I am not sure what the official definition is, but I would say a company is a startup until its business model is fully validated. As soon as they have hit scale, and are growing without half of their budget going into marketing, then they are just a company. Not being profitable isn't much of a problem if the primary reason they aren't profitable is because of increased investing in their product (aka Amazon).
Also, I find it hard to call any company which has went through a large IPO a startup. Sounds a lot like a standard company at that point to me.
Until these smart watches have a few days of battery life or wireless charging from ten feet away, I'll be going without. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more diligent about charging their devices every night without fail, but I'm not one of them.
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
That is my tax dollars at work. Because now the kids of that alcoholic can still eat even though their parents are dead beats.
Right now productivity growth in the first world is less than 3%. Much less, in many places. The answer to "What happens when the future generations of robots arrive?" is "very, very little".
As far as total productivity and wealth in the first world, we don't need much growth to provide for everyone. We just need better distribution. If you spread the wealth and GDP of the US evenly you have about $300k of net worth and $57k GDP per capita (including children). That is plenty for everyone to have a high quality life. If robots really do put 50% of first world citizens out of work, there is still enough wealth for everyone without any real increase in productivity.
Figuring out how to accomplish such an increased level of wealth redistribution is a very difficult problem, perhaps even impossible, but it has nothing to do with there not being enough wealth to go around. It has more to do with human motivation, fulfillment, and greed.
Honestly the stylus is the only significant reason I see to get the Note 8 over the S8+. That is why a month ago I upgraded my Note 4 and got the S8+. Rumors were accurate so I don't regret the decision, and I saved about $400. A 0.1" larger screen was not worth the extra cost, considering I never used the stylus.
As long as your savings are invested, you shouldn't have to worry about inflation. Your investments should keep up with inflation.
While this is true under normal circumstances, if even 1970's style inflation occurs then investments will not keep up with inflation. And that was not even close to hyperinflation. I think fears of hyperinflation are unwarranted, but if it does happen then investments in mutual funds are not going to be sufficient.
Hyperinflation is mostly a boogeyman, but it does happen. And it is catastrophic. If you look at post-WW1 Germany, post-WW2 Hungary, and Zimbabwe a decade ago, prices can double every day. A million dollars of retirement funds in 1946 Hungary would have turned into the equivalent of a few hundred bucks in a month.
There isn't much difference between STEM and the medical field, except STEM workers need to take personal responsibility to grow professionally instead of being forced to by a governing body. But the result is generally the same, since in both industries you won't last long without continuing education.
It will be the same for Millenials as it is now for Gen X. Those with genuine ability will enter the highest paid portion of their career, and those who never grew professionally will be pushed out of the industry. Nothing new to see here.
Those who don't continue in IT have plenty of other options if their soft skills are developed. Those without soft skills or IT skills are the ones who come to Slashdot to complain about ageism.
The fact it is inaccurate was probably considered to obvious to mention explicitly. While those types of developers do exist, they are not the norm. But they are the norm in Hollywood, which is what Google has been trying to fix.
The Ketogenic diet advocates upwards of 90% fat intake. I'm an endurance athlete and have noticed my performance over the last 2.5 years to be much better than the previous years. According to my doctor all of my numbers are now in the high level competitive athlete range. The only change I did in my diet was remove as much carbs as possible and increased fat intake. I keep my carbs under 50g/day. I have never felt better. Your 'belief' is not founded in anything but your own opinion.
And your anecdote about your use of the Ketogenic diet is no more scientific than my poor experience using various low-carb diets in my early 20's. The only difference is what the scientific community thinks of these low carb diets (and expecially extreme ones such as the Ketogenic diet). Your diet is known to cause complications and is generally only recommended as part of therapy for conditions such as epilepsy. Regardless of how you "feel" it is not something you should keep up long term. You may not ever have adverse effects, just like some smokers live to be 100, but that doesn't make it safe. The general consensus seems to be the diet should only be used for short periods because of potential damage to the heart, kidney, and liver. Just feeling like a professional athlete does not mean your heart is healthy, and plenty of organ damage cannot be identified without opening you up (so even a positive physical won't identify all damage).
There has never been a fad diet (like Atkins or Ketogenic) which has gone through enough thorough clinical trials for an overwhelming number of doctors and nutritionists to claim it is healthier than a balanced diet. Sure they are healthier than an average American diet, which is why people are usually able to lose weight and become healthier on them (for a short time that is). But there is still no strong evidence they are healthier than a good balanced diet.
If A only produces and B is only supposed to consume while A buys nothing from B, this model goes down the drain.
No it doesn't, because B has still had its workforce freed up to do something of more value. Perhaps they are working in STEM fields creating new technologies. Perhaps they are working in construction and improving the country's infrastructure and housing stock. Improvements to an economy are not only shown in exports. Although I would agree that the US is currently not doing a good job of using its workforce to invest in the future, that isn't because of lopsided trade but instead because of a lack of long term direction from our leaders.
Corn, as we eat it anyway, is a vegetable, grain, and fruit. Certain ways we eat it, such as corn syrup, it is just a sugar. But you can make glucose syrup from potatoes and any other source of starch, corn is just a very efficient source.
The one thing that has remained constant in our understanding of a healthy diet in between all the different health fads is that vegetables are good. Whether you're doing low sugar, low fat, low calorie, low gluten, low processed, low anything... Eat vegetables.
Well, one thing that has changed over time is how starchy vegetables are treated. I grew up with a diet where corn and potatoes where my primary source of vegetables. Later I thought green leafy vegetables were the only healthy options and shunned starchy vegetables. Now that I have educated myself I feel you want all kinds of vegetables, but you shouldn't just stick to one type exclusively.
Vegetables being an important part of your diet has always held constant, but what types of vegetables you should eat has been in flux (at least in popular culture, maybe not by true nutritionists). I still cannot convince my wife that potatoes shouldn't be treated the same as white bread.
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Most people who believe this still feel a generally balanced diet is part of a healthy lifestyle. They don't really believe 10 bags of skittles is a good daily diet, but they will claim that a diet of 50% carbs can be just as healthy as one of 15% carbs. It isn't until you go to significant extremes (like the 77% in this study) where you get into trouble. I'm willing to bet those with a 77% daily fat intake would also have health problems. I'm not completely on the "a calorie is a calorie" bandwagon, but I believe they are more correct than those who target 50-100 grams of daily carbohydrates.
This study doesn't really show carbohydrates are a bad thing, it shows that an excessive amount of carbohydrates are a bad thing. The average US male adult diet is about 57.5% carbohydrates, 27.5% fat, 15% protein. To get to a 77% carbohydrate intake it would require removing 50% of the protein and fat from that diet. It isn't a big shock that this is bad for you.
Like you said, the results of high carbohydrate side of the study make sense. We shouldn't be gravitating to low fat food which pile on sugar to maintain an attractive taste. But it goes too far when it says carbohydrates are bad for you. Vegetables and fruit are both carbohydrates. Even a significant amount of grains isn't bad either unless you are cutting out most of your protein and fat, or increasing your overall calorie intake.
The interesting and non-intuitive part of the study is that people with a 25% increased fat intake are actually more healthy than those with a more average fat intake. I guess I need to put more gravy on my food.
In the past, this was the reason our system worked. Companies paid their workers, who then in turn went and bought the products. That way the system worked. This changed radically when we started developing and producing abroad where we ship money away and get goods in return. [...] Of course such a system is not sustainable. At a certain point we are no longer able to spend. That point has actually been reached about a decade ago, now it's propped up with more and more debt.
The problem is not global trade, it is distribution of wealth. Global trade nearly always increases the wealth of all nations which take part as they allow each economy to function more efficiently. The problem is the spoils of global trade are not distributed evenly throughout the economy. The division between equity and labor is becoming unsustainable and automation in the near future will likely make it far worse. I cannot imagine any solution other than a universal basic income, but that has challenges as well.
Technological advances are happening more rapidly than our culture can adjust. Life 30 years from now may be as different as our current culture is from the 1700's. We had centuries to adapt to the changes brought on by the steam engine, electricity, the internal combustion engine, and so on. Rapid advancements in robotics and AI (or advanced algorithms for the pedants out there) will not give us as much time to adapt. We need to get to a point where simply being a citizen guarantees a certain level of income regardless of your labor or personal wealth but that will be hard for many people to accept.
Who cares if she's against [the first and second amendments]? You need a supermajority to change something in the Constitution. You think anyone can get half is the Republican Party to agree to ban guns?
While I don't agree with the original premise that Hillary was against those amendments, in regards to constitutional issues the argument used by both the left and right is not that the President will push through constitutional amendments. They are worried about Supreme Court justices. A Supreme Court stacked with originalists will interpret some constitutional cases far differently than justices who believe the Constitution evolves with changes to society and culture.
If you just don't care about money why not buy a new phone every year outright? Heck you could by a Galaxy S[n] in the spring and a Note [n] in the fall and have two new phones per year.
It is all about how much you are willing to spend. I'm willing to spend $700 for a phone every other year ($900 price - $200 trade in) because I think it takes 2 years for a phone to start having glitches and after 2 years there are usually new features I am interested in. I'm not willing to pay $1200 every other year ($1800 price - $600 trade ins) which is closer to what leasing would cost me. But there is probably a yearly income I could reach which would entice me to get a new phone every year.
You're assuming that in that person's mind "not important enough to do" at that price is not synonymous with unreasonable. If you don't feel that it is possible to get $100k utility (whatever that utility may be in your mind) out of a home improvement project, that price is unreasonable regardless of whether you can afford to pay the price or not.
Correct, I am assuming that. And I would bet I'm right. Maybe Wycliffe is worth $50M but still decides to live in an area where he cannot get the electric / gas / phone / internet utilities he wants, but I doubt it. He is probably an upper middle class individual living in a working / middle class area.
That's the best way I know of to stay rich: Don't assume that everything you can afford is worth the price.
No, the best way to stay rich is to have a significant stream of income. A saving mentality helps allow middle class individuals maintain a more risk free life and a comfortable retirement, but it doesn't make them rich. I know rich is a subjective term, but at least in my mind if someone thinks a $100k home improvement project is unreasonable they are not rich. A rich person may not think it is important enough to do, but they wouldn't call the price unreasonable.
Smaller battery than the S8+ which is very disappointing. I have owned two Note phones, but finally bought an S8+ last week when Best Buy started offering $300 off. Other than the stylus, there doesn't seem to be any reason to go with the Note line of phones anymore. I have never used the stylus but bought past Notes just because they were the biggest. If the Note 8 had a half inch larger screen than the S8+ I would have paid $1500 for it, but with just an extra 0.1" it just isn't worth the price premium.
Yeah, there will be widespread looting and crime well before a UBI happens. OP will probably be murdered by an angry unemployed man.
This is probably when the most egregious privacy violations will begin in the name of public safety. The current liberal mentality which is generally against police overreach and brutality can only exist in a world where most people of means do not fear crime. If the upper middle class in their wealthy suburbs start to fear looting and violence, a police state will soon follow.
I pay about a tenth of the cost of a police officer in property taxes each year, and I have a relatively modest home in an affluent suburb. If I had to pay another $10k in property taxes to protect my children and property it would be a small price to pay compared to how quickly upper middle class wages have been going up in the past decade. There is plenty of money in the hands of the affluent to pay for protection if necessary, and the loyalty of that protection will only increase as job opportunities diminish elsewhere.
I can't use voice recognition to send a text without 3-5 attempts. And I don't have a hard accent.
It is very odd that you have such a low success rate with voice recognition. At least 2/3 of my voice texts can be sent without editing, and most of the errors have to do with proper names. Are you sure you don't have an accent? My wife mumbles pretty bad when talking fast (so bad I don't like talking with her on the phone most of the time) but even she has a pretty easy job using voice to text now. It was pretty bad a few years ago but it really is amazing how much better it has become.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure what the official definition is, but I would say a company is a startup until its business model is fully validated. As soon as they have hit scale, and are growing without half of their budget going into marketing, then they are just a company. Not being profitable isn't much of a problem if the primary reason they aren't profitable is because of increased investing in their product (aka Amazon).
Also, I find it hard to call any company which has went through a large IPO a startup. Sounds a lot like a standard company at that point to me.
Until these smart watches have a few days of battery life or wireless charging from ten feet away, I'll be going without. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more diligent about charging their devices every night without fail, but I'm not one of them.
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
That is my tax dollars at work. Because now the kids of that alcoholic can still eat even though their parents are dead beats.
Right now productivity growth in the first world is less than 3%. Much less, in many places. The answer to "What happens when the future generations of robots arrive?" is "very, very little".
As far as total productivity and wealth in the first world, we don't need much growth to provide for everyone. We just need better distribution. If you spread the wealth and GDP of the US evenly you have about $300k of net worth and $57k GDP per capita (including children). That is plenty for everyone to have a high quality life. If robots really do put 50% of first world citizens out of work, there is still enough wealth for everyone without any real increase in productivity.
Figuring out how to accomplish such an increased level of wealth redistribution is a very difficult problem, perhaps even impossible, but it has nothing to do with there not being enough wealth to go around. It has more to do with human motivation, fulfillment, and greed.
Honestly the stylus is the only significant reason I see to get the Note 8 over the S8+. That is why a month ago I upgraded my Note 4 and got the S8+. Rumors were accurate so I don't regret the decision, and I saved about $400. A 0.1" larger screen was not worth the extra cost, considering I never used the stylus.
As long as your savings are invested, you shouldn't have to worry about inflation. Your investments should keep up with inflation.
While this is true under normal circumstances, if even 1970's style inflation occurs then investments will not keep up with inflation. And that was not even close to hyperinflation. I think fears of hyperinflation are unwarranted, but if it does happen then investments in mutual funds are not going to be sufficient.
Hyperinflation is mostly a boogeyman, but it does happen. And it is catastrophic. If you look at post-WW1 Germany, post-WW2 Hungary, and Zimbabwe a decade ago, prices can double every day. A million dollars of retirement funds in 1946 Hungary would have turned into the equivalent of a few hundred bucks in a month.
There isn't much difference between STEM and the medical field, except STEM workers need to take personal responsibility to grow professionally instead of being forced to by a governing body. But the result is generally the same, since in both industries you won't last long without continuing education.
It will be the same for Millenials as it is now for Gen X. Those with genuine ability will enter the highest paid portion of their career, and those who never grew professionally will be pushed out of the industry. Nothing new to see here.
Those who don't continue in IT have plenty of other options if their soft skills are developed. Those without soft skills or IT skills are the ones who come to Slashdot to complain about ageism.
The fact it is inaccurate was probably considered to obvious to mention explicitly. While those types of developers do exist, they are not the norm. But they are the norm in Hollywood, which is what Google has been trying to fix.
The Ketogenic diet advocates upwards of 90% fat intake. I'm an endurance athlete and have noticed my performance over the last 2.5 years to be much better than the previous years. According to my doctor all of my numbers are now in the high level competitive athlete range. The only change I did in my diet was remove as much carbs as possible and increased fat intake. I keep my carbs under 50g/day. I have never felt better. Your 'belief' is not founded in anything but your own opinion.
And your anecdote about your use of the Ketogenic diet is no more scientific than my poor experience using various low-carb diets in my early 20's. The only difference is what the scientific community thinks of these low carb diets (and expecially extreme ones such as the Ketogenic diet). Your diet is known to cause complications and is generally only recommended as part of therapy for conditions such as epilepsy. Regardless of how you "feel" it is not something you should keep up long term. You may not ever have adverse effects, just like some smokers live to be 100, but that doesn't make it safe. The general consensus seems to be the diet should only be used for short periods because of potential damage to the heart, kidney, and liver. Just feeling like a professional athlete does not mean your heart is healthy, and plenty of organ damage cannot be identified without opening you up (so even a positive physical won't identify all damage).
There has never been a fad diet (like Atkins or Ketogenic) which has gone through enough thorough clinical trials for an overwhelming number of doctors and nutritionists to claim it is healthier than a balanced diet. Sure they are healthier than an average American diet, which is why people are usually able to lose weight and become healthier on them (for a short time that is). But there is still no strong evidence they are healthier than a good balanced diet.
If A only produces and B is only supposed to consume while A buys nothing from B, this model goes down the drain.
No it doesn't, because B has still had its workforce freed up to do something of more value. Perhaps they are working in STEM fields creating new technologies. Perhaps they are working in construction and improving the country's infrastructure and housing stock. Improvements to an economy are not only shown in exports. Although I would agree that the US is currently not doing a good job of using its workforce to invest in the future, that isn't because of lopsided trade but instead because of a lack of long term direction from our leaders.
Corn isn't a vegetable, it's a grain.
Corn, as we eat it anyway, is a vegetable, grain, and fruit. Certain ways we eat it, such as corn syrup, it is just a sugar. But you can make glucose syrup from potatoes and any other source of starch, corn is just a very efficient source.
The one thing that has remained constant in our understanding of a healthy diet in between all the different health fads is that vegetables are good. Whether you're doing low sugar, low fat, low calorie, low gluten, low processed, low anything... Eat vegetables.
Well, one thing that has changed over time is how starchy vegetables are treated. I grew up with a diet where corn and potatoes where my primary source of vegetables. Later I thought green leafy vegetables were the only healthy options and shunned starchy vegetables. Now that I have educated myself I feel you want all kinds of vegetables, but you shouldn't just stick to one type exclusively.
Vegetables being an important part of your diet has always held constant, but what types of vegetables you should eat has been in flux (at least in popular culture, maybe not by true nutritionists). I still cannot convince my wife that potatoes shouldn't be treated the same as white bread.
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Most people who believe this still feel a generally balanced diet is part of a healthy lifestyle. They don't really believe 10 bags of skittles is a good daily diet, but they will claim that a diet of 50% carbs can be just as healthy as one of 15% carbs. It isn't until you go to significant extremes (like the 77% in this study) where you get into trouble. I'm willing to bet those with a 77% daily fat intake would also have health problems. I'm not completely on the "a calorie is a calorie" bandwagon, but I believe they are more correct than those who target 50-100 grams of daily carbohydrates.
This study doesn't really show carbohydrates are a bad thing, it shows that an excessive amount of carbohydrates are a bad thing. The average US male adult diet is about 57.5% carbohydrates, 27.5% fat, 15% protein. To get to a 77% carbohydrate intake it would require removing 50% of the protein and fat from that diet. It isn't a big shock that this is bad for you.
Like you said, the results of high carbohydrate side of the study make sense. We shouldn't be gravitating to low fat food which pile on sugar to maintain an attractive taste. But it goes too far when it says carbohydrates are bad for you. Vegetables and fruit are both carbohydrates. Even a significant amount of grains isn't bad either unless you are cutting out most of your protein and fat, or increasing your overall calorie intake.
The interesting and non-intuitive part of the study is that people with a 25% increased fat intake are actually more healthy than those with a more average fat intake. I guess I need to put more gravy on my food.
In the past, this was the reason our system worked. Companies paid their workers, who then in turn went and bought the products. That way the system worked. This changed radically when we started developing and producing abroad where we ship money away and get goods in return. [...] Of course such a system is not sustainable. At a certain point we are no longer able to spend. That point has actually been reached about a decade ago, now it's propped up with more and more debt.
The problem is not global trade, it is distribution of wealth. Global trade nearly always increases the wealth of all nations which take part as they allow each economy to function more efficiently. The problem is the spoils of global trade are not distributed evenly throughout the economy. The division between equity and labor is becoming unsustainable and automation in the near future will likely make it far worse. I cannot imagine any solution other than a universal basic income, but that has challenges as well.
Technological advances are happening more rapidly than our culture can adjust. Life 30 years from now may be as different as our current culture is from the 1700's. We had centuries to adapt to the changes brought on by the steam engine, electricity, the internal combustion engine, and so on. Rapid advancements in robotics and AI (or advanced algorithms for the pedants out there) will not give us as much time to adapt. We need to get to a point where simply being a citizen guarantees a certain level of income regardless of your labor or personal wealth but that will be hard for many people to accept.
Who cares if she's against [the first and second amendments]? You need a supermajority to change something in the Constitution. You think anyone can get half is the Republican Party to agree to ban guns?
While I don't agree with the original premise that Hillary was against those amendments, in regards to constitutional issues the argument used by both the left and right is not that the President will push through constitutional amendments. They are worried about Supreme Court justices. A Supreme Court stacked with originalists will interpret some constitutional cases far differently than justices who believe the Constitution evolves with changes to society and culture.
If you just don't care about money why not buy a new phone every year outright? Heck you could by a Galaxy S[n] in the spring and a Note [n] in the fall and have two new phones per year.
It is all about how much you are willing to spend. I'm willing to spend $700 for a phone every other year ($900 price - $200 trade in) because I think it takes 2 years for a phone to start having glitches and after 2 years there are usually new features I am interested in. I'm not willing to pay $1200 every other year ($1800 price - $600 trade ins) which is closer to what leasing would cost me. But there is probably a yearly income I could reach which would entice me to get a new phone every year.
You're assuming that in that person's mind "not important enough to do" at that price is not synonymous with unreasonable. If you don't feel that it is possible to get $100k utility (whatever that utility may be in your mind) out of a home improvement project, that price is unreasonable regardless of whether you can afford to pay the price or not.
Correct, I am assuming that. And I would bet I'm right. Maybe Wycliffe is worth $50M but still decides to live in an area where he cannot get the electric / gas / phone / internet utilities he wants, but I doubt it. He is probably an upper middle class individual living in a working / middle class area.
That's the best way I know of to stay rich: Don't assume that everything you can afford is worth the price.
No, the best way to stay rich is to have a significant stream of income. A saving mentality helps allow middle class individuals maintain a more risk free life and a comfortable retirement, but it doesn't make them rich. I know rich is a subjective term, but at least in my mind if someone thinks a $100k home improvement project is unreasonable they are not rich. A rich person may not think it is important enough to do, but they wouldn't call the price unreasonable.
Smaller battery than the S8+ which is very disappointing. I have owned two Note phones, but finally bought an S8+ last week when Best Buy started offering $300 off. Other than the stylus, there doesn't seem to be any reason to go with the Note line of phones anymore. I have never used the stylus but bought past Notes just because they were the biggest. If the Note 8 had a half inch larger screen than the S8+ I would have paid $1500 for it, but with just an extra 0.1" it just isn't worth the price premium.
Yeah, there will be widespread looting and crime well before a UBI happens. OP will probably be murdered by an angry unemployed man.
This is probably when the most egregious privacy violations will begin in the name of public safety. The current liberal mentality which is generally against police overreach and brutality can only exist in a world where most people of means do not fear crime. If the upper middle class in their wealthy suburbs start to fear looting and violence, a police state will soon follow.
I pay about a tenth of the cost of a police officer in property taxes each year, and I have a relatively modest home in an affluent suburb. If I had to pay another $10k in property taxes to protect my children and property it would be a small price to pay compared to how quickly upper middle class wages have been going up in the past decade. There is plenty of money in the hands of the affluent to pay for protection if necessary, and the loyalty of that protection will only increase as job opportunities diminish elsewhere.
What works for some species will not work for others. Many fish are migratory, which makes them much different than large territorial African animals.
I can't use voice recognition to send a text without 3-5 attempts. And I don't have a hard accent.
It is very odd that you have such a low success rate with voice recognition. At least 2/3 of my voice texts can be sent without editing, and most of the errors have to do with proper names. Are you sure you don't have an accent? My wife mumbles pretty bad when talking fast (so bad I don't like talking with her on the phone most of the time) but even she has a pretty easy job using voice to text now. It was pretty bad a few years ago but it really is amazing how much better it has become.
You do understand the oceans are all connected right?