The OP worded it badly shouldve said "so rides go to those who value them the highest"
(Un)fortunately you choose to live in a capitalist society. While it is a good system, it has its flaws, and the biggest one is that resources go to those who will pay the most for them. This is just an example of those wonderful words "market forces". Amazingly this is one of the times where everything is working as it should. Unfortunately that is a bad result from a moral viewpoint.
But devils advocate: If they kept normal pricing and that only attracted 1000 drivers, but 2000 people need rides how do you propose to choose who get them? First in will not give any more of an equitable outcome, some of those who need it most will still miss out. If surge pricing meant they attracted 1200 drivers to the area, is that not a better solution as only 800 people are left "stranded"
The end of the "Rule of Law" story, I guess you mean? Shame. It had its problems, but on average I was a fan. The sequel, "Despotic and Arbitrary Kleptocracy", sounds like it's going to suck.
Wow. Love the hyperbole! Now lets be serious.
A democratic country that has laws that are bought and paid for by special interests in direct conflict** with the governed majority. Yes that is broken. It needs to be replaced. It is not a dichotomy and it can be replaced by another structure with more just rule of law
** = and without any real consent by the populace - yes they could in theory vote in other lawmakers but the game was rigged long ago to prevent any meaningful shift. We are also seeing how even the voting process is corrupted.
The worst article in a long time. No smartphone is about what is needed, it is about what is wanted (even if that want is just to feel superior because you have the latest model from $Company).
In fact smartphones in general are not NEEDED, nor are tech sites reporting on them.
Their goal is to attract consumer interest, and this will do it. I just wish their connector was open source, so there would be a 0.00000001% chance of other brands following suit - lets go down the line of things like ara or PC type ugrades
It could be that almost all tech problems are "first world problems" by definition. This is still a tech site, and the job of tech is to make our lives easier.
In fact the entire article is "smartphone loses headphone jack" so could be replied with the snark - this first world problem must be so tragic!
So the original "first world problem" poster is just being inflammatory and adding nothing of value to the conversation, while the comment they replied to was adding value (responding to the assertion that almost noone has to carry both apple and android phone and they said they did).
But that "begs the question" (I know it doesn't using it to demonstrate my point)... who is everyone?
Language means whatever people THINK it means. What is "correct" is irrelevant, as "correct" is just a historical record of what the majority have previously decided. This can then be periodically updated and "correct" changes.
What does "stakeholder" mean - someone with a vested interest (now) - someone with no vested interest, a person who held the stakes while others duelled (original)
So it is not their fault at all, if someone uses a term which currently has multiple acceptable meanings (the current correct as defined by "everyone" vs the historical correct).
TLDR version - you are wrong. language has and always will mean whatever people think it means.
This. A lot of professional sports, from baseball to wrestling, have systemic doping...the difference is cycling has clamped down on it, where many others still turn a blind eye. When they look, they'll find it as well.
Soccer? Rugby? Tennis? Golf? Yachting? I don't think it's as wide-spread as you think. Maybe some sports that require actual skill need drugs less, since drugs don't really help. In sports where it is simple endurance or strength then it does.
Funny thing is that I find those strength/endurance type sports the least entertaining to watch.
The GP said "a lot" of professional sports, not all. You list a few, that does not invalidate his point.
Having said that, the sports you listed are BAD examples. They are not the ones "turning a blind eye" because they are under the same anti-doping initiatives as cycling etc. The examples the OP mentions are sports not signed up to the world anti-doping authority. Those include (AFAIK) baseball, wrestling, ufc,...
Even then there are still people who cheat when they think they can get away with it. Take tennis. It was only a couple weeks ago that Sharipova got banned because she had been cheating for years, but the code only caught up to ban her drug of choice recently.
Weightlifting and track and field are another 2 sports like cycling - systemic doping that they are trying hard to stamp out. The result is Russia is not even going to the Olympics because of it!!!
. Maybe the way forward is to move focus away from sports like athletics and cycling where doping is extremely effective, and towards sports like football and golf where it's much less beneficial. Remove the incentive.
You obviously haven't had much to do with professional footballers (any code) or golfers. I can guarantee you drugs would help them immensely. There have been cases in both sports.
Golf - steroids will allow much more power hence much farther drives. Something like a beta blocker to slow the heart rate down would help with steady hands for the putts.
Football (soccer) - has a cardio/speed component - similar to athletics doping. Football (american) - has speed component in running backs etc - doping like 100m sprinters; has power/mass component - linesman - doping like weightlifters (steroids etc)...
So please think of another theory.
Also there are ways to divide people into the gender categories - use blood chemistry etc. - much of the genetic advantage of males is in the high levels of testosterone. So people who pass a certain limit compete in "male" while people who are below the limit - by birth or by reassignment hormones - compete in "female"
An easier more objective solution has been mentioned many times before, simply make the patent an annual fee that goes up exponentially every year. If something is that groundbreaking (eg invention of wifi) then they may be willing to pay. At some point they will realise it is just better to release it and just compete in other ways. Just need to work the formula for the fee appropriately.
Bonus: the extra patent fees could be a nice money spinner for the government.
Bonus 2: people can only become short term patent trolls, and by explicitly registering and expiring patents we are ensuring things are being released into commons.
not in habit of replying to AC's but the argument is about batteries failing after a few years. By that time warranties are long gone. So that argument doesn't carry much weight.
Another aspect is that low skill jobs usually have a larger margin of error. This means that you can come to market sooner with an earlier prototype, and continue to refine once revenue starts coming in.
The missing link in his argument is: jobs that are easy to do will probably be easier (hence financially viable) to automate.
The truth of this is debatable, as sometimes an easy skill for a human is hard to automate, and sometimes a hard skill is easy to automate.
You are correct in your assertion that high skill staff would have a bigger payoff in automation - but again it all comes back to their pay vs the cost of R&D to automate. Your risotto example does sound like a prime candidate if the parameters can be reliably quantified (or sensors to detect boundary condition reliably made).
Correct ONLY if the above "earnings" account for depreciation (which I don't think they do). If they are then then effectively uber IS paying for a new car for the drivers. If not then the wearing out of the car is an unrealised loss the drivers are incurring which will come back to haunt them once their car is toast.
No it's not. If you are amoral (or better yet sociopath tendencies) - it is just as easy to steal from someone while looking at them.
Sure in this case, it creates overhead of having to have a physical card to program the stolen info on - but this is completely unrelated to your claim that the "personal touch" will stop thieves.
But congratulations, at least you have a conscience (just remember not everyone does).
Until a robot decides to help someone who wants to commit suicide. Then you are going to have to figure out exceptions... because there always are exceptions, except to the always exceptions rule.
I think it is ethically borderline to force someone to live who doesn't want to. People who have painful terminal diseases (euthanasia) is probably the most notable example here.
Most of the time suicide is a result of society NOT helping people in the days/weeks/months/years before this.
, the threat of islamism and other despotist ideologies,
Disclaimer: I am an athiest, verging on being anti-theist.
I think you mean the threat of extremism. Islam is not the problem, a bunch of nutjobs claiming to represent it is. Because I can bet my bottom dollar that you would not have substituted christianity into that sentence without toning it down.
And if you banned islam tomorrow, nutjobs would claim to represent something else. It might take a generation to find that something, but they would.
A couple friends of mine use it, and hearing the updates makes for interesting small talk.
Apparently there are now some kind of "group" function, whereby you create temporary groups. These groups can then match against other groups to have chat room type conversations.... so maybe that leads to orgies?
I thought it would be so people can meet up in groups because "safety in numbers" type thing.
What is still missing is just "faking" permissions,... but I'm not sure why Google hasn't decided to use it.
Really? Google? The company that makes its money off of selling the consumer information (or at least using it for targeted advertising). You don't see why they would not want to build a feature that it makes it harder for them to harvest data?
Sorry if this sounds snarky but I am genuinely shocked.
Slashdot Mirror
The OP worded it badly shouldve said "so rides go to those who value them the highest"
(Un)fortunately you choose to live in a capitalist society. While it is a good system, it has its flaws, and the biggest one is that resources go to those who will pay the most for them. This is just an example of those wonderful words "market forces". Amazingly this is one of the times where everything is working as it should. Unfortunately that is a bad result from a moral viewpoint.
But devils advocate:
If they kept normal pricing and that only attracted 1000 drivers, but 2000 people need rides how do you propose to choose who get them? First in will not give any more of an equitable outcome, some of those who need it most will still miss out.
If surge pricing meant they attracted 1200 drivers to the area, is that not a better solution as only 800 people are left "stranded"
The end of the "Rule of Law" story, I guess you mean? Shame. It had its problems, but on average I was a fan. The sequel, "Despotic and Arbitrary Kleptocracy", sounds like it's going to suck.
Wow. Love the hyperbole! Now lets be serious.
A democratic country that has laws that are bought and paid for by special interests in direct conflict** with the governed majority. Yes that is broken. It needs to be replaced. It is not a dichotomy and it can be replaced by another structure with more just rule of law
** = and without any real consent by the populace - yes they could in theory vote in other lawmakers but the game was rigged long ago to prevent any meaningful shift. We are also seeing how even the voting process is corrupted.
The worst article in a long time. No smartphone is about what is needed, it is about what is wanted (even if that want is just to feel superior because you have the latest model from $Company).
In fact smartphones in general are not NEEDED, nor are tech sites reporting on them.
Their goal is to attract consumer interest, and this will do it. I just wish their connector was open source, so there would be a 0.00000001% chance of other brands following suit - lets go down the line of things like ara or PC type ugrades
What's your point?
It could be that almost all tech problems are "first world problems" by definition. This is still a tech site, and the job of tech is to make our lives easier.
In fact the entire article is "smartphone loses headphone jack" so could be replied with the snark - this first world problem must be so tragic!
So the original "first world problem" poster is just being inflammatory and adding nothing of value to the conversation, while the comment they replied to was adding value (responding to the assertion that almost noone has to carry both apple and android phone and they said they did).
It's always a matter of priorities. The FBI would rather work for their corporate overlords than do something for the public.
FTFY
But that "begs the question" (I know it doesn't using it to demonstrate my point)... who is everyone?
Language means whatever people THINK it means. What is "correct" is irrelevant, as "correct" is just a historical record of what the majority have previously decided. This can then be periodically updated and "correct" changes.
What does "stakeholder" mean
- someone with a vested interest (now)
- someone with no vested interest, a person who held the stakes while others duelled (original)
So it is not their fault at all, if someone uses a term which currently has multiple acceptable meanings (the current correct as defined by "everyone" vs the historical correct).
TLDR version - you are wrong. language has and always will mean whatever people think it means.
This. A lot of professional sports, from baseball to wrestling, have systemic doping...the difference is cycling has clamped down on it, where many others still turn a blind eye. When they look, they'll find it as well.
Soccer? Rugby? Tennis? Golf? Yachting? I don't think it's as wide-spread as you think.
Maybe some sports that require actual skill need drugs less, since drugs don't really help. In sports where it is simple endurance or strength then it does.
Funny thing is that I find those strength/endurance type sports the least entertaining to watch.
The GP said "a lot" of professional sports, not all. You list a few, that does not invalidate his point.
Having said that, the sports you listed are BAD examples. They are not the ones "turning a blind eye" because they are under the same anti-doping initiatives as cycling etc. The examples the OP mentions are sports not signed up to the world anti-doping authority. Those include (AFAIK) baseball, wrestling, ufc, ...
Even then there are still people who cheat when they think they can get away with it. Take tennis. It was only a couple weeks ago that Sharipova got banned because she had been cheating for years, but the code only caught up to ban her drug of choice recently.
Weightlifting and track and field are another 2 sports like cycling - systemic doping that they are trying hard to stamp out. The result is Russia is not even going to the Olympics because of it!!!
. Maybe the way forward is to move focus away from sports like athletics and cycling where doping is extremely effective, and towards sports like football and golf where it's much less beneficial. Remove the incentive.
You obviously haven't had much to do with professional footballers (any code) or golfers. I can guarantee you drugs would help them immensely. There have been cases in both sports.
Golf - steroids will allow much more power hence much farther drives. Something like a beta blocker to slow the heart rate down would help with steady hands for the putts.
Football (soccer) - has a cardio/speed component - similar to athletics doping. ...
Football (american) - has speed component in running backs etc - doping like 100m sprinters; has power/mass component - linesman - doping like weightlifters (steroids etc)
So please think of another theory.
Also there are ways to divide people into the gender categories - use blood chemistry etc. - much of the genetic advantage of males is in the high levels of testosterone. So people who pass a certain limit compete in "male" while people who are below the limit - by birth or by reassignment hormones - compete in "female"
An easier more objective solution has been mentioned many times before, simply make the patent an annual fee that goes up exponentially every year. If something is that groundbreaking (eg invention of wifi) then they may be willing to pay. At some point they will realise it is just better to release it and just compete in other ways. Just need to work the formula for the fee appropriately.
Bonus: the extra patent fees could be a nice money spinner for the government.
Bonus 2: people can only become short term patent trolls, and by explicitly registering and expiring patents we are ensuring things are being released into commons.
not in habit of replying to AC's but the argument is about batteries failing after a few years. By that time warranties are long gone. So that argument doesn't carry much weight.
Wondered how long before conversation got Godwin'd
Are you seriously comparing the hostile takeover of surrounding countries and genocide to be equivalent to the UK public temper tantrums?
Good luck getting them to comply with security policy or keeping any policy in place that one objects to.
Oh, they don't want to listen? Fine.
Tell them their liability insurance is going to go up by 20% every year until they do fucking listen.
Only way ANYONE listens is when you speak directly to their wallet.
And they will just pass that on.
Don't like the paying the price? Feel free to get worse / die while price shopping then.
The stick is not the answer here. Systems engineering needs to step up and accommodate them in this case
Another aspect is that low skill jobs usually have a larger margin of error. This means that you can come to market sooner with an earlier prototype, and continue to refine once revenue starts coming in.
The missing link in his argument is:
jobs that are easy to do will probably be easier (hence financially viable) to automate.
The truth of this is debatable, as sometimes an easy skill for a human is hard to automate, and sometimes a hard skill is easy to automate.
You are correct in your assertion that high skill staff would have a bigger payoff in automation - but again it all comes back to their pay vs the cost of R&D to automate. Your risotto example does sound like a prime candidate if the parameters can be reliably quantified (or sensors to detect boundary condition reliably made).
Knowing google the resulting tutorial will result in:
"Would you like to install the following app: 'Hello World' "
The app will require the following permissions:
contacts
messages
Read call state
microphone
video camera
storage - all files and folders
But seriously their tutorial ought to at least touch on security - ie don't mess with it if you don't understand/need it. ...
Correct ONLY if the above "earnings" account for depreciation (which I don't think they do). If they are then then effectively uber IS paying for a new car for the drivers. If not then the wearing out of the car is an unrealised loss the drivers are incurring which will come back to haunt them once their car is toast.
90% of people haven't even HEARD of DuckDuckGo.
I'm sure they can google it
No it's not. If you are amoral (or better yet sociopath tendencies) - it is just as easy to steal from someone while looking at them.
Sure in this case, it creates overhead of having to have a physical card to program the stolen info on - but this is completely unrelated to your claim that the "personal touch" will stop thieves.
But congratulations, at least you have a conscience (just remember not everyone does).
clearly your company is not agile enough. Have you tried moving everything into the cloud? I hear Azure will solve all your problems...
Until a robot decides to help someone who wants to commit suicide. Then you are going to have to figure out exceptions... because there always are exceptions, except to the always exceptions rule.
I think it is ethically borderline to force someone to live who doesn't want to. People who have painful terminal diseases (euthanasia) is probably the most notable example here.
Most of the time suicide is a result of society NOT helping people in the days/weeks/months/years before this.
then you have to remove the area of the skylight glass panels etc also mentioned. All the numbers are made up or wildly exaggerated.
As mentioned above, there are also 9 story tall doors in a 7 story building, 100 pound concrete slabs, ...
, the threat of islamism and other despotist ideologies,
Disclaimer: I am an athiest, verging on being anti-theist.
I think you mean the threat of extremism. Islam is not the problem, a bunch of nutjobs claiming to represent it is. Because I can bet my bottom dollar that you would not have substituted christianity into that sentence without toning it down.
And if you banned islam tomorrow, nutjobs would claim to represent something else. It might take a generation to find that something, but they would.
A couple friends of mine use it, and hearing the updates makes for interesting small talk.
Apparently there are now some kind of "group" function, whereby you create temporary groups. These groups can then match against other groups to have chat room type conversations. ... so maybe that leads to orgies?
I thought it would be so people can meet up in groups because "safety in numbers" type thing.
What is still missing is just "faking" permissions,... but I'm not sure why Google hasn't decided to use it.
Really?
Google?
The company that makes its money off of selling the consumer information (or at least using it for targeted advertising). You don't see why they would not want to build a feature that it makes it harder for them to harvest data?
Sorry if this sounds snarky but I am genuinely shocked.
What we're seeing right now (or so I've read) is that smartphone sales are tapering off across all platforms.
Growth of sales is tapering off. Sales are still increasing, just not increasing as much (or so I've read)