Of course your service sucks, why else would they be able to charge less than the high end carriers?
My take is that it could be good for high end consumers and bad for low budget consumers. Right now TMobile and Sprint are the budget options, with Verizon and AT&T providing more high end service for those who can pay more. This merger will likely allow the new company to compete on the high end with Verizon and AT&T. Even their own website talks of rolling out first class 5g service capabilities.
This increased competition could improve high end service, but potentially at the cost of two good budget carriers. Consumers know Sprint isn't as good as Verizon, but they still want to save $30 per month so they choose the budget option. I did too when I was younger.
I didn't, I gave the full equation, mv=pq. If you don't understand it, you should go look it up right now.
His point is that mv=pq is a very simplified equation which makes numerous false assumptions. It is good for a ECON 101 class to explain the basics, but it doesn't cover the entirety of what affects the CPI. Some basic problems with the equation include:
M = Money Supply -> This is a very complex topic as there are many forms of money supply with very different characteristics, such as liquidity. This is one way wages enter into inflation figures, because more liquid forms of money supply in the hands of people who spend most of their money on goods and services (such as minimum wage workers) have a higher effect on inflation.
V = Velocity -> In this equation V is not well defined. I'm not going to write a paper about it on Slashdot, but you can read this for a little more info.
P = Price of Goods and Services -> This equation also doesn't take into account how inflation can hit different types of goods and services very differently. The type of Money Supply has a strong effect on this.
I was going to type more but have a meeting to get to. I'm not saying that MV=PQ is a meaningless equation, it just doesn't encompass all economic theory on inflationary pressures. Think of it as F=MA before Einstein and quantum mechanics.
The problem is when 20% of the population still has to work long hours while the other 80% have nothing to do. Currently we distribute wealth roughly based on the amount of work you do (or capital you control that does the work for you). That is obviously not going to work very well when only 20% of the population is working and only 1% controls the capital.
I don't agree it is obvious that what you describe wouldn't work. You are essentially describing a society where 1% are wealthy, 20% are synonymous with our current upper middle class, and 80% are working class / poor. That isn't much different than today. The only significant difference is that the 80% wouldn't have jobs at all, but would instead be part of more substantial safety net programs. Or more likely most would also be working in the part time gig economy for supplemental income.
I am currently part of the upper middle class, making over 4 times the median household income in the US. If I had the option for my wife and I to stop working but have our income cut by 75%, we would both choose to keep working. I doubt I am alone in this. In fact I would bet this is the majority opinion.
If the 20% of working adults were making a median household income of $200k, and the 80% of unemployed / underemployed adults had a median household income of $50k, there would likely be plenty of incentive for the 20% of economically useful adults to keep working.
The researchers found that the evening people were more likely than the early risers to have poor sleep quality and unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, sedentary lifestyles and eating late at night, Kim said. The night owls also tended to be younger, but were more likely to have high levels of body fat and triglycerides, or fats in their blood, than early risers. (Having high levels of fat is usually associated with older age.)
I wonder if any of these factors could attribute to a higher mortality rate? This study simply states that night owls have a higher rate of unhealthy lifestyle choices.
I would be more interested in the mortality rates of night owls who do not exhibit these behaviors. But then again there were only 95 night owls in this study, so I doubt you would be able to determine that from such a small sample size.
I am pretty sure not a single person voted based on something they saw on Facebook on any other social media.
That is the funniest thing I have read in weeks. You think organizations pay billions of dollars in major elections because advertising doesn't work? I personally would be surprised if less than half of people made their decision based on something more meaningful than social media advertising.
How did they do when asked to name a famous man leader in tech?
The article does say that 57% were able to name a male leader, with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg being the most common.
The interesting about that list though is that everyone was a founder. None of these men were appointed to their positions; they created their positions. I can name a few female tech leaders, but all of them were appointed to their positions. It would be interesting to find out how many people knew Marissa Mayer and compare that to how many people know Satya Nadella. Or compare how many people know Sheryl Sandberg (COO at Facebook for 10 years) as compared to Kevin Turner (COO of Microsoft for 11 years).
I would be surprised if Satya Nadella and Kevin Turner have better name recognition than Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg among the public.
It seems this perception is similar to salary increases early in your career compared to later.
You could feel each improvement in a big way when going from a 386 to a 486, like when going from $40k to $50k early in life. Now you might not feel a bit improvement from a Samsung S6 to a S8, just like an $180k salary doesn't fell much different than $170k.
Improvements are still happening, but so many things have effectively gotten good enough that you don't notice advancements anymore. This may change in the next decade or so when voice, image, and language processing reaches and likely surpasses human levels.
I also will say that in the video I could see the pedestrian while still a way out where the car should have started braking and it could have avoided killing her. [...] If the driver were paying a lot more attention to the road than the phone then this also could have been prevented.
I first see the white of her shoes at the 3 second mark. She is hit at around the 4.5 second mark. Since mean human reaction time is 1.5 seconds, you would have had no ability to avoid this pedestrian.
That driver shouldn't have been texting, but he was 0% at fault. There is no way he could have avoided her; human biology is literally incapable of reacting that fast. At best he could have put himself in danger by jerking the wheel and acting erratically.
I detected movement 3, maybe 4 seconds before impact.
No you didn't. You can look at the time on the video in the article, and her white shoes were visible at the 3 second mark. She was hit at about the 4.5 second mark. That is 1.5 seconds to react from when you first she a faint white blur that may be something, and about 1 second from when you can actually tell it is a person on the road and not some bag flying in the wind.
Mean reaction time for a human driver is 1.5 seconds. That means it takes 1.5 seconds from when you see a pedestrian to when you start to press the break and/or begin to swerve the car. Obviously that is the mean, meaning you could be a bit quicker, but police should never fault anyone for not reacting withing a couple seconds.
That woman would have been dead in nearly 100% of cases with a human driver. The biggest difference is many human drivers may have swerved or acted erratically and caused more harm to the driver as well. I agree with others here that a LIDAR or even night vision cameras could and probably should have saved her life, but no human would have done better.
Evaluating doctors based on patient outcome for different patients is almost certainly not going to work well unless you can control for an enormous number of factors. Doctor evaluations should be based on patients getting a diagnosis from multiple doctors and then comparing those diagnosis and eventual outcomes. It wouldn't be rocket science, but it would incur the cost of multiple doctors providing care to the same patient.
So let's see, he made some money off of stock options and you want to put him to death in a very painful barbaric manner. Does that about cover it?
I'm not saying I agree with stoning him, but don't make it sound like what he did is a victimless crime. He sold assets he knew were overvalued because the public was not yet aware of the breaches. That is not a victimless crime. After the news went public, the people he misled during the sale lost about $340k (although it has since recovered to the point where they would be down $110k today).
I don't think someone should be killed for effectively stealing over $300k, but it isn't something to be dismissed either.
You know of one of those $200k+ jobs in the Chicago area? I can check all of those boxes off. I've been developing for 15+ years, network admin for 5 years before that, build my own computers, started grad classes for MSCS. I can help a junior developer solve a code issue and then turn around and discuss trending technologies with managers and execs. I get paid ok now but that's a large jump in salary, closer to an exec salary imo.
Execs at companies I have worked for make closer to $500k (and 10x that for CEOs), although their base pay is closer to $200k much of the time. Even those $200k+ jobs I mentioned tend to be closer to $150k-175k in base salary and then 20%-40% bonus/stock. I'm not going to link directly to job openings on Slashdot, but I was looking into a job at William Blair that is still open right now I think. There are two others in the suburbs I am doing interviews for right now but honestly they will probably cap out at closer to $190k in total comp. Both are jobs that are around 50% managing / 50% development, but then again those are the jobs that pay these high of rates. It is much harder to come across jobs for IT with no management component that pay these kinds of salaries. You could find a Principal Architect job at a consulting firm that pays over $200k but there will probably be a large travel component.
If you are honestly looking, find a recruiter focusing in your industry / technology stack and they will be very valuable. If you are really qualified for those $200k+ jobs they will move mountains for you because their commission will be considerable. I have also found that recruiters give you more attention the second time you work with them because they know how easy you were to place last time and know you won't flake out during the interview / offer process.
I don't want to make it sound like it is easy for any developer to make this kind of money. It takes soft skills which are nearly as good as your technical skills to get past the $125k-$150k hump (at least at Midwest rates). But that is the same as in most industries. Doctors and lawyers and investment bankers without strong soft skills tend not to advance to ridiculous pay levels either.
What is in extremely high demand is programmers with 20 years of experience in a technology that has been around for 5, no older than 19 and working for 20k a year.
On top of that, demand for programmers with 10+ years of experience, with 3+ years of experience in some technology that has been around for 5, and the ability to communicate with developers, users, department VPs, and C-level execs, is incredibly high right now. High enough to push total compensation over $200k even in Midwest markets. When companies say they want more programmers, they tend to either want the low paid code monkeys you mention, or the senior devs / architects I mentioned. The demand for anyone in between is where it can be lacking (depending on market).
I don't know what to think because the article doesn't even describe what enforcement options are open to Germany in this case. Of course Germany can claim whatever jurisdiction they want. They could claim copyright protection on Jupiter's moons for all I care. The only thing that matters is what enforcement options the US government provides Germany based on our trade agreements and other arrangements.
The article seems to say that there isn't anything Germany can do other than pressure the US government to do something, so if that is true I could hardly care less about this ruling. China and Russia and Europe (and wherever) can make whatever crazy rules they want as long as the US government doesn't allow US companies and citizens to be restricted by them while operating outside of those countries.
The NRA is shitty org, up there with the tobacco peddlers. But America's problem is less about gun ownership and more about our twisted gun worship. We are obsessed with guns, for some reason we have this idea that our Constitution wants us to have them to over throw the government.
I believe you have it backwards when you imply that the NRA exists because of gun worship. It's more accurate to say gun worship exists because of the NRA. There is plenty of research on the forming of the NRA and their later hijacking of the second amendment, but this one is among the more thorough accounts.
except these same people claiming violent video games do not create violence go around and advocate against videos and images that suggest rape, simulated rape, and snuff. You cannot have it both ways.
Generally people who are against specifically rape and snuff in video games are the same ones who are against violence.
There are those who oppose the objectification of women in video games, and that is very different than advocating against either violence or rape in video games. In this case they aren't worried about how it affects the actions of video game players but instead the inclusiveness of the video game industry. I'm not saying I agree with that viewpoint, but it is a very different argument.
The meeting shouldn't be any more interesting than the Take Two Interactive and the Entertainment Software Association showing the studies that violent video games do not increase violence, and then everyone else sticking their thumbs up their asses. Then again I doubt it will go that way.
But those same people who know their own job requirements probably have no idea what many other types of jobs entail, and I suspect they're likely to over-simplify them. As such, they're "good candidates for AI to replace."
Or, conversely, they may not be as personally invested and can therefore form a more objective opinion about other people's jobs.
One aspect of AI automation that most people tend to ignore is the disruption that even automating 20% of your job can have on the industry. Especially if it happens quickly. The law industry is one example where the job prospects for most graduates is hurt significantly just because one aspect of the job (research and discovery) is increasingly handled by advanced algorithms.
The other aspect which is ignored is the impact of other displaced workers on industries which are not as disrupted. Perhaps AI cannot do plumbing, but those millions of unemployed truck drivers sure could. The shrinking number of jobs which are insulated from AI disruption will instead see increased competition from those displaced human workers.
Literally anyone who thinks their job will not be impacted by improving AI technology is deluding themselves. It will most likely follow the general trend of the last 50 years, where a small percentage of people see dramatic gains in income / wealth (not just the top 1%, but my guess is closer to 5-10%) and the rest experience a much shakier career than the middle/working class of the last century.
I welcome them to come to Miami and try their hippy dippy anti-Trump shit here. Miami is a rough town and we're proud of it. And yes, every single Cuban I know is an avid Trump supporter. Which is funny since the SV left thinks Hispanics are against Trump.
Miami-Dade county voted for Clinton by 29 points over Trump, so it appears leftist anti-Trump individuals would fit in with a large subset (and likely majority) of Miami's population.
I would be curious how countries that don't charge for ambulances prevent people from using them for non-emergencies.
Not curious enough for a Google search though I guess. Apparently you can be fined and even jailed in the UK for abusing the 999 emergency line. The only examples of actual jail time I found were for egregious offenders, such as calling the number thousands of times.
if you're already penniless then you basically get your medical care for free. [...] So those "freeloaders" everyone are worried about are already getting free health care and if you need a major surgery you basically have to either be rich, have good health insurance (and be healthy enough to keep your job), or file bankruptcy to get it.
You will get stabilized for free, but you most likely won't get elective surgery without the ability to pay for it. So this can be helpful while having a heart attack, but any treatment to make a later episode less likely will cost you. The U.S. does not simply give out free healthcare to anyone who cannot afford it.
ROI with subsidization isn't really ROI. Be generous with your figures.
Which form of energy is not subsidized by the government? If you look at fossil fuels and renewal energy, fossil fuels produce about 4 times more energy but enjoy 7 times more subsidies. It takes a lot of government money to keep coal and oil prices so low, almost twice as much money per unit of energy produced than is spent making renewable energy cheaper.
False equivalence - the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to travel at any speed you wish.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously. 18 USC 926(a) does give this anonymity from the federal government, but that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course your service sucks, why else would they be able to charge less than the high end carriers?
My take is that it could be good for high end consumers and bad for low budget consumers. Right now TMobile and Sprint are the budget options, with Verizon and AT&T providing more high end service for those who can pay more. This merger will likely allow the new company to compete on the high end with Verizon and AT&T. Even their own website talks of rolling out first class 5g service capabilities.
This increased competition could improve high end service, but potentially at the cost of two good budget carriers. Consumers know Sprint isn't as good as Verizon, but they still want to save $30 per month so they choose the budget option. I did too when I was younger.
You are oversimplifying a bit:
I didn't, I gave the full equation, mv=pq. If you don't understand it, you should go look it up right now.
His point is that mv=pq is a very simplified equation which makes numerous false assumptions. It is good for a ECON 101 class to explain the basics, but it doesn't cover the entirety of what affects the CPI. Some basic problems with the equation include:
M = Money Supply -> This is a very complex topic as there are many forms of money supply with very different characteristics, such as liquidity. This is one way wages enter into inflation figures, because more liquid forms of money supply in the hands of people who spend most of their money on goods and services (such as minimum wage workers) have a higher effect on inflation.
V = Velocity -> In this equation V is not well defined. I'm not going to write a paper about it on Slashdot, but you can read this for a little more info.
P = Price of Goods and Services -> This equation also doesn't take into account how inflation can hit different types of goods and services very differently. The type of Money Supply has a strong effect on this.
I was going to type more but have a meeting to get to. I'm not saying that MV=PQ is a meaningless equation, it just doesn't encompass all economic theory on inflationary pressures. Think of it as F=MA before Einstein and quantum mechanics.
The problem is when 20% of the population still has to work long hours while the other 80% have nothing to do. Currently we distribute wealth roughly based on the amount of work you do (or capital you control that does the work for you). That is obviously not going to work very well when only 20% of the population is working and only 1% controls the capital.
I don't agree it is obvious that what you describe wouldn't work. You are essentially describing a society where 1% are wealthy, 20% are synonymous with our current upper middle class, and 80% are working class / poor. That isn't much different than today. The only significant difference is that the 80% wouldn't have jobs at all, but would instead be part of more substantial safety net programs. Or more likely most would also be working in the part time gig economy for supplemental income.
I am currently part of the upper middle class, making over 4 times the median household income in the US. If I had the option for my wife and I to stop working but have our income cut by 75%, we would both choose to keep working. I doubt I am alone in this. In fact I would bet this is the majority opinion.
If the 20% of working adults were making a median household income of $200k, and the 80% of unemployed / underemployed adults had a median household income of $50k, there would likely be plenty of incentive for the 20% of economically useful adults to keep working.
The researchers found that the evening people were more likely than the early risers to have poor sleep quality and unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, sedentary lifestyles and eating late at night, Kim said. The night owls also tended to be younger, but were more likely to have high levels of body fat and triglycerides, or fats in their blood, than early risers. (Having high levels of fat is usually associated with older age.)
I wonder if any of these factors could attribute to a higher mortality rate? This study simply states that night owls have a higher rate of unhealthy lifestyle choices.
I would be more interested in the mortality rates of night owls who do not exhibit these behaviors. But then again there were only 95 night owls in this study, so I doubt you would be able to determine that from such a small sample size.
Is he also going to stop using Google and Bing and any other search engine which isn't funded with a paid subscription?
My company's senior executives just use the phrase "Strategic Objective" so it can probably cover whatever they want it to.
I am pretty sure not a single person voted based on something they saw on Facebook on any other social media.
That is the funniest thing I have read in weeks. You think organizations pay billions of dollars in major elections because advertising doesn't work? I personally would be surprised if less than half of people made their decision based on something more meaningful than social media advertising.
How did they do when asked to name a famous man leader in tech?
The article does say that 57% were able to name a male leader, with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg being the most common.
The interesting about that list though is that everyone was a founder. None of these men were appointed to their positions; they created their positions. I can name a few female tech leaders, but all of them were appointed to their positions. It would be interesting to find out how many people knew Marissa Mayer and compare that to how many people know Satya Nadella. Or compare how many people know Sheryl Sandberg (COO at Facebook for 10 years) as compared to Kevin Turner (COO of Microsoft for 11 years).
I would be surprised if Satya Nadella and Kevin Turner have better name recognition than Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg among the public.
It seems this perception is similar to salary increases early in your career compared to later.
You could feel each improvement in a big way when going from a 386 to a 486, like when going from $40k to $50k early in life.
Now you might not feel a bit improvement from a Samsung S6 to a S8, just like an $180k salary doesn't fell much different than $170k.
Improvements are still happening, but so many things have effectively gotten good enough that you don't notice advancements anymore. This may change in the next decade or so when voice, image, and language processing reaches and likely surpasses human levels.
I also will say that in the video I could see the pedestrian while still a way out where the car should have started braking and it could have avoided killing her. [...] If the driver were paying a lot more attention to the road than the phone then this also could have been prevented.
I first see the white of her shoes at the 3 second mark. She is hit at around the 4.5 second mark. Since mean human reaction time is 1.5 seconds, you would have had no ability to avoid this pedestrian.
That driver shouldn't have been texting, but he was 0% at fault. There is no way he could have avoided her; human biology is literally incapable of reacting that fast. At best he could have put himself in danger by jerking the wheel and acting erratically.
I detected movement 3, maybe 4 seconds before impact.
No you didn't. You can look at the time on the video in the article, and her white shoes were visible at the 3 second mark. She was hit at about the 4.5 second mark. That is 1.5 seconds to react from when you first she a faint white blur that may be something, and about 1 second from when you can actually tell it is a person on the road and not some bag flying in the wind.
Mean reaction time for a human driver is 1.5 seconds. That means it takes 1.5 seconds from when you see a pedestrian to when you start to press the break and/or begin to swerve the car. Obviously that is the mean, meaning you could be a bit quicker, but police should never fault anyone for not reacting withing a couple seconds.
That woman would have been dead in nearly 100% of cases with a human driver. The biggest difference is many human drivers may have swerved or acted erratically and caused more harm to the driver as well. I agree with others here that a LIDAR or even night vision cameras could and probably should have saved her life, but no human would have done better.
Evaluating doctors based on patient outcome for different patients is almost certainly not going to work well unless you can control for an enormous number of factors. Doctor evaluations should be based on patients getting a diagnosis from multiple doctors and then comparing those diagnosis and eventual outcomes. It wouldn't be rocket science, but it would incur the cost of multiple doctors providing care to the same patient.
So let's see, he made some money off of stock options and you want to put him to death in a very painful barbaric manner. Does that about cover it?
I'm not saying I agree with stoning him, but don't make it sound like what he did is a victimless crime. He sold assets he knew were overvalued because the public was not yet aware of the breaches. That is not a victimless crime. After the news went public, the people he misled during the sale lost about $340k (although it has since recovered to the point where they would be down $110k today).
I don't think someone should be killed for effectively stealing over $300k, but it isn't something to be dismissed either.
You know of one of those $200k+ jobs in the Chicago area? I can check all of those boxes off. I've been developing for 15+ years, network admin for 5 years before that, build my own computers, started grad classes for MSCS. I can help a junior developer solve a code issue and then turn around and discuss trending technologies with managers and execs. I get paid ok now but that's a large jump in salary, closer to an exec salary imo.
Execs at companies I have worked for make closer to $500k (and 10x that for CEOs), although their base pay is closer to $200k much of the time. Even those $200k+ jobs I mentioned tend to be closer to $150k-175k in base salary and then 20%-40% bonus/stock. I'm not going to link directly to job openings on Slashdot, but I was looking into a job at William Blair that is still open right now I think. There are two others in the suburbs I am doing interviews for right now but honestly they will probably cap out at closer to $190k in total comp. Both are jobs that are around 50% managing / 50% development, but then again those are the jobs that pay these high of rates. It is much harder to come across jobs for IT with no management component that pay these kinds of salaries. You could find a Principal Architect job at a consulting firm that pays over $200k but there will probably be a large travel component.
If you are honestly looking, find a recruiter focusing in your industry / technology stack and they will be very valuable. If you are really qualified for those $200k+ jobs they will move mountains for you because their commission will be considerable. I have also found that recruiters give you more attention the second time you work with them because they know how easy you were to place last time and know you won't flake out during the interview / offer process.
I don't want to make it sound like it is easy for any developer to make this kind of money. It takes soft skills which are nearly as good as your technical skills to get past the $125k-$150k hump (at least at Midwest rates). But that is the same as in most industries. Doctors and lawyers and investment bankers without strong soft skills tend not to advance to ridiculous pay levels either.
What is in extremely high demand is programmers with 20 years of experience in a technology that has been around for 5, no older than 19 and working for 20k a year.
On top of that, demand for programmers with 10+ years of experience, with 3+ years of experience in some technology that has been around for 5, and the ability to communicate with developers, users, department VPs, and C-level execs, is incredibly high right now. High enough to push total compensation over $200k even in Midwest markets. When companies say they want more programmers, they tend to either want the low paid code monkeys you mention, or the senior devs / architects I mentioned. The demand for anyone in between is where it can be lacking (depending on market).
I don't know what to think because the article doesn't even describe what enforcement options are open to Germany in this case. Of course Germany can claim whatever jurisdiction they want. They could claim copyright protection on Jupiter's moons for all I care. The only thing that matters is what enforcement options the US government provides Germany based on our trade agreements and other arrangements.
The article seems to say that there isn't anything Germany can do other than pressure the US government to do something, so if that is true I could hardly care less about this ruling. China and Russia and Europe (and wherever) can make whatever crazy rules they want as long as the US government doesn't allow US companies and citizens to be restricted by them while operating outside of those countries.
The NRA is shitty org, up there with the tobacco peddlers. But America's problem is less about gun ownership and more about our twisted gun worship. We are obsessed with guns, for some reason we have this idea that our Constitution wants us to have them to over throw the government.
I believe you have it backwards when you imply that the NRA exists because of gun worship. It's more accurate to say gun worship exists because of the NRA. There is plenty of research on the forming of the NRA and their later hijacking of the second amendment, but this one is among the more thorough accounts.
except these same people claiming violent video games do not create violence go around and advocate against videos and images that suggest rape, simulated rape, and snuff. You cannot have it both ways.
Generally people who are against specifically rape and snuff in video games are the same ones who are against violence.
There are those who oppose the objectification of women in video games, and that is very different than advocating against either violence or rape in video games. In this case they aren't worried about how it affects the actions of video game players but instead the inclusiveness of the video game industry. I'm not saying I agree with that viewpoint, but it is a very different argument.
The meeting shouldn't be any more interesting than the Take Two Interactive and the Entertainment Software Association showing the studies that violent video games do not increase violence, and then everyone else sticking their thumbs up their asses. Then again I doubt it will go that way.
But those same people who know their own job requirements probably have no idea what many other types of jobs entail, and I suspect they're likely to over-simplify them. As such, they're "good candidates for AI to replace."
Or, conversely, they may not be as personally invested and can therefore form a more objective opinion about other people's jobs.
One aspect of AI automation that most people tend to ignore is the disruption that even automating 20% of your job can have on the industry. Especially if it happens quickly. The law industry is one example where the job prospects for most graduates is hurt significantly just because one aspect of the job (research and discovery) is increasingly handled by advanced algorithms.
The other aspect which is ignored is the impact of other displaced workers on industries which are not as disrupted. Perhaps AI cannot do plumbing, but those millions of unemployed truck drivers sure could. The shrinking number of jobs which are insulated from AI disruption will instead see increased competition from those displaced human workers.
Literally anyone who thinks their job will not be impacted by improving AI technology is deluding themselves. It will most likely follow the general trend of the last 50 years, where a small percentage of people see dramatic gains in income / wealth (not just the top 1%, but my guess is closer to 5-10%) and the rest experience a much shakier career than the middle/working class of the last century.
I welcome them to come to Miami and try their hippy dippy anti-Trump shit here. Miami is a rough town and we're proud of it. And yes, every single Cuban I know is an avid Trump supporter. Which is funny since the SV left thinks Hispanics are against Trump.
Miami-Dade county voted for Clinton by 29 points over Trump, so it appears leftist anti-Trump individuals would fit in with a large subset (and likely majority) of Miami's population.
I would be curious how countries that don't charge for ambulances prevent people from using them for non-emergencies.
Not curious enough for a Google search though I guess. Apparently you can be fined and even jailed in the UK for abusing the 999 emergency line. The only examples of actual jail time I found were for egregious offenders, such as calling the number thousands of times.
if you're already penniless then you basically get your medical care for free. [...] So those "freeloaders" everyone are worried about are already getting free health care and if you need a major surgery you basically have to either be rich, have good health insurance (and be healthy enough to keep your job), or file bankruptcy to get it.
You will get stabilized for free, but you most likely won't get elective surgery without the ability to pay for it. So this can be helpful while having a heart attack, but any treatment to make a later episode less likely will cost you. The U.S. does not simply give out free healthcare to anyone who cannot afford it.
ROI with subsidization isn't really ROI. Be generous with your figures.
Which form of energy is not subsidized by the government? If you look at fossil fuels and renewal energy, fossil fuels produce about 4 times more energy but enjoy 7 times more subsidies. It takes a lot of government money to keep coal and oil prices so low, almost twice as much money per unit of energy produced than is spent making renewable energy cheaper.
Subsidy comparison
Energy Production comparison
False equivalence - the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to travel at any speed you wish.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously. 18 USC 926(a) does give this anonymity from the federal government, but that is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I really cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.