Also, $15 extra a month for one channel? Ehh... no. Those are "add-on" prices only for someone used to cable's exorbitant $100 a month plus fees. Maybe when I don't have to think about my budget quite as much... Too bad, as I've heard good things about Westworld.
It should be noted that based on HBO's operating profit, HBO would not be profitable if they charged $10 per month (maybe marginally profitable since more people would probably sign up). I guess an argument could be made that they would still make a hefty profit at $12.99 per month, but you are really quibbling over a couple dollars there. I bet most people who complain about paying $15 per month would still be complaining if it was $12.99 per month.
It takes a significant amount of money to produce shows at HBO's level of quality. For me it's not much different than paying $5 to rent a movie considering it is movie quality programming. I watch less than a quarter of their original programming but it is still well worth it.
Mitt Romney got hurt in the 2008 Republican Primary for his 'Romneycare'. Romney was criticized as a liberal from Massachusetts. Some other plan was proposed in the early Clinton years as a distraction from Hillary's health care plan. Hell, W was criticised heavily for Medicare Part D.
That is exactly why both Romneycare and Obamacare are such good examples of a plans worthy of bipartisan support. If conservatives were thrilled about either Romneycare or Obamacare, it would mean the liberals would be furious. For the Republicans to mostly dislike Romneycare, but still be willing to put Romney on their Presidential ticket, shows it was a great compromise. For Medicare part D to bring heavy criticism to Bush, but for his base to still turn out enough for him to win reelection, again shows it was a good compromise.
Both sides don't have to be thrilled for a bill to be worthy of bipartisan support.
I realize it's easy to get lost in the MSM rhetoric where both sides are progressives, but that is _STILL_ the issue.
We don't even have a single mainstream progressive party in this country. We have a far right and a moderate party. Even Bernie Sanders is considered far left in the USA. Travel a bit outside this country, or read a non-partisan book every once in a while, and you will see how drastically conservative American politics are.
If your only criteria for being bipartisan is that the plan conforms to both conservative and liberal ideals, then this wouldn't a problem. But when Obama basically copied previous conservative proposals in order to reach a bipartisan deal, he met with resistance just because it was proposed by a Democrat.
As long as liberals think Universal Basic Income is a good idea, they are going to need strong super majorities to get it through the legislative process because the other side will block literally anything that even smells liberal in origin.
find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children
Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?
This is one of many examples when you have to look at the statistics and do a best effort to determine causality. At the most basic level, do child rape cases go up or down after the introduction of child sex robots? Of course it is more complicated than that, since you would need to attempt to adjust for increased / decreased levels of policing, increased / decreased incarceration levels, etc.
Considering I doubt anyone could honestly make a strong evidence based case for the banning or allowing of these sex dolls, letting them go on the market for five years and seeing what happens seems to be the best approach. In the US over 10% of all people have been sexually abused at some point, so the problem is too great to say the status quo is fine and we shouldn't explore methods to reduce this number.
I have rarely met an engineer who has put in those hours who has "gotten ahead". In most small businesses, IT is a dead-end and there is rarely any sort of management track for an engineer. You're putting in those hours to just tread water.
Like most aspects of managing your career, you need to have a clear understanding of why you are putting in those extra hours. Is it because you see a rare opportunity to be part of a transformation project and/or significantly increase your skills / experience? Then it could be worth those 60 hour weeks. Is it just because your department is understaffed and you need to take support calls over the weekend? Then those extra hours will get you no where.
It's commonly accepted that business owners need to manage their company, but when you are an employee you have the same responsibility to manage your career. Make sure you are getting what you want from your responsibilities and workload. If you are then you will probably see the rewards for busting your ass. If you don't then you'll probably just continue doing grunt work until you find yourself unemployable in your 50's.
It's one thing if you have 'skin in the game', meaning it is YOUR business that you're working yourself to death over -- that's a gamble that at least has the potential for a favorable outcome. Quite another to be a worker drone, making someone else money. It's in their absolute best interest to keep the drones productive for as long as possible -- best case scenario you'll be put out to pasture aka, moved into middle management once your productivity drops off.
You mentioned two extremes when suggesting you should own your own business if you're going to work yourself to death. But many people fall somewhere in the middle, where they make a very good wage (lets say $150+k in the Midwest suburbs) and work 50-60 hours per week. These workers are generally not worker drones, and could probably find work elsewhere quite easily (or why else are they paid so well?). The business gets the worker's output, and the worker gets a good wage and the experience to further increase their value in the workplace.
I find myself in this situation and it seems very worthwhile to work a little more than most people but for a very sizable reward. I don't have any equity in my company but they pay me well enough for an upper middle class lifestyle with significant savings, and provide interesting projects which increase my ability and ensure I have the skill sets to make a similar wage somewhere else if I'm not needed anymore.
Admittedly this is not a situation most of the workforce has the privilege to be in, but if you are willing to put in the time (to both work smart and hard) there are ways to get ahead without starting your own business. There is much less risk and much less potential upside, but the median upside is probably better as a highly skilled employee than as a business owner. I may start my own company in the future if I find something that both excites me and that I feel I can make money at, but it won't be because I think it's the only way to make a very good living.
They've made a BIG assumption there. They skipped the important bit about why they aren't hiring and jumped straight to "let's blame them with what they are spending their time on," which is a really shitty thing to do.
It's not only a shitting thing to do; it's a brain dead stupid thing to do. I'm starting to think most of our society's problems are caused by idiots who don't understand the difference between causation and correlation. Or even the tendency to mistake the result for the cause.
I for instance make triple the income I did in my 20's, and I spend about four times as much on housing. By this idiot's methodology, I should probably buy a house four times as expensive as my current one because my income will triple again. Why didn't I think of this earlier?
Nobody buying shares in a hundred year old public company is providing additional capital to the company, they are paying money to the previous shareholder.
That isn't the whole picture though. A company's ability to borrow money is at least loosely dependent on the stock price. So executives losing their jobs isn't the only reason they want to protect the stock price.
I wish you were wrong, but under Republican economic policies, a recession once a decade is normal and definitely not healthy for people.
Recessions are normal part of an advanced economy. Before the Great Depression recessions happened every 2-3 years. Since then we have averaged a recession every five years or so. Since the 90's we have started to enjoy an 8+ year break between recessions.
If you want the economy to grow, it needs to be unshackled enough to make mistakes. And those mistakes will happen. I do believe we should be doing more to correct the mistakes of earlier recessions, such as banking regulation much more comprehensive than Dodd Frank, but to believe we could stop having frequent recessions and a growing economy is foolish.
The saddest part of your post is you probably aren't even intentionally trolling. You think you are being insightful.
To put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there is also one immigrant competing for those same jobs.
No, to put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there are more jobs available because we have utilized immigration to improve our economy by them either starting their own companies or enhancing our overall workforce so more businesses are started and operated here.
The economy is not a zero sum game. If 100,000 people entered the US, it wouldn't make 100,000 more people unemployed. There would be more jobs to feed, clothe, house, educate, entertain, and protect those people, to name a few. Our companies would be better able to compete with foreign companies because of this increased local access to labor. If these immigrants are on average harder working and more entrepreneurial than native citizens, which is certainly true, then they are a very welcome addition to our economy.
As long as immigrants have limited access to generous welfare programs targeted at native citizens (which is already true in the US), excessive immigration is a self correcting problem since they wouldn't immigrate without available jobs. While there are certainly sectors of the economy where immigrant labor hurts native citizens, the answer is to provide assistance to those citizens not to stop the benefits of immigration.
That's an almost fourfold increase, it sounds more like you're minimizing.
He was replying to a post that said "In families with at least one obese person, usually EVERYONE in the family is obese". Clearly if only half of children of overweight parents become overweight, then the original post was absolutely exaggerating. Since under half of families with overweight parents have overweight children his claim that the OP was exaggerating was spot on.
Seen too many people drop out of college with maybe a year to go to graduate. Some make good money and work for a few years, but they are always at a disadvantage when the job markets tightens up and they find themselves looking for a new job.
This is the important part most people don't consider when they give advice based on their past experience. When I talk with someone in IT with no degree, their opinion about how useful a degree is is generally dependent on if they were out of work sometime around 2001 or 2008. This is when the degree is most important. Sure it isn't too hard to find an IT job without a degree in 2017 when the economy has been doing great for 5+ years. But once the next recession hits you'll find HR departments filtering inbound resumes based on degree real quick.
It is a significant risk to work in a knowledge based industry without a college degree. Some people never get burned, and they'll probably attribute that to skill and hard work instead of dumb luck. But there is always another recession down the road to potentially bring them down to reality.
Your comment loses all relevance in the first few words. The IT industry was incredibly different in the 90's and it was much easier to get your start without a degree. And all you generally need to do is get your foot in the door once and you won't get asked about your degree again (although it could still hurt your chances to climb into upper management).
People who started in the IT business in the 90's without a degree generally had a much easier time than a CS graduate today. I'm glad I got my start in 2004 and had a few years of experience before the recent recession, because my younger coworkers have it much harder now. Career advice from people in a different generation, especially with a 20+ year difference, is becoming more and more useless as our society changes at a rapid pace.
More like if the ability to raise venture funding is the only important metric. Financially, for everything except venture money, they're doing rather badly.
Uber has at least claimed to be profitable in the US last year. I don't think they ever produced enough proof of that though, and there are plenty of ways they could fudge the numbers. But if Uber is profitable in the US and is only losing money by trying to match their current success in foreign markets then they could certainly be considered a financial success.
Regardless, it is rumored that Uber's valuation on the secondary market is between $40-$50 billion, so to anyone who has owned Uber stock for a few years the company has been a financial success.
I could probably buy that Travis Kalanick was unaware of his company's toxic culture because of his other duties if that was the only example of him being careless and an overall jerk. But it isn't. It is pretty hard to defend Travis Kalanick as being a good person. And whether he is a good leader depends on your viewpoint about how important employees are to a company.
If financial success of a company is the only important metric, then sure Travis is a phenomenal leader. But if you actually care about the people he is leading, it's hard to describe him as a phenomenal leader. Travis Kalanick is a great leader in the same way Michael Jackson's abusive father was a great parent.
Cows consume grass -- and in very high volumes. What is the lab grown meat consuming? I would want to make sure the "lab grown meat" is similar to the real meat, not fed a chemical stew. Real meat has small quantities iron, zinc and magnesium. Where is lab meat getting these trace contents?
Someone modded this up? What the hell is a chemical stew? You do know everything is made up of chemicals right?
If the star trek dream was possible it would be awesome, we are no where close to post scarcity yet though.
Why would you say we are no where close to a post scarcity society?
The US produces just over $140k of economic output per household. This is obviously enough to provide far more than just basic needs to every citizen. As robots reduce the necessary jobs in our economy, this level of economic output will most likely go up. So the coming automation revolution only makes it easier to provide for everyone's basic needs (and then some). It seems we already have enough economic output to create a post-scarcity economy, the biggest problem now is we don't have enough automation to do away with most labor.
Today our economic output is reliant on a just over 60% labor participation rate. Automation could drop that figure significantly. But automation won't drop the overall economic output. The problem then becomes a distribution problem. This is still a very difficult problem because today's income distribution is almost entirely dependent on your labor, but that model is most likely not sustainable.
We are doomed cause we will be unable to eat you dunce.
Less than 2% of the US workforce are farmers, so I really doubt increased automation and job loss will affect our ability to feed the population.
My major was computer science which is a branch of applied mathematics, and upon leaving school, I have found absolutely no jobs anywhere in the tech industry. Since I am an educated person I am quite certain my degrees have priced me out of the job market completely.
If you cannot find a job in tech with your CS degree, you either didn't learn anything or you need to move. There are plenty of online private schools (if not all of them) who just take your money without teaching you anything useful, so if that is your scenario I am truly sorry. But if you do have the skills of a standard CS graduate and cannot find a job you just don't live in the right place.
The company I worked for went bankrupt during the last recession, and I spent a year unemployed in a small college town a little over an hour outside of a major city. I then decided to apply to jobs in the metropolitan area suburbs, and found a job in two weeks. There is no way in today's market you can stay unemployed in the tech industry if you are remotely competent unless you live in an area which simply has no IT related industry.
It is quite depressing when people foresee a world where very few people need to work and they reaction is "we're doomed."
I look forward to a day where people find self worth in being a a great amateur baseball player, skier, bridge player, gardener, etc. instead of getting it from their job. Perhaps a world where the average person works 5-10 years out of their life and then spends the rest in leisure. A select few work much more but live in extreme luxury. Doesn't sound all that bad.
Or just build the smarts into the shelving if you really think this is so damned important! Who on earth thinks this is a good idea?
This seems to be the way to go for me. Amazon could probably get a thousand wifi cameras in each store for the cost of a single mobile robot. Just place them in the shelves and have them look at the other side of the aisle. Handles inventory, misplaced items, and theft prevention. Sounds a lot easier than putting RFID chips in everything. You could also still have conveyor belts where all items need to be placed for an overhead camera to identify items. If RFID chips in each item aren't economical, there are other options.
Having robots do inventory in the store shows a lack of experience in retail. For some stores this may work, but Whole Foods is a place where there is a diverse inventory.
They are talking about inventory management at the distribution level, not keeping the individual stores stocked. No one would see any robots if the first phase of automation matches what is described in this article. Also, are you really saying Whole Foods has a more diverse inventory than Amazon? That is quite a laughable assertion.
Customer service knowing where things are makes a big difference in sales and customer experience. The best way to know where things are is to query the people who stock. Having cashiers and floor employees participate in stocking is beneficial.
Whole Foods customers like their iPhones just as much as the rest of us (probably more), and a phone app which knows the exact location of every object, including recommendations of alternatives or complementary items, would almost certainly be a better experience than finding someone who stocks the shelves.
Except the Administration stated last week that the EO would go into effect 72 hours after the Court decides the case.
I believe you have misread the news article where you read that. The administration said it would take effect 72 hours after the stay was lifted, which was Monday. The ban will likely take effect this Thursday.
Again, the point seems to fly right by you. It's not about whether you know something nor whether you should know something, it's about whether, when you don't know something, that makes you uncomfortable/embarrassed or not. And I think that's a big cultural difference, and based on the posts here, one that many have a problem even wrapping their mind around.
I have been speaking to that exact point in each post. You shouldn't be embarrassed about not knowing esoteric information. Someone who knows enough about Malta to know it is near Africa is obviously not going to be embarrassed he doesn't know exactly where it is.
The bigger problem is someone so insecure he thinks others should be embarrassed about not knowing something like this. Or someone who keeps thinking those who disagree with him must just not understand his point, instead of the possibility his point doesn't make much sense. Once again, it shows the type of hubris which comes from insecurity.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, $15 extra a month for one channel? Ehh... no. Those are "add-on" prices only for someone used to cable's exorbitant $100 a month plus fees. Maybe when I don't have to think about my budget quite as much... Too bad, as I've heard good things about Westworld.
It should be noted that based on HBO's operating profit, HBO would not be profitable if they charged $10 per month (maybe marginally profitable since more people would probably sign up). I guess an argument could be made that they would still make a hefty profit at $12.99 per month, but you are really quibbling over a couple dollars there. I bet most people who complain about paying $15 per month would still be complaining if it was $12.99 per month.
It takes a significant amount of money to produce shows at HBO's level of quality. For me it's not much different than paying $5 to rent a movie considering it is movie quality programming. I watch less than a quarter of their original programming but it is still well worth it.
Mitt Romney got hurt in the 2008 Republican Primary for his 'Romneycare'. Romney was criticized as a liberal from Massachusetts. Some other plan was proposed in the early Clinton years as a distraction from Hillary's health care plan. Hell, W was criticised heavily for Medicare Part D.
That is exactly why both Romneycare and Obamacare are such good examples of a plans worthy of bipartisan support. If conservatives were thrilled about either Romneycare or Obamacare, it would mean the liberals would be furious. For the Republicans to mostly dislike Romneycare, but still be willing to put Romney on their Presidential ticket, shows it was a great compromise. For Medicare part D to bring heavy criticism to Bush, but for his base to still turn out enough for him to win reelection, again shows it was a good compromise.
Both sides don't have to be thrilled for a bill to be worthy of bipartisan support.
I realize it's easy to get lost in the MSM rhetoric where both sides are progressives, but that is _STILL_ the issue.
We don't even have a single mainstream progressive party in this country. We have a far right and a moderate party. Even Bernie Sanders is considered far left in the USA. Travel a bit outside this country, or read a non-partisan book every once in a while, and you will see how drastically conservative American politics are.
If your only criteria for being bipartisan is that the plan conforms to both conservative and liberal ideals, then this wouldn't a problem. But when Obama basically copied previous conservative proposals in order to reach a bipartisan deal, he met with resistance just because it was proposed by a Democrat.
As long as liberals think Universal Basic Income is a good idea, they are going to need strong super majorities to get it through the legislative process because the other side will block literally anything that even smells liberal in origin.
find out if having childlike sex dolls are a stepping stone to abusing real children
Can you give a general outline of how to make such study that can demonstrate causality and get past ethics committee?
This is one of many examples when you have to look at the statistics and do a best effort to determine causality. At the most basic level, do child rape cases go up or down after the introduction of child sex robots? Of course it is more complicated than that, since you would need to attempt to adjust for increased / decreased levels of policing, increased / decreased incarceration levels, etc.
Considering I doubt anyone could honestly make a strong evidence based case for the banning or allowing of these sex dolls, letting them go on the market for five years and seeing what happens seems to be the best approach. In the US over 10% of all people have been sexually abused at some point, so the problem is too great to say the status quo is fine and we shouldn't explore methods to reduce this number.
I have rarely met an engineer who has put in those hours who has "gotten ahead". In most small businesses, IT is a dead-end and there is rarely any sort of management track for an engineer. You're putting in those hours to just tread water.
Like most aspects of managing your career, you need to have a clear understanding of why you are putting in those extra hours. Is it because you see a rare opportunity to be part of a transformation project and/or significantly increase your skills / experience? Then it could be worth those 60 hour weeks. Is it just because your department is understaffed and you need to take support calls over the weekend? Then those extra hours will get you no where.
It's commonly accepted that business owners need to manage their company, but when you are an employee you have the same responsibility to manage your career. Make sure you are getting what you want from your responsibilities and workload. If you are then you will probably see the rewards for busting your ass. If you don't then you'll probably just continue doing grunt work until you find yourself unemployable in your 50's.
It's one thing if you have 'skin in the game', meaning it is YOUR business that you're working yourself to death over -- that's a gamble that at least has the potential for a favorable outcome. Quite another to be a worker drone, making someone else money. It's in their absolute best interest to keep the drones productive for as long as possible -- best case scenario you'll be put out to pasture aka, moved into middle management once your productivity drops off.
You mentioned two extremes when suggesting you should own your own business if you're going to work yourself to death. But many people fall somewhere in the middle, where they make a very good wage (lets say $150+k in the Midwest suburbs) and work 50-60 hours per week. These workers are generally not worker drones, and could probably find work elsewhere quite easily (or why else are they paid so well?). The business gets the worker's output, and the worker gets a good wage and the experience to further increase their value in the workplace.
I find myself in this situation and it seems very worthwhile to work a little more than most people but for a very sizable reward. I don't have any equity in my company but they pay me well enough for an upper middle class lifestyle with significant savings, and provide interesting projects which increase my ability and ensure I have the skill sets to make a similar wage somewhere else if I'm not needed anymore.
Admittedly this is not a situation most of the workforce has the privilege to be in, but if you are willing to put in the time (to both work smart and hard) there are ways to get ahead without starting your own business. There is much less risk and much less potential upside, but the median upside is probably better as a highly skilled employee than as a business owner. I may start my own company in the future if I find something that both excites me and that I feel I can make money at, but it won't be because I think it's the only way to make a very good living.
They've made a BIG assumption there. They skipped the important bit about why they aren't hiring and jumped straight to "let's blame them with what they are spending their time on," which is a really shitty thing to do.
It's not only a shitting thing to do; it's a brain dead stupid thing to do. I'm starting to think most of our society's problems are caused by idiots who don't understand the difference between causation and correlation. Or even the tendency to mistake the result for the cause.
I for instance make triple the income I did in my 20's, and I spend about four times as much on housing. By this idiot's methodology, I should probably buy a house four times as expensive as my current one because my income will triple again. Why didn't I think of this earlier?
Nobody buying shares in a hundred year old public company is providing additional capital to the company, they are paying money to the previous shareholder.
That isn't the whole picture though. A company's ability to borrow money is at least loosely dependent on the stock price. So executives losing their jobs isn't the only reason they want to protect the stock price.
I wish you were wrong, but under Republican economic policies, a recession once a decade is normal and definitely not healthy for people.
Recessions are normal part of an advanced economy. Before the Great Depression recessions happened every 2-3 years. Since then we have averaged a recession every five years or so. Since the 90's we have started to enjoy an 8+ year break between recessions.
If you want the economy to grow, it needs to be unshackled enough to make mistakes. And those mistakes will happen. I do believe we should be doing more to correct the mistakes of earlier recessions, such as banking regulation much more comprehensive than Dodd Frank, but to believe we could stop having frequent recessions and a growing economy is foolish.
The saddest part of your post is you probably aren't even intentionally trolling. You think you are being insightful.
To put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there is also one immigrant competing for those same jobs.
No, to put this simply: When your two kids turn 18 and are trying to get jobs, there are more jobs available because we have utilized immigration to improve our economy by them either starting their own companies or enhancing our overall workforce so more businesses are started and operated here.
The economy is not a zero sum game. If 100,000 people entered the US, it wouldn't make 100,000 more people unemployed. There would be more jobs to feed, clothe, house, educate, entertain, and protect those people, to name a few. Our companies would be better able to compete with foreign companies because of this increased local access to labor. If these immigrants are on average harder working and more entrepreneurial than native citizens, which is certainly true, then they are a very welcome addition to our economy.
As long as immigrants have limited access to generous welfare programs targeted at native citizens (which is already true in the US), excessive immigration is a self correcting problem since they wouldn't immigrate without available jobs. While there are certainly sectors of the economy where immigrant labor hurts native citizens, the answer is to provide assistance to those citizens not to stop the benefits of immigration.
That's an almost fourfold increase, it sounds more like you're minimizing.
He was replying to a post that said "In families with at least one obese person, usually EVERYONE in the family is obese". Clearly if only half of children of overweight parents become overweight, then the original post was absolutely exaggerating. Since under half of families with overweight parents have overweight children his claim that the OP was exaggerating was spot on.
Seen too many people drop out of college with maybe a year to go to graduate. Some make good money and work for a few years, but they are always at a disadvantage when the job markets tightens up and they find themselves looking for a new job.
This is the important part most people don't consider when they give advice based on their past experience. When I talk with someone in IT with no degree, their opinion about how useful a degree is is generally dependent on if they were out of work sometime around 2001 or 2008. This is when the degree is most important. Sure it isn't too hard to find an IT job without a degree in 2017 when the economy has been doing great for 5+ years. But once the next recession hits you'll find HR departments filtering inbound resumes based on degree real quick.
It is a significant risk to work in a knowledge based industry without a college degree. Some people never get burned, and they'll probably attribute that to skill and hard work instead of dumb luck. But there is always another recession down the road to potentially bring them down to reality.
Uh, about 20+ years ago ...
Your comment loses all relevance in the first few words. The IT industry was incredibly different in the 90's and it was much easier to get your start without a degree. And all you generally need to do is get your foot in the door once and you won't get asked about your degree again (although it could still hurt your chances to climb into upper management).
People who started in the IT business in the 90's without a degree generally had a much easier time than a CS graduate today. I'm glad I got my start in 2004 and had a few years of experience before the recent recession, because my younger coworkers have it much harder now. Career advice from people in a different generation, especially with a 20+ year difference, is becoming more and more useless as our society changes at a rapid pace.
More like if the ability to raise venture funding is the only important metric. Financially, for everything except venture money, they're doing rather badly.
Uber has at least claimed to be profitable in the US last year. I don't think they ever produced enough proof of that though, and there are plenty of ways they could fudge the numbers. But if Uber is profitable in the US and is only losing money by trying to match their current success in foreign markets then they could certainly be considered a financial success.
Regardless, it is rumored that Uber's valuation on the secondary market is between $40-$50 billion, so to anyone who has owned Uber stock for a few years the company has been a financial success.
I could probably buy that Travis Kalanick was unaware of his company's toxic culture because of his other duties if that was the only example of him being careless and an overall jerk. But it isn't. It is pretty hard to defend Travis Kalanick as being a good person. And whether he is a good leader depends on your viewpoint about how important employees are to a company.
If financial success of a company is the only important metric, then sure Travis is a phenomenal leader. But if you actually care about the people he is leading, it's hard to describe him as a phenomenal leader. Travis Kalanick is a great leader in the same way Michael Jackson's abusive father was a great parent.
Cows consume grass -- and in very high volumes. What is the lab grown meat consuming? I would want to make sure the "lab grown meat" is similar to the real meat, not fed a chemical stew. Real meat has small quantities iron, zinc and magnesium. Where is lab meat getting these trace contents?
Someone modded this up? What the hell is a chemical stew? You do know everything is made up of chemicals right?
If the star trek dream was possible it would be awesome, we are no where close to post scarcity yet though.
Why would you say we are no where close to a post scarcity society?
The US produces just over $140k of economic output per household. This is obviously enough to provide far more than just basic needs to every citizen. As robots reduce the necessary jobs in our economy, this level of economic output will most likely go up. So the coming automation revolution only makes it easier to provide for everyone's basic needs (and then some). It seems we already have enough economic output to create a post-scarcity economy, the biggest problem now is we don't have enough automation to do away with most labor.
Today our economic output is reliant on a just over 60% labor participation rate. Automation could drop that figure significantly. But automation won't drop the overall economic output. The problem then becomes a distribution problem. This is still a very difficult problem because today's income distribution is almost entirely dependent on your labor, but that model is most likely not sustainable.
We are doomed cause we will be unable to eat you dunce.
Less than 2% of the US workforce are farmers, so I really doubt increased automation and job loss will affect our ability to feed the population.
There it is. "Just keep your skills up, bro!" A cleverly disguised troll.
You think suggesting keeping your skills up to date so you can provide value to your employer is trolling?
My major was computer science which is a branch of applied mathematics, and upon leaving school, I have found absolutely no jobs anywhere in the tech industry. Since I am an educated person I am quite certain my degrees have priced me out of the job market completely.
If you cannot find a job in tech with your CS degree, you either didn't learn anything or you need to move. There are plenty of online private schools (if not all of them) who just take your money without teaching you anything useful, so if that is your scenario I am truly sorry. But if you do have the skills of a standard CS graduate and cannot find a job you just don't live in the right place.
The company I worked for went bankrupt during the last recession, and I spent a year unemployed in a small college town a little over an hour outside of a major city. I then decided to apply to jobs in the metropolitan area suburbs, and found a job in two weeks. There is no way in today's market you can stay unemployed in the tech industry if you are remotely competent unless you live in an area which simply has no IT related industry.
Folks, we're doomed. This is just a start.
It is quite depressing when people foresee a world where very few people need to work and they reaction is "we're doomed."
I look forward to a day where people find self worth in being a a great amateur baseball player, skier, bridge player, gardener, etc. instead of getting it from their job. Perhaps a world where the average person works 5-10 years out of their life and then spends the rest in leisure. A select few work much more but live in extreme luxury. Doesn't sound all that bad.
Or just build the smarts into the shelving if you really think this is so damned important! Who on earth thinks this is a good idea?
This seems to be the way to go for me. Amazon could probably get a thousand wifi cameras in each store for the cost of a single mobile robot. Just place them in the shelves and have them look at the other side of the aisle. Handles inventory, misplaced items, and theft prevention. Sounds a lot easier than putting RFID chips in everything. You could also still have conveyor belts where all items need to be placed for an overhead camera to identify items. If RFID chips in each item aren't economical, there are other options.
Having robots do inventory in the store shows a lack of experience in retail. For some stores this may work, but Whole Foods is a place where there is a diverse inventory.
They are talking about inventory management at the distribution level, not keeping the individual stores stocked. No one would see any robots if the first phase of automation matches what is described in this article. Also, are you really saying Whole Foods has a more diverse inventory than Amazon? That is quite a laughable assertion.
Customer service knowing where things are makes a big difference in sales and customer experience. The best way to know where things are is to query the people who stock. Having cashiers and floor employees participate in stocking is beneficial.
Whole Foods customers like their iPhones just as much as the rest of us (probably more), and a phone app which knows the exact location of every object, including recommendations of alternatives or complementary items, would almost certainly be a better experience than finding someone who stocks the shelves.
Except the Administration stated last week that the EO would go into effect 72 hours after the Court decides the case.
I believe you have misread the news article where you read that. The administration said it would take effect 72 hours after the stay was lifted, which was Monday. The ban will likely take effect this Thursday.
Again, the point seems to fly right by you. It's not about whether you know something nor whether you should know something, it's about whether, when you don't know something, that makes you uncomfortable/embarrassed or not.
And I think that's a big cultural difference, and based on the posts here, one that many have a problem even wrapping their mind around.
I have been speaking to that exact point in each post. You shouldn't be embarrassed about not knowing esoteric information. Someone who knows enough about Malta to know it is near Africa is obviously not going to be embarrassed he doesn't know exactly where it is.
The bigger problem is someone so insecure he thinks others should be embarrassed about not knowing something like this. Or someone who keeps thinking those who disagree with him must just not understand his point, instead of the possibility his point doesn't make much sense. Once again, it shows the type of hubris which comes from insecurity.