It's great for the people who are still employed. The job market for the highly skilled is going to be amazing for the next few decades. The average schmoe on the other hand has a lot to worry about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it could eventually be possible to build an AI capable of automating my job. But I think 90%+ of the human population would be out of a job first.
The problem is that it doesn't have to replace you 100% in order to decimate the job market. Smart tools that automate 2/3rds of what you do would mean mass layoffs across the industry.
Sure, it's possible they've inflated the numbers due to having an axe to grind, though I'd be surprised if it was by that much. Wars are expensive. I believe that the direct costs only of WWII is estimated at around $5 Trillion in today's dollars and follow on costs probably tripled that. Not an easy comparison since it was a shorter but broader conflict among nation states vs. a longer but less intense conflict that included a brief clash with a large 3rd world power and an extended counter-insurgency campaign, but still these sorts of things aren't cheap.
A reasonable comparison probably looks something like this, trying to stick to high level overview of direct benefits only or this will get way too complicated:
SS, Unemployment, Labor, Medicare & Health Spending: $2.27 Trillion
Education, Food Assistance, Housing & Community: $0.22 Trillion
SS & Medicare Taxes: $1.07 Trillion
Total Net Cost: $1.42 Trillion per year
Time periods of comparison aren't an easy question since one is a one time event with some follow on costs while the other is a permanent ongoing expense. (Though Iraq certainly feels endless at times) I think a fair choice is the combat phase which is a period starting with the invasion and ending with the recent handoff to Iraq forces so we're talking 2003 - 2010. So that gives us eight years of war at a cost of $6 Trillion vs. eight years of benefits at a cost of $11.36 Trillion. So yes, the benefits were definitely more expensive, but not in a two year period as was asserted which would have been only $2.84 Trillion.
I was fine with the first invasion of Iraq, it was necessary to punish aggression against other nation states and preserve our access to middle eastern oil reserves. I seriously question the value of the second invasion though. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and reports have since revealed that the CIA did not believe they had the WMDs Bush claimed as pretext. What exactly did we get for the lives and treasure expended?
You're comparing apples and oranges. The war was paid for out of general revenue whereas Social Security is not. (That may eventually happen if they fail to revise the program, but currently receipts exceed payouts)
Sure, but you have to be realistic about what you can get passed. Republicans would never sign off on civilian research spending and Democrats would mostly rather spend the money on transfer payments.
You're seriously underestimating the cost of the war. The newest data suggests the total cost will be close to $6 Trillion, which is a staggering sum for such a low return. Citation: http://www.reuters.com/article...
The free market is basically just an optimizer and anyone whose ever played around with one of those can tell you that you can do some very strange things to the results by adding a few constraints.
Either they're going to have to set the bar really low, or their graduation rates are going to plummet. Some people just aren't that good at algorithmic thinking.
I was in college during the early 1990's. Most instructors wouldn't accept dot matrix printouts (not even Near Letter Quality) and I couldn't afford the $200 parallel interface to turn my electronic typewriter into a printer.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly the killbot's preset kill limit makes this option increasingly less feasible.
It's great for the people who are still employed. The job market for the highly skilled is going to be amazing for the next few decades. The average schmoe on the other hand has a lot to worry about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it could eventually be possible to build an AI capable of automating my job. But I think 90%+ of the human population would be out of a job first.
The problem is that it doesn't have to replace you 100% in order to decimate the job market. Smart tools that automate 2/3rds of what you do would mean mass layoffs across the industry.
Everything is for sale at the right price. Being privately held just means they can't do a hostile takeover.
I find it a bit confusing, they're big and have cash, why not just buy Valve and call it a day?
Which is why you run four of them, duh!
Well if it's not on Steam I won't be buying it, so problem solved.
Sure, it's possible they've inflated the numbers due to having an axe to grind, though I'd be surprised if it was by that much. Wars are expensive. I believe that the direct costs only of WWII is estimated at around $5 Trillion in today's dollars and follow on costs probably tripled that. Not an easy comparison since it was a shorter but broader conflict among nation states vs. a longer but less intense conflict that included a brief clash with a large 3rd world power and an extended counter-insurgency campaign, but still these sorts of things aren't cheap.
A reasonable comparison probably looks something like this, trying to stick to high level overview of direct benefits only or this will get way too complicated:
SS, Unemployment, Labor, Medicare & Health Spending: $2.27 Trillion
Education, Food Assistance, Housing & Community: $0.22 Trillion
SS & Medicare Taxes: $1.07 Trillion
Total Net Cost: $1.42 Trillion per year
Time periods of comparison aren't an easy question since one is a one time event with some follow on costs while the other is a permanent ongoing expense. (Though Iraq certainly feels endless at times) I think a fair choice is the combat phase which is a period starting with the invasion and ending with the recent handoff to Iraq forces so we're talking 2003 - 2010. So that gives us eight years of war at a cost of $6 Trillion vs. eight years of benefits at a cost of $11.36 Trillion. So yes, the benefits were definitely more expensive, but not in a two year period as was asserted which would have been only $2.84 Trillion.
I was fine with the first invasion of Iraq, it was necessary to punish aggression against other nation states and preserve our access to middle eastern oil reserves. I seriously question the value of the second invasion though. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and reports have since revealed that the CIA did not believe they had the WMDs Bush claimed as pretext. What exactly did we get for the lives and treasure expended?
You're comparing apples and oranges. The war was paid for out of general revenue whereas Social Security is not. (That may eventually happen if they fail to revise the program, but currently receipts exceed payouts)
The SS receipts aren't general revenue despite the fact that politicians have played fast and loose with the rules over the years.
Sure, but you have to be realistic about what you can get passed. Republicans would never sign off on civilian research spending and Democrats would mostly rather spend the money on transfer payments.
Not quite a ponzi scheme, though it is based on actuarial assumptions that no longer hold true.
It's a bit disingenuous to include the full cost of Social Security spending without subtracting taxpayer contributions to the program.
You're seriously underestimating the cost of the war. The newest data suggests the total cost will be close to $6 Trillion, which is a staggering sum for such a low return. Citation: http://www.reuters.com/article...
Oh I agree actually. Free market outcomes can be "optimal" and yet undesirable at the same time.
The free market is basically just an optimizer and anyone whose ever played around with one of those can tell you that you can do some very strange things to the results by adding a few constraints.
Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.
No problem, all you need is a shared currency to keep appreciation down while you run an export economy to have a favorable balance of trade.
Damn it, we don't have time for rational solutions!
Stop trying to start the AI Wars early.
I don't think there is a restriction on bullets that are designed to become aerodynamically unstable in the air
Definitely not or standard NATO 5.56mm would be a violation since they're tumbling rounds.
Either they're going to have to set the bar really low, or their graduation rates are going to plummet. Some people just aren't that good at algorithmic thinking.
I was in college during the early 1990's. Most instructors wouldn't accept dot matrix printouts (not even Near Letter Quality) and I couldn't afford the $200 parallel interface to turn my electronic typewriter into a printer.
You never heard of Daisy Wheel?
Do you have a basement full of ammo, bottled water and freeze dried food too?
You mean you don't?
Maybe they should stick a few vocational classes in the college prep track.
I went to a vocational tech high school and those were some of the most useful classes I've ever taken.
Amazon announces a new partnership with Alphabet and proceeds to fire all of its pickers.