Since this time Tesla has to hit Q1 of 2018 at the last for all cars sold that quarter to get $7500 rebates, he has far more incentive to hit his targets this time.
The rebate doesn't go away at 200,000 cars. That just marks the quarter the rebates start to fade out. For that quarter and the next, the rebate is still $7500. The next two months it is reduced to $3750, and the next two months it is $1875.
Tesla will likely hit 200,000 cars delivered in the US in 3rd quarter 2017. That means every tesla delivered in 2017 will probably get a $7500 rebate. Every car delivered in Q1/Q2 2018 will get $3750, and the rest of 2018 gets $1875.
It is entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of Model 3s will get a rebate. Of tesla is smart they will delay shipments of model S/X cars until 4Q 2017 so they get amother full quarter of $7500 rebates to entice customers.
For most people paying 2-3 times that of a normal car is too much, period. $20-$25,000 buys a lot of gas.
A Cadillac or Corvette are both already 2-3 times the cost of a normal car. The current Tesla models are not more expensive than other cars in their class, and neither will the Model 3.
I worked at a competitor of Pyxis who created similar automated drug dispensing cabinets, and the market research at the time was that they all were pretty insecure. When I left my company they were dealing with a defect where anyone with a screwdriver could bypass the locking mechanism of our newest model (meant for the area where the schedule 2 drugs were kept).
At the time (almost 10 years ago) these devices were meant to help with inventory management, not to be ultra-secure safes. Anyone with even moderate training using these devices could steal drugs if they wanted. Most thieves were caught only because of the sheer volume of drugs they stole over months or even years.
If what you're saying is true, we could eliminate the federal income tax *entirely* and simply go into debt each year for the federal budget.
That's what you're saying, yes? If the federal budget is $3.5 trillion, and we're increasing our national value by $10 trillion a year, then we're still coming out ahead, right?
I never said we are increasing our national value by $10 trillion per year. I said one segment increased its value by that amount in a single year. It would take far more than a single Slashdot post to detail the entirety of the USA's financial position; those figures were meant only to put these dollar values in perspective (as I mentioned in my post).
Howcome we don't simply eliminate income taxes(*)?
Because regardless of how good the financial position of the USA is, it still needs funding. It couldn't borrow money forever with no intention of every paying it back. People would simply stop buying the bonds at some point.
Bringing up the health of the USA economy shows that there is more than enough money to pay the federal deficit if that was a goal. But just like a how I put more money into my 401k than I pay towards repaying my student loans, the USA economy has better things to do with its money than pay back the federal deficit aggressively.
This all assumes increased debt is the worst thing which could happen to the economy. It isn't, not by a long shot.
The United States has a net worth of about $124 trillion in 2014 (source). The total federal deficit is about $19 trillion and the federal deficit is $500 billion. But the total US net worth grows by far more than $500 billion per year, so it is very misleading to say the deficit is a large problem. For instance, the total net worth of US households and non-profits grew by $10 trillion in 2014 alone. If I am going $5000 in debt each year, but my total net worth is growing by $10,000 each year, I am still in a pretty good position.
The risk of damaging the economy with drastic measures is far more dangerous than going a few trillion more in debt. Current federal debt levels are really not that bad when put into perspective, although understandably it is very hard for people to put $500 billion in perspective. But to make it easier, the US is a household with a $248,000 house with $38,000 left on their mortgage, and a family budget losing about $100 per month. That is not a dire situation.
Really? I haven't seen anything yet that I would classify as non-hype.
Then you haven't been keeping up with advances in image and voice recognition. This does not just involve theoretical research, there are actual products used by consumers benefiting from these technologies.
AIUI raw computation power ceased to be a significant concern a long time ago. The problem now is more a case of producing learning techniques that work well, I'm not sure this device adds anything to that problem?
Computation power and especially computation efficiency still leave huge room for improvement when modeling biological neural networks. The human brain runs on about 20 watts and currently would take clusters of supercomputers to simulate, probably using billions of watts.
We certainly do need improved learning techniques for neural networks, but overall hardware efficiency is still an important research goal as well.
because I want to watch the Republican party burn to the ground after the way they treated Ron Paul in 2012
The most optimistic prediction following a Trump presidency I have seen is that he would do so poorly that the Democrats could retake the House and Senate in 2018/2020 and regain the presidency in 2020. And this time it wouldn't be such a narrow majority as it was in 2008.
I'm not saying I'm willing to hand over the executive branch to a lunatic, but this potential long term ramification of a Trump presidency is encouraging. The reality is a government run by a Democratic president with a Republican Congress is going to be as powerless to govern as our federal government over the last 6 years.
Ok this is just stupid. I earn more money than you but still don't put my kids in daycare. You may have hit it lucky with you eldest child's behaviour, or your friends' may have got unlucky, but I'd be interested to see what research you have that claims outsourcing parenthood is a healthier option for any child.
Looking at day care as outsourcing parenthood is a very cynical way of looking at it. It may be an outdated philosophy in the US, but it takes a village to raise a child. Thinking that a mother (or father) is the only person who can provide quality child development from 8-5 M-F is a very silly notion. Equating that to outsourcing parenting is equally nonsense. Is it outsourcing parenting to send your children to public school? Is it outsourcing spiritual development to send them to Sunday school?
As for studies, I don't have a ton of time but this is a good survey of multiple reports on the topic. High quality day care provides improved cognitive and language abilities in later childhood years. The earlier children started daycare the better the outcomes were, although it doesn't say when the point of diminishing returns was (i doubt 3 months vs 6 months is a huge difference). There were no significant behavioral differences in later childhood for either group.
I have read other studies that say these benefits diminish greatly when the parents are high earners. This makes sense to me since high earners tend to be more educated, which leads them to provide more stimulating environments for their kids (similar to a day care environment). I couldn't find one of these studies in a quick search though, and I need to get to bed.
I did find a Harvard Business School study showing daughters earn more in adult life when their mother worked, although it had negligible effects on sons. Its just one study though so its hard to put too much stock into it.
Wait you have a maid and pay $3200/mo on daycare? I bet you have a separate shoe-breaker-in-guy and dog-walker too.
We only have our house cleaned every other week, and we want our children to have interaction with other kids instead of only interacting with family and occasionally with neighborhood kids.
That being said, your old friend probably remembers his children's names and they're probably growing up without a mexican accent. Although their spanish is probably less fluent.
I know you are just trolling, but the reason people pay over $3k for two kids in day care is so every teacher is college educated, mostly in early childhood development. And while I do call my youngest daughter by more oldest daughter's name quite often, its doubtful you know many working parents who spend more time with their kids than me.
That is a major discussion in our home, but we like the results of our oldest daughter getting a large amount of time interacting with other children and adults at a very early age. The fact we would only have to spend an extra $500 or so per month and have someone doing all our laundry and dishes too is very appealing (we don't have a full time maid now), but when we compare the behavior of our oldest daughter with friends' kids who are raised purely at home (and based on research that looks at high quality day care vs SAHM), we ultimately have chosen to stay in day care.
It was a dumb comment for sure, but turning this into a matter of class warfare or social justice is orders of magnitude dumber.
My interpretation goes the other way. This is similar to how a drunk man speaks a sober man's thoughts. This comment shows how he really feels about people who don't refresh their devices every other year. He would never say this publicly other than in a slip up like this.
Ultimately it shouldn't be surprising to anyone though, which is why I think calling it awkward instead of outrageous is accurate. Anyone who is paying attention knows there is a huge chasm between the upper middle class / wealthy and the working class / poor. I grew up in a working class home and now that I am in my 30's with a $200k+ household income I find it hard to remember how I ever lived on $40k. In only a decade I have lost nearly all empathy with people who had the same upbringing as mine, and in its place is only sympathy for those who I barely understand anymore.
I now have similar awkward moments sometimes when I talk with an old friend who has kids the same age as mine, but is raising them on a $50k household income. If I accidentally bring up how our maid is a lifesaver or how "hard" it is to afford $3200 in monthly daycare costs it could certainly come off as elitist.
You have obviously never been in the military. Getting soldiers to think on their feet and solve problems is the majority of training. Knowing how to technically use and maintain weapons and equipment is a small part. If you check, you will discover that privates are a small minority of soldiers. Modern warfare requires people who can think.
This is why indoctrination is so important in the military, because you need soldiers that both follow (lawful) orders blindly but also show initiative and problem solving in the moment. It is quite the feat to train soldiers to do both, as free thinking and blind obedience tend to not work together well IMHO.
When working with people with military backgrounds it is often mystifying that they can be so efficient with strong independent problem solving skills, but also blindly follow very poor business processes just because they were told to. Even when they hold a position where they have the autonomy to change bad processes. This is obviously not universal for all ex-enlisted personnel, but it is strikingly common.
There has been scarcely anything to be excited about new "ithings" since the iPhone, because anything that Apple has launched since then is something existed previously.
Other than, you know, the apple watch, and the iPad. Unless you're gonna go with "watches and tablet computers always existed,"
I agree the iPad was a huge step forward in tablet devices, but it is a stretch to say the same thing about the Apple watch. The Apple watch was certainly not a huge or even incremental step forward compared to existing smart watches. It is simply Apple's version of a technology many companies already had or were in the process of developing. It didn't do anything to live up to the groundbreaking iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
That's right, it's an opinion. I'm not expecting others to share my exact preferences. I merely responded as I natutrally would if asked that question. I don't preface all my opinions with "in my opinion" and I expect people to know the difference. Do you think some people are misinterpreting that as fact?
I made a mistake by saying the word opinion in my post. I should have said preferences. Your post did not sound like someone stating his/her preferences, which is what my edit attempted to remedy.
Your post took your preferences and presented them as "the correct preferences" instead of just as your preferences. That is what I took objection to, although I used the wrong terminology in my first post.
[I prefer these] sizes for portable devices. Large phones are cumbersome [for me] and add little [to my experience using them], and 13" devices are [too heavy for me] and more difficult [for me] to use for long periods of time unless [I'm] at a desk.
There, fixed that for you. Now your post presents your reasonable opinions instead of you pretending your opinions should be taken as fact.
I think it is a very good thing Apple is providing a small phone for users who like them. One of my main gripes with Apple in the last decade is they don't give enough options to their users under the guise of knowing what is best for them. This is a step in the right direction, even though I am firmly in the camp who likes larger devices. (being over six foot tall with large hands and pockets might have something to do with it)
You might be awesome at what you do, and you may even have actual hard proof of this. Unfortunately, none of that matters when you get an idiot director or CEO who thinks that IT people are totally interchangeable and all have the same skill set. Your proof of worth will never even be considered by such people.
Then you stop ignoring the recruiters who send over at least 5 jobs offers per week, or call back your friends who keep asking you if you are available for a job, and get a new job by the end of the month. Job security should not come from forcing someone to employ you. It should come from being highly employable in the marketplace.
The job security that comes from being at the same company from 20 years is an illusion. True job security comes from working 5 different jobs in 20 years, and having the experience and skill to get that 6th job at a moment's notice.
True to a degree, but way off the mark in practice. The baseline treatment of employees is the same, with high performing ones earning bonuses, glowing reviews that lead to promotions, and consideration for increased training.
While this may be true in some unions, I have never seen it in practice. I have friends in plumber, waste management, and teacher unions, and all of them have very uniform pay scales that hardly adjusts to individual performance at all. Maybe they have a 10% differences from poor performing coworkers with similar tenure, but without unions it can often be 50%-100% more. And for people with the exact same position, education, experience, etc, the only difference being the leverage a highly skilled worker has.
That true across nearly every job. Even CEOs think they are underpaid for the amount of stress they are under.
It doesn't matter as much if poor performing workers think they are underpaid. They will learn they aren't when they try looking for work elsewhere.
The bugbear of the difficulty in dismissing shit employees is also true, however unions aren't in charge of hiring, which many problems could be avoided if HR performed due diligence in the first place.
There is no such thing as a hiring process which only hires quality workers. Google finally admitted that after over a decade of thinking they could build a rigorous enough process to only hire great employees. The only way to build a quality workforce is to aggressively fire people who underperform.
And this isn't to say unions are all unicorn farts and puppies, but especially with holding management accountable for their poor decisions; your depiction seems to follow a popular trope about unions rather than how they can function.
I think almost everyone can agree unions can function well, and almost certainly some unions even do function well. People get upset about how most unions actually function, though, which is not in the way you are describing. It sounds like you work under high quality union leadership. My guess it is you are in the trades, since my friends in a plumber's union do have it better than my teacher friends and waste management. Well actually my friend in waste management gets the best deal from his union, but only because there are riots if garbage men strike, not because the union is run particularly well.
Moderate your expectations. Strong AI? We're not even close.
Perhaps I skimmed the articles too quickly, but who is talking about strong AI? Perhaps the most important take away here is what can be accomplished with AI research regardless of how far off strong AI is.
While it is true that the government cannot prevent encryption from being used, that doesn't mean reducing the availability of encryption is pointless. Criminals make mistakes, including using insecure communication even when they have better options. I am not in law enforcement, but I assume a large number of criminals are caught because of their mistakes.
An environment where these mistakes are easier to make seems to be in law enforcement's best interest.
Why do people want to stick everything in a web browser? It's like they want us to have only one tool (the browser), to rule them all...
Many people would like an ecosystem similar to when all computers had Windows and Internet Explorer, where you only had to worry about writing for a single platform. Many changes to web standards are an attempt to get the benefits of a single platform to target but without a single corporation owning that platform. Time will tell how it works out.
That is not the root question, and any opinions made assuming it is the root question are bound to be faulty. The root question is "what is in the best interest of the citizens of the US". That is not an easily answerable question, but it has nothing to do with fairness.
History has shown plenty of times that government action and oversight can improve not only the lives of citizens but a competitive free market economy as well. It also has examples of governments hurting both of these goals. Government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the answer to many problems.
In this case the argument is these large IT companies have such influence over the public that more government oversight is needed to make sure citizens are not unnecessarily harmed. The same government that helps these companies exist through enforcement of IP law, education of the workforce, etc. is the same government that will be providing this oversight. There is nothing Orwellian about this, this is how government is supposed to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Since this time Tesla has to hit Q1 of 2018 at the last for all cars sold that quarter to get $7500 rebates, he has far more incentive to hit his targets this time.
The rebate doesn't go away at 200,000 cars. That just marks the quarter the rebates start to fade out. For that quarter and the next, the rebate is still $7500. The next two months it is reduced to $3750, and the next two months it is $1875.
Tesla will likely hit 200,000 cars delivered in the US in 3rd quarter 2017. That means every tesla delivered in 2017 will probably get a $7500 rebate. Every car delivered in Q1/Q2 2018 will get $3750, and the rest of 2018 gets $1875.
It is entirely possible that hundreds of thousands of Model 3s will get a rebate. Of tesla is smart they will delay shipments of model S/X cars until 4Q 2017 so they get amother full quarter of $7500 rebates to entice customers.
For most people paying 2-3 times that of a normal car is too much, period. $20-$25,000 buys a lot of gas.
A Cadillac or Corvette are both already 2-3 times the cost of a normal car. The current Tesla models are not more expensive than other cars in their class, and neither will the Model 3.
I worked at a competitor of Pyxis who created similar automated drug dispensing cabinets, and the market research at the time was that they all were pretty insecure. When I left my company they were dealing with a defect where anyone with a screwdriver could bypass the locking mechanism of our newest model (meant for the area where the schedule 2 drugs were kept).
At the time (almost 10 years ago) these devices were meant to help with inventory management, not to be ultra-secure safes. Anyone with even moderate training using these devices could steal drugs if they wanted. Most thieves were caught only because of the sheer volume of drugs they stole over months or even years.
If what you're saying is true, we could eliminate the federal income tax *entirely* and simply go into debt each year for the federal budget.
That's what you're saying, yes? If the federal budget is $3.5 trillion, and we're increasing our national value by $10 trillion a year, then we're still coming out ahead, right?
I never said we are increasing our national value by $10 trillion per year. I said one segment increased its value by that amount in a single year. It would take far more than a single Slashdot post to detail the entirety of the USA's financial position; those figures were meant only to put these dollar values in perspective (as I mentioned in my post).
Howcome we don't simply eliminate income taxes(*)?
Because regardless of how good the financial position of the USA is, it still needs funding. It couldn't borrow money forever with no intention of every paying it back. People would simply stop buying the bonds at some point.
Bringing up the health of the USA economy shows that there is more than enough money to pay the federal deficit if that was a goal. But just like a how I put more money into my 401k than I pay towards repaying my student loans, the USA economy has better things to do with its money than pay back the federal deficit aggressively.
This all assumes increased debt is the worst thing which could happen to the economy. It isn't, not by a long shot.
The United States has a net worth of about $124 trillion in 2014 (source). The total federal deficit is about $19 trillion and the federal deficit is $500 billion. But the total US net worth grows by far more than $500 billion per year, so it is very misleading to say the deficit is a large problem. For instance, the total net worth of US households and non-profits grew by $10 trillion in 2014 alone. If I am going $5000 in debt each year, but my total net worth is growing by $10,000 each year, I am still in a pretty good position.
The risk of damaging the economy with drastic measures is far more dangerous than going a few trillion more in debt. Current federal debt levels are really not that bad when put into perspective, although understandably it is very hard for people to put $500 billion in perspective. But to make it easier, the US is a household with a $248,000 house with $38,000 left on their mortgage, and a family budget losing about $100 per month. That is not a dire situation.
Really? I haven't seen anything yet that I would classify as non-hype.
Then you haven't been keeping up with advances in image and voice recognition. This does not just involve theoretical research, there are actual products used by consumers benefiting from these technologies.
AIUI raw computation power ceased to be a significant concern a long time ago. The problem now is more a case of producing learning techniques that work well, I'm not sure this device adds anything to that problem?
Computation power and especially computation efficiency still leave huge room for improvement when modeling biological neural networks. The human brain runs on about 20 watts and currently would take clusters of supercomputers to simulate, probably using billions of watts.
We certainly do need improved learning techniques for neural networks, but overall hardware efficiency is still an important research goal as well.
because I want to watch the Republican party burn to the ground after the way they treated Ron Paul in 2012
The most optimistic prediction following a Trump presidency I have seen is that he would do so poorly that the Democrats could retake the House and Senate in 2018/2020 and regain the presidency in 2020. And this time it wouldn't be such a narrow majority as it was in 2008.
I'm not saying I'm willing to hand over the executive branch to a lunatic, but this potential long term ramification of a Trump presidency is encouraging. The reality is a government run by a Democratic president with a Republican Congress is going to be as powerless to govern as our federal government over the last 6 years.
Ok this is just stupid. I earn more money than you but still don't put my kids in daycare. You may have hit it lucky with you eldest child's behaviour, or your friends' may have got unlucky, but I'd be interested to see what research you have that claims outsourcing parenthood is a healthier option for any child.
Looking at day care as outsourcing parenthood is a very cynical way of looking at it. It may be an outdated philosophy in the US, but it takes a village to raise a child. Thinking that a mother (or father) is the only person who can provide quality child development from 8-5 M-F is a very silly notion. Equating that to outsourcing parenting is equally nonsense. Is it outsourcing parenting to send your children to public school? Is it outsourcing spiritual development to send them to Sunday school?
As for studies, I don't have a ton of time but this is a good survey of multiple reports on the topic. High quality day care provides improved cognitive and language abilities in later childhood years. The earlier children started daycare the better the outcomes were, although it doesn't say when the point of diminishing returns was (i doubt 3 months vs 6 months is a huge difference). There were no significant behavioral differences in later childhood for either group.
I have read other studies that say these benefits diminish greatly when the parents are high earners. This makes sense to me since high earners tend to be more educated, which leads them to provide more stimulating environments for their kids (similar to a day care environment). I couldn't find one of these studies in a quick search though, and I need to get to bed.
I did find a Harvard Business School study showing daughters earn more in adult life when their mother worked, although it had negligible effects on sons. Its just one study though so its hard to put too much stock into it.
Wait you have a maid and pay $3200/mo on daycare? I bet you have a separate shoe-breaker-in-guy and dog-walker too.
We only have our house cleaned every other week, and we want our children to have interaction with other kids instead of only interacting with family and occasionally with neighborhood kids.
That being said, your old friend probably remembers his children's names and they're probably growing up without a mexican accent. Although their spanish is probably less fluent.
I know you are just trolling, but the reason people pay over $3k for two kids in day care is so every teacher is college educated, mostly in early childhood development. And while I do call my youngest daughter by more oldest daughter's name quite often, its doubtful you know many working parents who spend more time with their kids than me.
You pay $3200 a month in daycare? Thank me later.
That is a major discussion in our home, but we like the results of our oldest daughter getting a large amount of time interacting with other children and adults at a very early age. The fact we would only have to spend an extra $500 or so per month and have someone doing all our laundry and dishes too is very appealing (we don't have a full time maid now), but when we compare the behavior of our oldest daughter with friends' kids who are raised purely at home (and based on research that looks at high quality day care vs SAHM), we ultimately have chosen to stay in day care.
It was a dumb comment for sure, but turning this into a matter of class warfare or social justice is orders of magnitude dumber.
My interpretation goes the other way. This is similar to how a drunk man speaks a sober man's thoughts. This comment shows how he really feels about people who don't refresh their devices every other year. He would never say this publicly other than in a slip up like this.
Ultimately it shouldn't be surprising to anyone though, which is why I think calling it awkward instead of outrageous is accurate. Anyone who is paying attention knows there is a huge chasm between the upper middle class / wealthy and the working class / poor. I grew up in a working class home and now that I am in my 30's with a $200k+ household income I find it hard to remember how I ever lived on $40k. In only a decade I have lost nearly all empathy with people who had the same upbringing as mine, and in its place is only sympathy for those who I barely understand anymore.
I now have similar awkward moments sometimes when I talk with an old friend who has kids the same age as mine, but is raising them on a $50k household income. If I accidentally bring up how our maid is a lifesaver or how "hard" it is to afford $3200 in monthly daycare costs it could certainly come off as elitist.
You have obviously never been in the military. Getting soldiers to think on their feet and solve problems is the majority of training. Knowing how to technically use and maintain weapons and equipment is a small part. If you check, you will discover that privates are a small minority of soldiers. Modern warfare requires people who can think.
This is why indoctrination is so important in the military, because you need soldiers that both follow (lawful) orders blindly but also show initiative and problem solving in the moment. It is quite the feat to train soldiers to do both, as free thinking and blind obedience tend to not work together well IMHO.
When working with people with military backgrounds it is often mystifying that they can be so efficient with strong independent problem solving skills, but also blindly follow very poor business processes just because they were told to. Even when they hold a position where they have the autonomy to change bad processes. This is obviously not universal for all ex-enlisted personnel, but it is strikingly common.
There has been scarcely anything to be excited about new "ithings" since the iPhone, because anything that Apple has launched since then is something existed previously.
Other than, you know, the apple watch, and the iPad. Unless you're gonna go with "watches and tablet computers always existed,"
I agree the iPad was a huge step forward in tablet devices, but it is a stretch to say the same thing about the Apple watch. The Apple watch was certainly not a huge or even incremental step forward compared to existing smart watches. It is simply Apple's version of a technology many companies already had or were in the process of developing. It didn't do anything to live up to the groundbreaking iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
That's right, it's an opinion. I'm not expecting others to share my exact preferences. I merely responded as I natutrally would if asked that question. I don't preface all my opinions with "in my opinion" and I expect people to know the difference. Do you think some people are misinterpreting that as fact?
I made a mistake by saying the word opinion in my post. I should have said preferences. Your post did not sound like someone stating his/her preferences, which is what my edit attempted to remedy.
Your post took your preferences and presented them as "the correct preferences" instead of just as your preferences. That is what I took objection to, although I used the wrong terminology in my first post.
[I prefer these] sizes for portable devices. Large phones are cumbersome [for me] and add little [to my experience using them], and 13" devices are [too heavy for me] and more difficult [for me] to use for long periods of time unless [I'm] at a desk.
There, fixed that for you. Now your post presents your reasonable opinions instead of you pretending your opinions should be taken as fact.
I think it is a very good thing Apple is providing a small phone for users who like them. One of my main gripes with Apple in the last decade is they don't give enough options to their users under the guise of knowing what is best for them. This is a step in the right direction, even though I am firmly in the camp who likes larger devices. (being over six foot tall with large hands and pockets might have something to do with it)
You might be awesome at what you do, and you may even have actual hard proof of this. Unfortunately, none of that matters when you get an idiot director or CEO who thinks that IT people are totally interchangeable and all have the same skill set. Your proof of worth will never even be considered by such people.
Then you stop ignoring the recruiters who send over at least 5 jobs offers per week, or call back your friends who keep asking you if you are available for a job, and get a new job by the end of the month. Job security should not come from forcing someone to employ you. It should come from being highly employable in the marketplace.
The job security that comes from being at the same company from 20 years is an illusion. True job security comes from working 5 different jobs in 20 years, and having the experience and skill to get that 6th job at a moment's notice.
True to a degree, but way off the mark in practice. The baseline treatment of employees is the same, with high performing ones earning bonuses, glowing reviews that lead to promotions, and consideration for increased training.
While this may be true in some unions, I have never seen it in practice. I have friends in plumber, waste management, and teacher unions, and all of them have very uniform pay scales that hardly adjusts to individual performance at all. Maybe they have a 10% differences from poor performing coworkers with similar tenure, but without unions it can often be 50%-100% more. And for people with the exact same position, education, experience, etc, the only difference being the leverage a highly skilled worker has.
That true across nearly every job. Even CEOs think they are underpaid for the amount of stress they are under.
It doesn't matter as much if poor performing workers think they are underpaid. They will learn they aren't when they try looking for work elsewhere.
The bugbear of the difficulty in dismissing shit employees is also true, however unions aren't in charge of hiring, which many problems could be avoided if HR performed due diligence in the first place.
There is no such thing as a hiring process which only hires quality workers. Google finally admitted that after over a decade of thinking they could build a rigorous enough process to only hire great employees. The only way to build a quality workforce is to aggressively fire people who underperform.
And this isn't to say unions are all unicorn farts and puppies, but especially with holding management accountable for their poor decisions; your depiction seems to follow a popular trope about unions rather than how they can function.
I think almost everyone can agree unions can function well, and almost certainly some unions even do function well. People get upset about how most unions actually function, though, which is not in the way you are describing. It sounds like you work under high quality union leadership. My guess it is you are in the trades, since my friends in a plumber's union do have it better than my teacher friends and waste management. Well actually my friend in waste management gets the best deal from his union, but only because there are riots if garbage men strike, not because the union is run particularly well.
Moderate your expectations. Strong AI? We're not even close.
Perhaps I skimmed the articles too quickly, but who is talking about strong AI? Perhaps the most important take away here is what can be accomplished with AI research regardless of how far off strong AI is.
While it is true that the government cannot prevent encryption from being used, that doesn't mean reducing the availability of encryption is pointless. Criminals make mistakes, including using insecure communication even when they have better options. I am not in law enforcement, but I assume a large number of criminals are caught because of their mistakes.
An environment where these mistakes are easier to make seems to be in law enforcement's best interest.
Why do people want to stick everything in a web browser? It's like they want us to have only one tool (the browser), to rule them all ...
Many people would like an ecosystem similar to when all computers had Windows and Internet Explorer, where you only had to worry about writing for a single platform. Many changes to web standards are an attempt to get the benefits of a single platform to target but without a single corporation owning that platform. Time will tell how it works out.
The root question is 'how do we make this fair?'
That is not the root question, and any opinions made assuming it is the root question are bound to be faulty. The root question is "what is in the best interest of the citizens of the US". That is not an easily answerable question, but it has nothing to do with fairness.
History has shown plenty of times that government action and oversight can improve not only the lives of citizens but a competitive free market economy as well. It also has examples of governments hurting both of these goals. Government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the answer to many problems.
In this case the argument is these large IT companies have such influence over the public that more government oversight is needed to make sure citizens are not unnecessarily harmed. The same government that helps these companies exist through enforcement of IP law, education of the workforce, etc. is the same government that will be providing this oversight. There is nothing Orwellian about this, this is how government is supposed to work.
The idea that government regulators will protect us from "the dominant few" is very common and tragically naive. Why do people keep falling for this?
The idea that the free market will protect us from "the dominant few" is very common and tragically naïve. Why do people keep falling for this?