I'd be massively pissed off if someone told me to bring A, and then, when I did exactly that, told me that I was actually supposed to bring B.
That isn't what happened here; it was a misunderstanding based on lack of knowledge of the financial industry. In this context, cash does not mean banknotes or coins. It means a liquid financial account you can essentially write checks out of. Saying they need a cash deposit simply means you cannot pay with bonds, stock positions, or other non cash equivalent assets.
So what really happened here is someone told him to bring A, which he thought meant to bring B because terminology used was taken out of context.
"Content relevant to your interrest" normally include stuff you agree or disagree with, but on a particular subject.
I'm not sure how well this would actually work in practice. I may complain that some Trump supporters only view media which confirms their beliefs, but I don't want to see a bunch of Infowars articles / tweets either. I do like to read articles with well reasoned arguments I may disagree with, but that is drowned out by misinformation. I assume many/most people on the other side of the political spectrum think research coming out of universities and the "educated elite" is also misinformation.
When the problem is that different sides disagree about the foundational facts in a debate, having meaningful discussion and debate is quite difficult. Most people, myself included, don't want to be bothered by media which uses "alternative facts". And either side will generally disagree about which facts are the alternative ones.
but that requires real company leadership not just some guys who is playing by ear, and just feels vindicated from their past success.
This is a common problem I have seen when contracting for small/medium businesses starting to hit enterprise scale. The kind of risk it takes to build a company can be very dangerous when it starts significantly growing. I worked with a VP who built the company's largest business unit from nothing, but was then resistant to ever care about calculating estimated ROI or performing risk analysis for large strategic initiatives because he never did that 10 years ago and succeeded anyway. The ability to recognize that while it takes significant hard work and smart decisions to build a business, it also takes a lot of luck. That kind of risk is fine when you have little to lose, but once tens/hundreds of millions of funding comes into the company and hundreds/thousands of jobs are on the line, more discipline is required.
You don't have to remove large slabs of the language, you just have to choose not to use them. The craziness that is C++ locales, for example, need not concern you because you won't use it.
This is only true if you are either working alone or have control over the development practices of your product team. And hopefully you never move companies or acquire a company that develops differently than you do.
Otherwise every feature in your language of choice is something you may need to use if you are supporting work done by other developers who use that feature.
"If someone keeps quitting and landing new jobs, his social credit will definitely be a problem," Zhejiang official Ge Pingan said at a local forum, addressing a complaint from one company's human resources department about being unable to do anything when employees want to leave.
This is a really sick viewpoint, although in this case there isn't much cultural difference between the east and west. Plenty of business owners in the US would love to have ways to keep employees other than providing a good work experience and fair pay.
most people won't ever see a positive ROI on the principle.
I have never seen any studies showing most people do not see a positive ROI on receiving a Bachelor's degree. The most negative research I have seen suggested about a third of college graduates see no positive ROI from their degree.
Overall the ROI of a college degree has only been rising in recent decades, so the risk of not obtaining a degree has risen as well. This is likely to continue. It would be nice if that risk was not bore by individuals (like high school) but until post-secondary education is funded like secondary education college debt will continue to hamper the large percentage of graduates who see little to no value.
Tough for new parents deciding on having kids, knowing even with a college education, they may never get a job.
Those parents will get little to no comfort from anything Andreessen is saying, considering all of his arguments are really for why the upper middle class and a tiny minority of very ambitious and proactive children will be fine. No one should be worried about how well students who actively seek out education will do in the future. Until robots take 100% of our jobs, those children will mostly be just fine.
Our society's problems will be how to handle the other 90+% of our population. The ones who used to be able to coast through school, learn to read and do arithmetic, and then work blue collar jobs. They are not going to learn to be scientists from Udemy courses. Those kids are still screwed in the world Andreessen envisions.
On odd days we see stories about how civilization is going to collapse because robots will steal all the jobs. On even days we see stories about how there there won't be enough workers to support the retiring boomers.
Those two problems aren't that different. Arguably they are the same problem.
Retiring boomers are a problem because there may not be a large enough tax base to fund social security benefits from individual workers. This is made worse if less young people have jobs. Retiring boomers are also a problem because there will be a larger percentage of our population needing care workers, but that costs money. If that is automated then we still have the low worker problem, if people do it they need to be paid and we still have the funding problem.
None of these are that catastrophic of a problem, we just need to move more of the taxation burden to those who are benefiting the most from automation instead of from average citizens. Currently there is significant resistance to raising taxes on the rich and big business, but that will either break under the pressure of increased automation and globalization or we will shift further into a plutocratic / feudal society (hopefully the former).
Even though there are solutions to our problems, we still need to fight vigorously to ensure we choose solutions which are more inclusive. The default result of inaction is simply more concentration of wealth and less equality, which is the natural result of unregulated market forces.
I voted for Obama and Bernie but would definitely be voting Trump just to get the arrogance wiped out of the Democratic party. It's comepletely on a witch hunt and been off its meds for a long time now. What the heck happened to them actually governing instead of being armchair lawyers? I mean it really is that horrible. I doubt anyone is under the illusion the republican party has much going for it. It is just that the Democratic party is even worse.
This hardly sounds believable, unless the main reason you voted for Obama and Bernie was because they weren't the establishment instead of actually believing in their platform. After Bush Sr. lost to Clinton, the Republican party's only significant platform agenda is doing what is in the best interest of the Republican party. This is one issue that has nothing to do with Trump but was instead put in place by Gingrich and put into overdrive by McConnell. The current Republican party is virtually defined by the concept of winning politically instead of actually governing. It's hard to see how anyone you doesn't already have strong conservative leaning political views could claim Democrats are the ones not governing.
I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans as recently as 2012, but after tactics such as holding up the Merrick Garland nomination anyone willing to associate with the Republican party has essential shown they are unfit for leadership. For voters who are strongly pro-gun or pro-life or anti-LGBT I can certainly see the appeal of the Republican party, as they have latched onto nearly every single issue voter platform there is. But for anyone who saw any appeal in Obama or Bernie, if you see any appeal in Trump you simply aren't paying attention.
I would agree that unions are a better way to provide general welfare than minimum wage laws, but still not as good as methods which do not interfere with market forces. This is of course debatable, but many contend (including me) that unions harm overall competitiveness of a society in an effort to provide general welfare to all citizens. Basic income could do the same, but paid for by progressive taxation instead of reducing the global competitiveness of businesses.
I don't get your argument. You think removing the minimum wage would lower wages enough that supply for those jobs would drop drastically, and then think the wages would rise significantly again without bringing back up the supply? You basically describe why wages would stabilize without acknowledging that they would.
This simply illustrates the obvious reason why minimum wage is not a good form of welfare. Universal basic income combats the same problem (workers without the economic value being able to earn a living wage) but without fighting against the supply/demand curve. It has been obvious for at least a century that market forces are insufficient to promote the general welfare of all citizens, but the answer is not to combat market forces. Just let wages fall where they may and provide for general welfare in another way.
The economic value of any individual is exactly what they would be paid without any minimum wage. That is fine. Just make sure society is providing basic means for all citizens without relying on wages. Minimum wage is a very poor way of doing that.
This has more to do with what a single awards show and its criteria for entry than stopping anyone from making money. Game of Thrones is winning plenty of awards and making HBO plenty of money even though it can never win an Academy Award. This will not be decided by what is fair, it will be decided by what the Academy Awards needs to do to stay relevant. With record low ratings the Oscars cannot just cling to current rules and hope to keep the attention of future (and current younger) generations.
Not only is that false, as someone else pointed out, but even the nugget of truth there is misleading. The US doesn't incarcerate more people per capita because of government corruption or the silencing of dissidents. It is mostly because of dumb drug laws, harsh sentencing of actual criminals (arguably also dumb), lack of effort around rehabilitation, and income inequality / segregation.
Total number of people in prison, or per capita figures, don't paint an accurate picture when comparing the US and Chinese governments. It is like comparing a poor starving person with someone on a diet. They may both be hungry but for very different reasons.
Based on the article, it sounds like they want the fossils to go "scientists and museums", or generally to whomever will.make best use of them. There is no mention of how they propose to decide who gets them, though. I'm a citizen scientist, do I get one? Apparently in order to get them I do *not* need to contribute toward the costs involved in finding and preserving them. I would also NOT need to show that I have a compelling reason to have one by putting my money where my mouth is. So what's the proposal?
There could still be a bidding process to determine which scientists get to own the specimens, but restrict those who are licensed to participate in those sales. I'm not sure how the licensing body would get the authority to do any of this, but if they did find a way to restrict fossils to only scientists and museums it wouldn't be hard to find a mechanism for distribution.
Fantasy. Rich people want to own rare items for themselves, not on display. Private digs prevent proper time for study, identification and even proper removal practices. Worse, without the context of the nearby rocks, revelant knowledge about the ecosystem is made impossible.
I doubt museums are primarily interested in these fossils for display; they want them for research purposes. If there was more collaboration then perhaps more paleontologists would be informed early enough in the dig process to gather the relevant information from the dig site. Or be involved in the dig in the first place.
There is little to no correlation between trolls trying to adjust the rating of a movie and that movie's eventual success or failure. Black Panther had the same problem to a slightly lesser extent and it was a massive hit. It is easy for troll-like behavior to make a certain opinion seem common even when they are a very small but vocal group.
If Paleontologists cannot even govern members of their own profession, what hope do they have convincing a far larger audience to stop selling and buying dinosaur bones? How many non-Paleontologists are finding and extracting dinosaur bones for private sale?
Considering one of their recommendations was to use an oven hood (no duh!), I wonder if they did everything possible to make the air quality plummet. If I roasted a turkey, let some fat drop onto the bottom of the oven, kept all the windows closed, and didn't use the oven hood, the air in home would be very unpleasant.
No method of funding institutions and projects which promote general welfare of a society is perfect, but you only point out some negatives of taxation without mentioning the negatives of free market funding.
Wealthy individuals already have significant means to influence society without the use of government. A vote is one of the few avenues those with lesser wealth have available to them. Each vote may be equal, but that doesn't make everyone's voice equal. Campaign contributions, lobbying, and the use of political connections are all avenues for the wealthy to impose societal control above and beyond their vote; and they are arguably more influential than voting.
If your beliefs on how voting works in the US were accurate, we wouldn't see widening income inequality in America. The have nots would already be voting for huge government payouts which give the bulk of economic gains to the poor, working, and middle class. Considering this is the exact opposite of what has been happening for decades, it appears your political theory has little in common with reality.
You're all missing the fact that the unfolded display is entirely different aspect ratio (4.2:3), so at 7.2" is a waaay bigger display than on the regular phones.
I don't really see anyone missing that, since when everyone is talking about the unfolded display they are comparing it to tablets which have a more similar aspect ratio. The fact remains that the 7.2" unfolded display would be a very small tablet. That doesn't make it a horrible product (mini-tablets sell) just not what I or other similar people are looking for. Hopefully in a couple more releases.
Exactly what I'm waiting for. That's a real tablet. Until it's a decent size when unfolded, it's just another gimmick. Sadly, it seems they've missed their real market on this: nobody that will shell out $2k is looking for a small 4.6" phone. Big when folded, giant when unfolded is what will sell. They blew it.
Hopefully this is just an effort for them to stay on top as far as innovative phones. I just hope they don't scrap the idea if it doesn't sell well. Get it out there, get some QA help from the few early adopters, and then the Samsung Fold 3+ is an amazing phone. [crosses fingers]
I won't be preordering a phone that expensive without seeing it in person, but I'm also intrigued. I think it will be too small as a phone and too small as a tablet, but I'm open to be proven wrong. I would have to be awfully convinced that the hinge is going to hold up to constant use for two years. As soon as that hinge gets even the tiniest bit wobbly it will probably be a very poor experience when unfolded.
Too small when unfolded. 7.2 inches isn't really a tablet and won't be much more useful than my 6.3" galaxy 8+. This phone is what I've been waiting for and that blew it. Go big or go home.
This. I'm looking forward to this form factor of phone, but it may take a couple generations before there is one I would buy. The rumored 6.7" Galaxy S10 5g is likely my next phone. As soon as there is a 6.7" folded / 10.6" unfolded phone, or something similar, sign me up. Until then I'll be fine with the S10.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be massively pissed off if someone told me to bring A, and then, when I did exactly that, told me that I was actually supposed to bring B.
That isn't what happened here; it was a misunderstanding based on lack of knowledge of the financial industry. In this context, cash does not mean banknotes or coins. It means a liquid financial account you can essentially write checks out of. Saying they need a cash deposit simply means you cannot pay with bonds, stock positions, or other non cash equivalent assets.
So what really happened here is someone told him to bring A, which he thought meant to bring B because terminology used was taken out of context.
"Content relevant to your interrest" normally include stuff you agree or disagree with, but on a particular subject.
I'm not sure how well this would actually work in practice. I may complain that some Trump supporters only view media which confirms their beliefs, but I don't want to see a bunch of Infowars articles / tweets either. I do like to read articles with well reasoned arguments I may disagree with, but that is drowned out by misinformation. I assume many/most people on the other side of the political spectrum think research coming out of universities and the "educated elite" is also misinformation.
When the problem is that different sides disagree about the foundational facts in a debate, having meaningful discussion and debate is quite difficult. Most people, myself included, don't want to be bothered by media which uses "alternative facts". And either side will generally disagree about which facts are the alternative ones.
but that requires real company leadership not just some guys who is playing by ear, and just feels vindicated from their past success.
This is a common problem I have seen when contracting for small/medium businesses starting to hit enterprise scale. The kind of risk it takes to build a company can be very dangerous when it starts significantly growing. I worked with a VP who built the company's largest business unit from nothing, but was then resistant to ever care about calculating estimated ROI or performing risk analysis for large strategic initiatives because he never did that 10 years ago and succeeded anyway. The ability to recognize that while it takes significant hard work and smart decisions to build a business, it also takes a lot of luck. That kind of risk is fine when you have little to lose, but once tens/hundreds of millions of funding comes into the company and hundreds/thousands of jobs are on the line, more discipline is required.
You don't have to remove large slabs of the language, you just have to choose not to use them. The craziness that is C++ locales, for example, need not concern you because you won't use it.
This is only true if you are either working alone or have control over the development practices of your product team. And hopefully you never move companies or acquire a company that develops differently than you do.
Otherwise every feature in your language of choice is something you may need to use if you are supporting work done by other developers who use that feature.
How does it kill the lower class? I mean I understand the loss of the middle class, but it's not like everyone is going to end up rich.
I think he meant actually dead, as in dead from hunger or from AI-driven guards shooting rioting peasants.
"If someone keeps quitting and landing new jobs, his social credit will definitely be a problem," Zhejiang official Ge Pingan said at a local forum, addressing a complaint from one company's human resources department about being unable to do anything when employees want to leave.
This is a really sick viewpoint, although in this case there isn't much cultural difference between the east and west. Plenty of business owners in the US would love to have ways to keep employees other than providing a good work experience and fair pay.
most people won't ever see a positive ROI on the principle.
I have never seen any studies showing most people do not see a positive ROI on receiving a Bachelor's degree. The most negative research I have seen suggested about a third of college graduates see no positive ROI from their degree.
Overall the ROI of a college degree has only been rising in recent decades, so the risk of not obtaining a degree has risen as well. This is likely to continue. It would be nice if that risk was not bore by individuals (like high school) but until post-secondary education is funded like secondary education college debt will continue to hamper the large percentage of graduates who see little to no value.
Tough for new parents deciding on having kids, knowing even with a college education, they may never get a job.
Those parents will get little to no comfort from anything Andreessen is saying, considering all of his arguments are really for why the upper middle class and a tiny minority of very ambitious and proactive children will be fine. No one should be worried about how well students who actively seek out education will do in the future. Until robots take 100% of our jobs, those children will mostly be just fine.
Our society's problems will be how to handle the other 90+% of our population. The ones who used to be able to coast through school, learn to read and do arithmetic, and then work blue collar jobs. They are not going to learn to be scientists from Udemy courses. Those kids are still screwed in the world Andreessen envisions.
On odd days we see stories about how civilization is going to collapse because robots will steal all the jobs. On even days we see stories about how there there won't be enough workers to support the retiring boomers.
Those two problems aren't that different. Arguably they are the same problem.
Retiring boomers are a problem because there may not be a large enough tax base to fund social security benefits from individual workers. This is made worse if less young people have jobs. Retiring boomers are also a problem because there will be a larger percentage of our population needing care workers, but that costs money. If that is automated then we still have the low worker problem, if people do it they need to be paid and we still have the funding problem.
None of these are that catastrophic of a problem, we just need to move more of the taxation burden to those who are benefiting the most from automation instead of from average citizens. Currently there is significant resistance to raising taxes on the rich and big business, but that will either break under the pressure of increased automation and globalization or we will shift further into a plutocratic / feudal society (hopefully the former).
Even though there are solutions to our problems, we still need to fight vigorously to ensure we choose solutions which are more inclusive. The default result of inaction is simply more concentration of wealth and less equality, which is the natural result of unregulated market forces.
I voted for Obama and Bernie but would definitely be voting Trump just to get the arrogance wiped out of the Democratic party. It's comepletely on a witch hunt and been off its meds for a long time now. What the heck happened to them actually governing instead of being armchair lawyers? I mean it really is that horrible. I doubt anyone is under the illusion the republican party has much going for it. It is just that the Democratic party is even worse.
This hardly sounds believable, unless the main reason you voted for Obama and Bernie was because they weren't the establishment instead of actually believing in their platform. After Bush Sr. lost to Clinton, the Republican party's only significant platform agenda is doing what is in the best interest of the Republican party. This is one issue that has nothing to do with Trump but was instead put in place by Gingrich and put into overdrive by McConnell. The current Republican party is virtually defined by the concept of winning politically instead of actually governing. It's hard to see how anyone you doesn't already have strong conservative leaning political views could claim Democrats are the ones not governing.
I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans as recently as 2012, but after tactics such as holding up the Merrick Garland nomination anyone willing to associate with the Republican party has essential shown they are unfit for leadership. For voters who are strongly pro-gun or pro-life or anti-LGBT I can certainly see the appeal of the Republican party, as they have latched onto nearly every single issue voter platform there is. But for anyone who saw any appeal in Obama or Bernie, if you see any appeal in Trump you simply aren't paying attention.
I would agree that unions are a better way to provide general welfare than minimum wage laws, but still not as good as methods which do not interfere with market forces. This is of course debatable, but many contend (including me) that unions harm overall competitiveness of a society in an effort to provide general welfare to all citizens. Basic income could do the same, but paid for by progressive taxation instead of reducing the global competitiveness of businesses.
I don't get your argument. You think removing the minimum wage would lower wages enough that supply for those jobs would drop drastically, and then think the wages would rise significantly again without bringing back up the supply? You basically describe why wages would stabilize without acknowledging that they would.
This simply illustrates the obvious reason why minimum wage is not a good form of welfare. Universal basic income combats the same problem (workers without the economic value being able to earn a living wage) but without fighting against the supply/demand curve. It has been obvious for at least a century that market forces are insufficient to promote the general welfare of all citizens, but the answer is not to combat market forces. Just let wages fall where they may and provide for general welfare in another way.
The economic value of any individual is exactly what they would be paid without any minimum wage. That is fine. Just make sure society is providing basic means for all citizens without relying on wages. Minimum wage is a very poor way of doing that.
This has more to do with what a single awards show and its criteria for entry than stopping anyone from making money. Game of Thrones is winning plenty of awards and making HBO plenty of money even though it can never win an Academy Award. This will not be decided by what is fair, it will be decided by what the Academy Awards needs to do to stay relevant. With record low ratings the Oscars cannot just cling to current rules and hope to keep the attention of future (and current younger) generations.
Not only is that false, as someone else pointed out, but even the nugget of truth there is misleading. The US doesn't incarcerate more people per capita because of government corruption or the silencing of dissidents. It is mostly because of dumb drug laws, harsh sentencing of actual criminals (arguably also dumb), lack of effort around rehabilitation, and income inequality / segregation.
Total number of people in prison, or per capita figures, don't paint an accurate picture when comparing the US and Chinese governments. It is like comparing a poor starving person with someone on a diet. They may both be hungry but for very different reasons.
Based on the article, it sounds like they want the fossils to go "scientists and museums", or generally to whomever will.make best use of them. There is no mention of how they propose to decide who gets them, though. I'm a citizen scientist, do I get one? Apparently in order to get them I do *not* need to contribute toward the costs involved in finding and preserving them. I would also NOT need to show that I have a compelling reason to have one by putting my money where my mouth is. So what's the proposal?
There could still be a bidding process to determine which scientists get to own the specimens, but restrict those who are licensed to participate in those sales. I'm not sure how the licensing body would get the authority to do any of this, but if they did find a way to restrict fossils to only scientists and museums it wouldn't be hard to find a mechanism for distribution.
Fantasy. Rich people want to own rare items for themselves, not on display. Private digs prevent proper time for study, identification and even proper removal practices. Worse, without the context of the nearby rocks, revelant knowledge about the ecosystem is made impossible.
I doubt museums are primarily interested in these fossils for display; they want them for research purposes. If there was more collaboration then perhaps more paleontologists would be informed early enough in the dig process to gather the relevant information from the dig site. Or be involved in the dig in the first place.
There is little to no correlation between trolls trying to adjust the rating of a movie and that movie's eventual success or failure. Black Panther had the same problem to a slightly lesser extent and it was a massive hit. It is easy for troll-like behavior to make a certain opinion seem common even when they are a very small but vocal group.
If Paleontologists cannot even govern members of their own profession, what hope do they have convincing a far larger audience to stop selling and buying dinosaur bones? How many non-Paleontologists are finding and extracting dinosaur bones for private sale?
Considering one of their recommendations was to use an oven hood (no duh!), I wonder if they did everything possible to make the air quality plummet. If I roasted a turkey, let some fat drop onto the bottom of the oven, kept all the windows closed, and didn't use the oven hood, the air in home would be very unpleasant.
No method of funding institutions and projects which promote general welfare of a society is perfect, but you only point out some negatives of taxation without mentioning the negatives of free market funding.
Wealthy individuals already have significant means to influence society without the use of government. A vote is one of the few avenues those with lesser wealth have available to them. Each vote may be equal, but that doesn't make everyone's voice equal. Campaign contributions, lobbying, and the use of political connections are all avenues for the wealthy to impose societal control above and beyond their vote; and they are arguably more influential than voting.
If your beliefs on how voting works in the US were accurate, we wouldn't see widening income inequality in America. The have nots would already be voting for huge government payouts which give the bulk of economic gains to the poor, working, and middle class. Considering this is the exact opposite of what has been happening for decades, it appears your political theory has little in common with reality.
You're all missing the fact that the unfolded display is entirely different aspect ratio (4.2:3), so at 7.2" is a waaay bigger display than on the regular phones.
I don't really see anyone missing that, since when everyone is talking about the unfolded display they are comparing it to tablets which have a more similar aspect ratio. The fact remains that the 7.2" unfolded display would be a very small tablet. That doesn't make it a horrible product (mini-tablets sell) just not what I or other similar people are looking for. Hopefully in a couple more releases.
Exactly what I'm waiting for. That's a real tablet. Until it's a decent size when unfolded, it's just another gimmick. Sadly, it seems they've missed their real market on this: nobody that will shell out $2k is looking for a small 4.6" phone. Big when folded, giant when unfolded is what will sell. They blew it.
Hopefully this is just an effort for them to stay on top as far as innovative phones. I just hope they don't scrap the idea if it doesn't sell well. Get it out there, get some QA help from the few early adopters, and then the Samsung Fold 3+ is an amazing phone. [crosses fingers]
I won't be preordering a phone that expensive without seeing it in person, but I'm also intrigued. I think it will be too small as a phone and too small as a tablet, but I'm open to be proven wrong. I would have to be awfully convinced that the hinge is going to hold up to constant use for two years. As soon as that hinge gets even the tiniest bit wobbly it will probably be a very poor experience when unfolded.
Too small when unfolded. 7.2 inches isn't really a tablet and won't be much more useful than my 6.3" galaxy 8+. This phone is what I've been waiting for and that blew it. Go big or go home.
This. I'm looking forward to this form factor of phone, but it may take a couple generations before there is one I would buy. The rumored 6.7" Galaxy S10 5g is likely my next phone. As soon as there is a 6.7" folded / 10.6" unfolded phone, or something similar, sign me up. Until then I'll be fine with the S10.