Today's economists regard Marx as having a very important contribution to their field by introducing new words and concepts, but ultimately his ideology made him come up with a dead wrong ideas (i.e. his labor value theory, and his theory that people intently want to work for free.)
work by selfish psychos who never worked a day in their lives
You'd be surprised how many fortune 500 CEOs started out doing menial work that most people would never do. I remember hearing about one who started out as a garbage man (ironically, because of the stigma attached to the job title, garbage men tend to make a decent living.) John Legere, one of the highest paid CEOs in the world, went through a few low skilled jobs.
Not really paradoxical. The answer is automation will increase productivity to the point where most people don't need to work 40+ hours a week to generate enough wealth to enable them to consume as much as they need, and as much as a lot of people even want to.
That is a viable outcome; one among many (hence my comment about a big shift in how economies work) but what is paradoxical is the assumption that automation will just make everybody unable to afford anything. It just doesn't make any logical sense to have an outcome where people are too poor to afford what is produced by automation; after all, the endgame of automation is to make everything less expensive and more practical.
You mean like all the current, existing currencies?
Try having instant digital transactions with existing currencies. Either you pay a lot (upwards of 3% in the case of credit cards,) or the transaction happens slowly.
Sort of. The underlying premise behind blockchain is a good idea, but Bitcoin will never work for its intended purpose, and so it will probably crash really hard. In fact this may even trigger the next recession just like the dot-com bubble did. Probably won't happen for a year or two, but it will happen.
We can call this the bitcoin bubble, even though many other popular ones (ethereum, bch) have the same problems. But like the dot-com bubble before it, the premise isn't bad, it's just people are creating these business models that won't ever go anywhere. Once the hype dies off, we'll begin seeing more stability, and a rise in currencies that aren't dependent upon miners and have low/no transaction fees.
In my opinion, keep an eye on decred and/or IOTA, or currencies like them, as the model they use makes them viable as a currency rather than as a mere financial instrument backed by nothing.
It's paradoxical to say that automation will eliminate as many jobs as most here predict. Think critically here: If nobody has enough money to consume, then there's nothing for automation to do.
More realistically, you'll probably see a massive change in how economies work, assuming that high unemployment lasts long term (historically, frictional unemployment doesn't last very long.)
You ought to be grateful that the thing exists at all to begin with. Billions of dollars were spent just to get here, with many, many big failures along the way (including some people who have died during the experimental phases.)
Even if we exclude all of that, you have to think about what it takes just to execute this treatment on just one person: They have to customize the vector's (a virus) genome to fit the patients genome, and then they have to produce millions of them. If it's not done right, it can kill the patient.
Besides, people are speculating that this will be the price based on what it takes to do this; they haven't actually announced any price.
Google uses my data, I have no idea where it goes. Most likely to improve "targeted" advertising, but they will literally sell that information to anyone willing to pay.
No, they don't "literally" sell that information, let alone sell it at all. If they did, their shareholders would be pissed at google for helping its competitors compete against its biggest revenue source. Think about it: If you owned an ad company that worked primarily off of data you gathered yourself, why the fuck would you turn that over to a competitor instead of having them pay much more over the long term to place ads on your advertising platform? That means less growth, which shareholders really don't like.
Webkit had many contributors, with Google perhaps being the biggest one; more so than Apple. After Google forked to blink, the webkit development slowed to a crawl, and now even Microsoft's browsers are ahead of webkit, enough so that Safari is now considered to be the new IE6.
First, UWP browsers have to use the same broke ass HTML/javascript engine that Edge uses. Second, iOS has a viable market of users, UWP does not. Likewise, it doesn't make any sense to bend over backwards for Microsoft. Notice Mozilla doesn't port firefox there either, and it wouldn't make any economic sense for them to do so. Third, this doesn't make any sense on Microsoft's part, because they already do exactly what Google did for some of their own products, like Skype for example.
Besides, UWP is total shit anyways. Ever notice how every app on there is stripped down to shit compared to their Android and iOS counterparts? It's because Microsoft is completely unresponsive to developers when they ask for features to be added. Android and iOS meanwhile have a very rich feature set in comparison. This is a problem across Microsoft's entire platform. Notice how there are hardly any webextensions available for Edge? It's very common for Microsoft to not respond -- at all -- to developers who ask to have their addon whitelisted.
If Microsoft wants UWP to go anywhere, they should at least give it feature parity to its competition, because right now it's not even halfway there, and developers basically can't implement anything that Microsoft hasn't already thought of. As it is right now, developers are much better off creating webapps.
I don't know about him, but my portfolio (one small-cap growth ETF, one large-cap growth ETF, one eurozone large-cap growth ETF, one high dividend ETF, and a few stocks) gained 35%-40% over the year 2017.
That's nice and all, but what happens when you plug in a location (i.e. address, name of location, etc) and the software has no idea where the fuck that even is?
I don't know who this schwit1 is, but his comment "That'll put food back on the shelves" is completely moronic. The reason Venezuela has no food on their shelves is because the official exchange rate doesn't match the actual value of the bolivar, which means that it's basically fucking impossible to import anything, whether that is actual food or materials needed for farming. So given they can't exchange the bolivar for anything without going to jail, they'll need some other currency. Unlike the bolivar, bitcoin isn't experiencing hyperinflation, in fact the opposite is happening. Either way, unlike the bolivar, bitcoin is actually worth something, which means that they could import any goods they need with it. THAT will put food on the shelves, not Maduro's (and Chavez's) stupid policies which took food off of shelves to begin with. This is just another policy that will keep food off of shelves.
You Marxists have been saying that since 1945. Given the fact that the term capitalism was first coined in 1880, we've been "late stage capitalism" for just over half of the time that the word has existed.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking: Capitalism has actually existed for no less than one millennium and probably longer, so I'm handwaving. But in my defense, the person who defined capitalism, the same person whose ideologies you're using, did a lot of handwaving in order to arrive at his conclusion that a utopia can only be achieved by:
- overthrowing democracy as a first step - taking all of the worldly possessions, including ancestral homes, away from every person by force (including poor people) - forcibly re-educating the public to believe in and practice a system which nobody has any idea would even work (they just have to take his word for it) - forcing them to do work for the political leaders for free (under penalty of death) - pretending to feed the people - pretending to bring back democracy by establishing a single-party government - pretending that this whole thing isn't slavery
As a challenge to you, please show me just ONE example of where all of this actually turned into a utopia, and show me some actual proof that ending capitalism (something that cannot be achieved peacefully, since almost nobody would willingly give away everything they own) would be any kind of improvement.
Centurylink did something similar to this to me when I was on their gigabit fiber service:
Advertised price is $79.99 Modem rental fee $15 (there is no modem, just an ethernet drop into my apartment) Internet Cost Recovery Fee $15 (uhhh....?) Taxes and government fees $20 (Complete bullshit because the government legally cannot charge any taxes here; the other ISP, Cox, doesn't charge you any taxes unless you get cable TV, this is literally just a number they pulled out of their ass.)
Whats worse is if I didn't complain to the FCC at the time, it would have been much higher because for my apartment, they were charging $50 higher than the advertised price. Anyways, after I got my first bill I just canceled it and went back to the base 40/10 package, which was free with my rent. I complained about how they didn't even provide gig service for the first half of the month either (it took them a while to adjust it) and they just ended up not charging anything.
I think that fat fuck Ajit Pai just misses the good ol' telecom monopoly days. Fuck him.
That depends on what aspect you're talking about. With sexual harassment, yes, definite problem. And interestingly enough, it turns out that those who often shame it are purveyors of it.
With regard to pay discrimination, sorry, but there's no merit to it. Yes, there is an earnings gap, but no, there isn't some giant man conspiracy or corporate culture that makes it so. The research has been done extensively on this, and in the vast majority of cases, the earnings difference comes down to good ol' fashioned biology, especially when it comes to maternity. This is one of those things in life that cannot be helped.
But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.
I know the post had a trollish tone to it, but that claim is not false. The EU is practically expecting social media to delete this content almost before it is even posted. Explain to me, how the fuck are you supposed to do that without acting on a whim?
You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result.
And how exactly is that supposed to work in this case?
Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.
No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.
Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?
We're speaking in the context of social media here, and yes, it pretty much comes down to echo chambers.
When you're talking about the internet at large, then yes, you can expand well beyond that, including other media, like television.
Yes, and IMO the EU is taking a nosedive right down the mass censorship hole. Deleting extremist content when its found is just a game of whack-a-mole that will never be won. Just ask the MPAA/RIAA how easy it is to do even when they have entire government agencies dedicated to their cause. But it's not just extremist content that is problematic, rather it's fake news and other bunk that become mainstream (name any anti-science movement of your choice: anti-vaccination, anti-gmo, etc.)
The problem is echo chambers, plain and simple, but unfortunately there probably will never be an easy fix. The best that we could hope for, IMO, is for social media to change how it builds connections to people (facebook friends lists come to mind.)
Until people realize that any kind of universal basic income scheme will never do what it's intended to do. Money isn't the endgame of what an economy does; it never has been, rather it is all about creation and allocation of resources. If you just give people money, you just give them money, and at the end of the day they'll just outbid one another for those same resources. If nobody builds anymore housing in say SF, then guess what? No amount of UBI is going to solve the shortage of available housing.
Minimum wage increases won't work either. This is such a dead simple concept that so many people seem to spectacularly fail.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're not socialist, rather they have a very strong welfare system. Welfare and socialism are not at all the same thing.
Today's economists regard Marx as having a very important contribution to their field by introducing new words and concepts, but ultimately his ideology made him come up with a dead wrong ideas (i.e. his labor value theory, and his theory that people intently want to work for free.)
work by selfish psychos who never worked a day in their lives
You'd be surprised how many fortune 500 CEOs started out doing menial work that most people would never do. I remember hearing about one who started out as a garbage man (ironically, because of the stigma attached to the job title, garbage men tend to make a decent living.) John Legere, one of the highest paid CEOs in the world, went through a few low skilled jobs.
Not really paradoxical. The answer is automation will increase productivity to the point where most people don't need to work 40+ hours a week to generate enough wealth to enable them to consume as much as they need, and as much as a lot of people even want to.
That is a viable outcome; one among many (hence my comment about a big shift in how economies work) but what is paradoxical is the assumption that automation will just make everybody unable to afford anything. It just doesn't make any logical sense to have an outcome where people are too poor to afford what is produced by automation; after all, the endgame of automation is to make everything less expensive and more practical.
You mean like all the current, existing currencies?
Try having instant digital transactions with existing currencies. Either you pay a lot (upwards of 3% in the case of credit cards,) or the transaction happens slowly.
Sort of. The underlying premise behind blockchain is a good idea, but Bitcoin will never work for its intended purpose, and so it will probably crash really hard. In fact this may even trigger the next recession just like the dot-com bubble did. Probably won't happen for a year or two, but it will happen.
We can call this the bitcoin bubble, even though many other popular ones (ethereum, bch) have the same problems. But like the dot-com bubble before it, the premise isn't bad, it's just people are creating these business models that won't ever go anywhere. Once the hype dies off, we'll begin seeing more stability, and a rise in currencies that aren't dependent upon miners and have low/no transaction fees.
In my opinion, keep an eye on decred and/or IOTA, or currencies like them, as the model they use makes them viable as a currency rather than as a mere financial instrument backed by nothing.
It's paradoxical to say that automation will eliminate as many jobs as most here predict. Think critically here: If nobody has enough money to consume, then there's nothing for automation to do.
More realistically, you'll probably see a massive change in how economies work, assuming that high unemployment lasts long term (historically, frictional unemployment doesn't last very long.)
Are you four feet tall or something?
You ought to be grateful that the thing exists at all to begin with. Billions of dollars were spent just to get here, with many, many big failures along the way (including some people who have died during the experimental phases.)
Even if we exclude all of that, you have to think about what it takes just to execute this treatment on just one person: They have to customize the vector's (a virus) genome to fit the patients genome, and then they have to produce millions of them. If it's not done right, it can kill the patient.
Besides, people are speculating that this will be the price based on what it takes to do this; they haven't actually announced any price.
Google uses my data, I have no idea where it goes. Most likely to improve "targeted" advertising, but they will literally sell that information to anyone willing to pay.
No, they don't "literally" sell that information, let alone sell it at all. If they did, their shareholders would be pissed at google for helping its competitors compete against its biggest revenue source. Think about it: If you owned an ad company that worked primarily off of data you gathered yourself, why the fuck would you turn that over to a competitor instead of having them pay much more over the long term to place ads on your advertising platform? That means less growth, which shareholders really don't like.
https://slashdot.org/story/333... ... Need I say more?
Webkit had many contributors, with Google perhaps being the biggest one; more so than Apple. After Google forked to blink, the webkit development slowed to a crawl, and now even Microsoft's browsers are ahead of webkit, enough so that Safari is now considered to be the new IE6.
First, UWP browsers have to use the same broke ass HTML/javascript engine that Edge uses. Second, iOS has a viable market of users, UWP does not. Likewise, it doesn't make any sense to bend over backwards for Microsoft. Notice Mozilla doesn't port firefox there either, and it wouldn't make any economic sense for them to do so. Third, this doesn't make any sense on Microsoft's part, because they already do exactly what Google did for some of their own products, like Skype for example.
Besides, UWP is total shit anyways. Ever notice how every app on there is stripped down to shit compared to their Android and iOS counterparts? It's because Microsoft is completely unresponsive to developers when they ask for features to be added. Android and iOS meanwhile have a very rich feature set in comparison. This is a problem across Microsoft's entire platform. Notice how there are hardly any webextensions available for Edge? It's very common for Microsoft to not respond -- at all -- to developers who ask to have their addon whitelisted.
If Microsoft wants UWP to go anywhere, they should at least give it feature parity to its competition, because right now it's not even halfway there, and developers basically can't implement anything that Microsoft hasn't already thought of. As it is right now, developers are much better off creating webapps.
He was using AR15s, so I'm not sure why he didn't just buy a 3MR trigger. Sure, he'd fire a tad slower, but he'd fire a lot more accurately.
I don't know about him, but my portfolio (one small-cap growth ETF, one large-cap growth ETF, one eurozone large-cap growth ETF, one high dividend ETF, and a few stocks) gained 35%-40% over the year 2017.
That's nice and all, but what happens when you plug in a location (i.e. address, name of location, etc) and the software has no idea where the fuck that even is?
I don't know who this schwit1 is, but his comment "That'll put food back on the shelves" is completely moronic. The reason Venezuela has no food on their shelves is because the official exchange rate doesn't match the actual value of the bolivar, which means that it's basically fucking impossible to import anything, whether that is actual food or materials needed for farming. So given they can't exchange the bolivar for anything without going to jail, they'll need some other currency. Unlike the bolivar, bitcoin isn't experiencing hyperinflation, in fact the opposite is happening. Either way, unlike the bolivar, bitcoin is actually worth something, which means that they could import any goods they need with it. THAT will put food on the shelves, not Maduro's (and Chavez's) stupid policies which took food off of shelves to begin with. This is just another policy that will keep food off of shelves.
Late stage/End stage capitalism right here.
You Marxists have been saying that since 1945. Given the fact that the term capitalism was first coined in 1880, we've been "late stage capitalism" for just over half of the time that the word has existed.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking: Capitalism has actually existed for no less than one millennium and probably longer, so I'm handwaving. But in my defense, the person who defined capitalism, the same person whose ideologies you're using, did a lot of handwaving in order to arrive at his conclusion that a utopia can only be achieved by:
- overthrowing democracy as a first step
- taking all of the worldly possessions, including ancestral homes, away from every person by force (including poor people)
- forcibly re-educating the public to believe in and practice a system which nobody has any idea would even work (they just have to take his word for it)
- forcing them to do work for the political leaders for free (under penalty of death)
- pretending to feed the people
- pretending to bring back democracy by establishing a single-party government
- pretending that this whole thing isn't slavery
As a challenge to you, please show me just ONE example of where all of this actually turned into a utopia, and show me some actual proof that ending capitalism (something that cannot be achieved peacefully, since almost nobody would willingly give away everything they own) would be any kind of improvement.
Centurylink did something similar to this to me when I was on their gigabit fiber service:
Advertised price is $79.99
Modem rental fee $15 (there is no modem, just an ethernet drop into my apartment)
Internet Cost Recovery Fee $15 (uhhh....?)
Taxes and government fees $20 (Complete bullshit because the government legally cannot charge any taxes here; the other ISP, Cox, doesn't charge you any taxes unless you get cable TV, this is literally just a number they pulled out of their ass.)
Whats worse is if I didn't complain to the FCC at the time, it would have been much higher because for my apartment, they were charging $50 higher than the advertised price. Anyways, after I got my first bill I just canceled it and went back to the base 40/10 package, which was free with my rent. I complained about how they didn't even provide gig service for the first half of the month either (it took them a while to adjust it) and they just ended up not charging anything.
I think that fat fuck Ajit Pai just misses the good ol' telecom monopoly days. Fuck him.
That depends on what aspect you're talking about. With sexual harassment, yes, definite problem. And interestingly enough, it turns out that those who often shame it are purveyors of it.
With regard to pay discrimination, sorry, but there's no merit to it. Yes, there is an earnings gap, but no, there isn't some giant man conspiracy or corporate culture that makes it so. The research has been done extensively on this, and in the vast majority of cases, the earnings difference comes down to good ol' fashioned biology, especially when it comes to maternity. This is one of those things in life that cannot be helped.
But not by acting on a whim. You did read the post, right? Because that claim is a scurrilously false one. The actions being taken are after a long period of consideration and reflection, not a sudden burst of intemperate hysteria.
I know the post had a trollish tone to it, but that claim is not false. The EU is practically expecting social media to delete this content almost before it is even posted. Explain to me, how the fuck are you supposed to do that without acting on a whim?
You don't do it to "win" a game. You do it to prevent the destruction that will result.
And how exactly is that supposed to work in this case?
Indeed, extremists are documented liars and frauds, whose desire to push a narrative isn't burdened by a concern to be truthful, or even appear truthful.
No, not necessarily. There are a lot of people out there who are just plain stupid. Alex Jones actually eats his own horse shit, for example.
Well, no, you're looking for a "plain and simple" cause is unfortunately mistaken, it isn't just echo chambers, though they are a problem, there is a more pernicious nature to the problems, as even if you have exposure, the capacity for self-deluding deception remains, still, I think we can hope for more, and work at it. Sure, it won't be easy. But again, who promised you it would be easy?
We're speaking in the context of social media here, and yes, it pretty much comes down to echo chambers.
When you're talking about the internet at large, then yes, you can expand well beyond that, including other media, like television.
It will sick AND disable them
Censoring people on a whim is an extreme stance.
Yes, and IMO the EU is taking a nosedive right down the mass censorship hole. Deleting extremist content when its found is just a game of whack-a-mole that will never be won. Just ask the MPAA/RIAA how easy it is to do even when they have entire government agencies dedicated to their cause. But it's not just extremist content that is problematic, rather it's fake news and other bunk that become mainstream (name any anti-science movement of your choice: anti-vaccination, anti-gmo, etc.)
The problem is echo chambers, plain and simple, but unfortunately there probably will never be an easy fix. The best that we could hope for, IMO, is for social media to change how it builds connections to people (facebook friends lists come to mind.)
Until people realize that any kind of universal basic income scheme will never do what it's intended to do. Money isn't the endgame of what an economy does; it never has been, rather it is all about creation and allocation of resources. If you just give people money, you just give them money, and at the end of the day they'll just outbid one another for those same resources. If nobody builds anymore housing in say SF, then guess what? No amount of UBI is going to solve the shortage of available housing.
Minimum wage increases won't work either. This is such a dead simple concept that so many people seem to spectacularly fail.
Remember that this began with Amazon banning the sale of hardware devices that competed with its own products, including Apple TV.