to keep the appreciation and can pay the bank interest in inflated dollars.
2. Did you calculate the cost of owning a car (maintenance, insurance, speeding tickets, registration, gas)? because not needing to own a car (or cars) in the city helps to offset some of the increased living expense.
3. What about the cost of commuting, both in time and money?
Do the math. People in cities pay more to live in a smaller location--but 20 years down the road they typically have a higher net worth because the increased expense is towards an appreciating asset, rather than spent on consumables (gas) or depreciating assets (cars, jet skis, motorcycles, and [in some cases] over-built houses for the area). People who live in cities are also healthier (due to more walking and less time sitting in traffic).
or to the movies, the ballet, the opera, plays, musicals, clubs, concerts, parks, dog parks, botanic gardens, thousands of different restaurants, or just take a nice walk over the Brooklyn Bridge, or ride the ferry to Governor's island.
But yeah, blowing up a tree with a stick of dynamite sounds cool, too. To each his own.
But a 4 year old probably doesn't know that, the 4 year old just knows that you need Mommy's thumbprint to play candy crush and assumes you also need it to call 911.
The law is not a program, human beings aren't computers. English is not a programming language.
Human languages have some ambiguity and laws cannot anticipate every scenario, but that's totally okay because (a) humans [as opposed to computers] are spectacularly equipped to solve fuzzy logic problems, and (b) our legal system has a robust framework for handling these ambiguities.
It's desirable to remove ambiguity in the law where reasonable because it is more efficient than going through the court system--but there's no seg fault just because some law has some kind of ambiguity in it.
You mean apart from delivering 100k+ electric cars per year and launching rockets that can land vertically on floating platforms in the middle of the ocean, or how about the gigantic battery factory? Yeah, other than that the dude is a total snake oil salesman.
The car had higher initial capital cost, it required special fuel (you couldn't just feed it hay), and it couldn't be bred to create more cars.
Similarly electric cars are more pleasant in some ways: you can charge it at home over night (no more trips to the gas station a couple times a week), less polluting, quieter, quicker, cheaper on a per-mile basis...but they aren't UNIFORMLY better.
Your assumption that a new technology has to be UNIFORMLY better to be successful is silly.
This speaks to the/. crowd not really understanding what "technology" is.
Do you think Thomas Edison really "invented" the light bulb out of thin air?
New technology is pretty much always a slight improvement from some previous tech. Marketable consumer technology makes its improvements in things that consumers care about (i.e., getting rid of those bugs and kinks--and this isn't easy, btw, try it someday). Apple wins in the market because they are (a) trying to solve the technology problems that matter most to consumers, and (b) they're better at solving those tech problems than their competitors.
If it was easy (or just a matter of "marketing") then every other company would do it.
Both companies are doing well, but if you look at the fraction of Apple's income comes from smartphones vs. Google's total income from smartphones (HW/SW/advertising) then Apple is winning. But, it's a big world and there's plenty of room for both.
I'm not sure where you are getting "half again more people unemployed"--unless you are doing something really silly like comparing absolute numbers of people instead of rates.
> It fell a bit under Bush, and even more under Obama.
If you're talking about labor participation as measured by (1 - U6), then this is where you parted from reality. That number went from 92.8% when Clinton left office to the [much worse] 83.5% when George W Bush left office, and then *recovered* under Obama to the current 90.8%. It did not "fall *a bit*" under W and then "a bit more" under Obama.
The U6 data reflects macro-economic trends, the difference between good & bad Presidents, and boom/bust cycles (also emblematic of poor economic policy)--but there's very little trend here to extract any signal at all about the effect of automation on employment.
Slashdot Mirror
That was from 1910 - 1920.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
are so obsessed with identifying and calling out anything that looks like a "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field" that you are unable to acknowledge that we are witnessing the future happening.
Elon Musk is indisputably a tech visionary--or else that phrase has no meaning at all.
BTW: so was Steve Jobs. It doesn't make you "immune to groupthink" to claim otherwise, it makes a fucking idiot.
Crickets...
that he didn't run.
Beowulf is in the public domain, I can make as many copies of it as I want and re-distribute that to anyone I want.
But, if somebody publishes a copy of Beowulf marked up with annotations and explanations (and copyrights the derivative work), obviously I can't republish that. That's what we're talking about here, right?
Laws are in the public domain, but they aren't GPLed.
wasn't he? I don't see the connection.
nt
1. Did you factor in that your home is a heavily leveraged investment? Yes you are paying more interest in the city, but you also have a more valuable asset; an asset that appreciates. You get to keep the appreciation and can pay the bank interest in inflated dollars.
2. Did you calculate the cost of owning a car (maintenance, insurance, speeding tickets, registration, gas)? because not needing to own a car (or cars) in the city helps to offset some of the increased living expense.
3. What about the cost of commuting, both in time and money?
Do the math. People in cities pay more to live in a smaller location--but 20 years down the road they typically have a higher net worth because the increased expense is towards an appreciating asset, rather than spent on consumables (gas) or depreciating assets (cars, jet skis, motorcycles, and [in some cases] over-built houses for the area). People who live in cities are also healthier (due to more walking and less time sitting in traffic).
or to the movies, the ballet, the opera, plays, musicals, clubs, concerts, parks, dog parks, botanic gardens, thousands of different restaurants, or just take a nice walk over the Brooklyn Bridge, or ride the ferry to Governor's island.
But yeah, blowing up a tree with a stick of dynamite sounds cool, too. To each his own.
But a 4 year old probably doesn't know that, the 4 year old just knows that you need Mommy's thumbprint to play candy crush and assumes you also need it to call 911.
Seriously, you can do better.
The law is not a program, human beings aren't computers. English is not a programming language.
Human languages have some ambiguity and laws cannot anticipate every scenario, but that's totally okay because (a) humans [as opposed to computers] are spectacularly equipped to solve fuzzy logic problems, and (b) our legal system has a robust framework for handling these ambiguities.
It's desirable to remove ambiguity in the law where reasonable because it is more efficient than going through the court system--but there's no seg fault just because some law has some kind of ambiguity in it.
Because we're not robots.
I've never worked anywhere that would not have accommodated someone with a dying wife.
I know it's fun for Europeans to pretend that the US workers are treated like slaves, but it's not actually true, you know.
You mean apart from delivering 100k+ electric cars per year and launching rockets that can land vertically on floating platforms in the middle of the ocean, or how about the gigantic battery factory? Yeah, other than that the dude is a total snake oil salesman.
The car had higher initial capital cost, it required special fuel (you couldn't just feed it hay), and it couldn't be bred to create more cars.
Similarly electric cars are more pleasant in some ways: you can charge it at home over night (no more trips to the gas station a couple times a week), less polluting, quieter, quicker, cheaper on a per-mile basis...but they aren't UNIFORMLY better.
Your assumption that a new technology has to be UNIFORMLY better to be successful is silly.
and be bred to create more automobiles." - random moron in 1910.
Do you see now why truth matters?
Along with an adapter letting you use any 2.5mm headphones you want. Any you can use any bluetooth headset.
Try again.
This speaks to the /. crowd not really understanding what "technology" is.
Do you think Thomas Edison really "invented" the light bulb out of thin air?
New technology is pretty much always a slight improvement from some previous tech. Marketable consumer technology makes its improvements in things that consumers care about (i.e., getting rid of those bugs and kinks--and this isn't easy, btw, try it someday). Apple wins in the market because they are (a) trying to solve the technology problems that matter most to consumers, and (b) they're better at solving those tech problems than their competitors.
If it was easy (or just a matter of "marketing") then every other company would do it.
Both companies are doing well, but if you look at the fraction of Apple's income comes from smartphones vs. Google's total income from smartphones (HW/SW/advertising) then Apple is winning. But, it's a big world and there's plenty of room for both.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-104-percent-smartphone-industry-profits-q3-2016-bmo-capital-markets-samsung-2016-11
There are three classes of companies making smartphones: those making no money, those losing money, and Apple.
Your move, Coward.
Sincerely, the American people
I'm not sure where you are getting "half again more people unemployed"--unless you are doing something really silly like comparing absolute numbers of people instead of rates.
> It fell a bit under Bush, and even more under Obama.
If you're talking about labor participation as measured by (1 - U6), then this is where you parted from reality. That number went from 92.8% when Clinton left office to the [much worse] 83.5% when George W Bush left office, and then *recovered* under Obama to the current 90.8%. It did not "fall *a bit*" under W and then "a bit more" under Obama.
The U6 data reflects macro-economic trends, the difference between good & bad Presidents, and boom/bust cycles (also emblematic of poor economic policy)--but there's very little trend here to extract any signal at all about the effect of automation on employment.