[Gender diversity bringing a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas] is bollocks. In my experience at least, fresh perspectives and innovative ideas are fostered by - surprise, surprise - intellectual and cultural diversity.
Your experience doesn't mesh well with the research. While cultural diversity does provide more value than gender diversity, both are still valuable. A McKinsey report shows that companies in the top quartile of gender diversity are 21% more likely to have better than average profits. Just because top quartile cultural diversity companies are 33% more likely to have better than average profits doesn't mean gender diversity is not important. Both seem to provide significant value.
While this is just one study, a quick Google search will show plenty of research showing the value of gender diversity.
And the higher up you get, the smaller the difference seems to get.
Actually according to the study linked to above, the benefit is even more drastic at the board of director level. So it appears the higher up you get the larger the difference seems to get.
Doctors spend about 30 seconds looking at such things. Not much cost there to reduce.
I am not sure that is true, since TFA says "diagnosing eye diseases from ocular scans is complex and time-consuming for doctors". Perhaps ocular scans are far more complex than most MRI/CT scans, but in my experience it can take days to get results from some MRI scans so I doubt it is a 30 second process.
Then again, there are over 100 million MRI/CT scans performed per year in the US alone, so even 30 seconds saved would be 50 million man-hours of doctors' time saved. That's probably worth around $100 million yearly right there. But if I'm right and it is more like a few minutes of time saved per scan, it could easily be over $500 million in yearly savings, in the USA alone. If we are both wrong and it actually saves 10+ minutes per scan, the savings are into the billions.
Things will change, they may change in ways we will like and ways we wont. A lot produce will be larger and more energy dense as C02 levels go up. That might actually help us feed larger populations. Other things are happening we might not like so well.
Higher CO2 levels will not help us feed larger populations. While it is true that increased CO2 levels do assist photosynthesis and increase plant growth, at least in certain plants. But this one minor advantage pales in comparison to the negative consequences of CO2. First off the increase in plant growth has diminishing returns, and eventually plateaus (at about 500 ppm). Second, global climate change will change which areas of the planet have the best climate for crops, but it won't change which areas have the most fertile land (at least not quickly enough). So overall arable land will decrease. Third, more severe weather will harm crop yields far more than increased CO2 levels will help.
There are benefits to higher CO2 levels, but they simply don't compare to the negatives. It is like having one strongly performing stock in your investment portfolio, but 9 others that are tanking by an even greater amount.
Assuming the change doesn't happen to rapidly as to cause an extinction
From TFA: "The broad scientific consensus is that coral reef ecosystems worldwide risk collapse by as early as 2050". This means that based on current research, it will happen too rapidly for nature to handle. That is why the coral reef in this story is potentially important, because it could show an example of coral which is resilient enough to weather this rapid change. But then again the research here is in very early stages, so it doesn't appear they know why this coral is more resistant. Or even if it is the coral at all, instead of some other factor local to this area.
Life as a whole is pretty damned resilient. [...] I don't think we should use this is an excuse to allow ourselves to damage the environment, but rather that we should reject arguments calling for radical action because otherwise life will perish.
The danger is never that life won't find a way. The danger is if the change is too significant for humans to handle. This isn't about saving coral reefs so people can enjoy snorkeling, it is about the US$375 billion per year these reefs add to the global economy. And about the local human societies most at risk if this economic engine is damaged. Whether or not some plants survived and thrived in Chernobyl is not nearly as important as whether or not human crops survived in the area.
A lot, but much less than a doctor or else why use the service in the first place?
The US performs 70 million CT scans per year, and about 40 million MRI exams. Add other exams I don't know about and there is likely a market of around 150 million scans per year in the US alone. Probably closer to 1 billion scans worldwide. Even at $1 per scan, which is worth less than 30 seconds of a doctor's time, that is a billion dollar industry all by itself. My guess is economy of scale will make this service quite cheap.
we could probably automate 50% of the medical industry and still have a shortage of doctors
That's a nice little made up statistic you have there.
I should have preceded that statement with an IF. I meant to imply that we would still have plenty of work for human doctors no matter how much we automate (at least for the foreseeable future). I did not mean to imply that we could actually automate 50% of the medical industry, I only used that as a hyperbolic level of automation to prove a point.
While it is true that any time savings is likely a cost savings, I think you may not appreciate how short a time doctors usually spend on a single case. My wife is a pathologist so I see some of this up close. I've seen pathologist go through 100 to as many as 300 cases in a single 8-12 hour shift.
If they are going through that many cases per day, I would say that increases the benefit automation can do. If they were only doing 10 cases per day, then an automated process of just reading ocular scans might only save maybe 5-10 minutes per day. But if they are going through 300 cases per day, shaving off even 30 seconds per scan would save over two hours per day per optometrist.
There is a reason they are applying AI to imagery scans first, because it is an easily scalable activity. One server farm could service thousands of hospitals and doctors offices. There are 40,000 optometrists in the US. Save each of them one minute per day and that comes to $15-20 million per year in savings. Save them two minutes and that savings doubles. Obviously that is a gross oversimplification for how time savings materialize into actual financial savings, but I think it's clear there is plenty of room for cost savings.
The main reason health care costs more now than in 1950 (age-adjusted) is all the new technology. MRIs still aren't anything like cheap. What people with a political agenda tend to gloss over is that you get much better care now, thanks to that tech.
More accurate diagnostics are a net win, but don't expect costs to come down.
MRIs increase overall healthcare costs because it provides a service which couldn't even be done without the technology. It creates a net new cost (but also improves care). Using software to replace humans providing an existing service is very different, and has a high likelihood of reducing costs. If rules are created were this software can only be used to confirm existing diagnosis then it would be considered a net new service, and would increase costs.
You think adding expensive technology on top of the doctors that are there will decrease costs?
Yes, I think software capable of detecting sight threatening conditions would reduce the cost of preventative eye care. I believe the cost per scan will be less than the cost of having an optometrist do it. Doctors are very expensive.
Well it is good, but more so that our level of healthcare can improve without ever more skyrocketing costs. With an aging population and a nearly never-ending supply of new drugs and treatments, we could probably automate 50% of the medical industry and still have a shortage of doctors. Every time we can move a diagnostic test from requiring 30 minutes of a doctor's time to 30 seconds of a computer's time, that is huge savings.
These stories are often spun as computers taking over a doctor's job, when they really should be thought of as productivity enhancements. The more we can move doctors to more complex work like designing treatment plans which work with a patient's lifestyle, the better we can use their very valuable time.
So Mexico has guards with machine guns with orders to fire on their southern border, but when the US treats illegals much nicer, somehow we're the bad guys?
It is quite disappointing when anyone thinks "at least we are better than Mexico" should be the litmus test for how America should act.
Rather than forgetting about the last 50+ years, trying to pretend that radical leftists never existed and suggesting that all leftists share a common thread in being humane and honest, why don't you maybe get serious.
Instead of pretending that all leftists believe in a completely open border, instead of a very small fraction, why don't you maybe get serious?
There are those who disagree with the manner in which the US is currently doing it though.
That's not, how TFA puts it, however. Simply targeting immigrants (the crucial adjective "illegal" coyly omitted) is enough to make it unethical in these people's imagination.
That is exactly how TFA puts it. Just because you are inserting the word "illegal" in your mind when reading TFA, does not mean that is what it says.
Right... Because it is unethical for America — uniquely among the world's nations — to fight its enemies and enforce its borders.
While you likely already know this and are just trolling, no one disagrees with America fighting its enemies and enforcing its borders. There are those who disagree with the manner in which the US is currently doing it though.
That is certainly true, but until our CTO secures a mandate from the board to replace about two decades of duct taped systems, that won't change. Four years of new projects being done better certainly helps, but all our technical debt will never go away.
None of my senior developers or architects have to worry about holiday check-ins, but more senior roles require more responsibility.
Responding to emails while on vacation is not cool.
I have generally found that occasionally checking in while on vacation helps me schedule more vacations more freely. Otherwise it is harder to find a week where my wife and I can both take time off. The majority of vacations I never respond to a single email, but being able to leave during a busy time in a project knowing my team can handle anything because I am available just in case makes the whole process of taking a vacation far less stressful.
Or perhaps you could just say I am too indoctrinated into corporate life.
Stock collapse and bank collapse are very different things with grossly different risk profiles. Although I would agree you shouldn't hold too much cash in a single account and instead take advantage of options such as a cash sweep vehicle. Don't criticize Slashdot mods when you really don't have a clue about investing.
"Suckers like me" have made quite a lot of money from Tesla just through stock [...] Why would I care what is going on day to day? I invest for what will be happening ten years from now
These two comments seem to be at odds with each other.
If you have made money from Tesla stock it means you have already sold some of the stock based on recent growth in the last 5 years or so. But that would mean you have been caring what has happened in the short term, since you have been selling stock to make money.
If you haven't sold any Tesla stock recently, you haven't made any money from Tesla. They don't declare dividends so no one has made money off of Tesla stock without selling it. You may see your investment balance going up, but you haven't made any actual money yet. If Tesla runs out of money the stock will be worth nothing long before you are notified. I'm not saying that will happen, but you can never count on money from a single stock until it is sold and put into a more diversified account (even then there are risks).
I don't believe you. Are you truly distributing the highest quality, highest resolution photos you can take with your phone to everyone? [...] Keep in mind the top of the line phones don't always have the best cameras.
The fact you bring up high resolution as one of the key aspects that makes a camera phone better shows you aren't very interested in photography (that is not meant as an insult). Aspects such as aperture, light sensitivity, auto-focusing quality, and software tools are all very important as well, if not more important. And top of the line phones (iPhone, Galaxy, Pixel) absolutely have the best camera phones available. You may find some $200 phones with better cameras than $500 phones, but none of them are as good as the flagship phones of the major manufacturers.
Your kids aren't going to care about those best-quality images nor will you in 20 years. How many photos of your younger years do you look at? How often? Do you throw them out because you can't see everyone's pores? There are other ways you could spend that $600 which will have a far bigger impact on your kids' and your lives.
I would agree that these photos provide more utility now than in 20 years, but not everything we spend money on is only for the benefit it provides decades from now. My guess is we won't care much about how we spent that $600 in 20 years regardless of how we spent it. Put into a retirement account that would grow into about $40k in real dollars over 30 years, increasing our currently planned retirement fund by less than 2%, providing about $100 of extra income per month. Or put into college funds it would come to a little over $5k per child, less than 10% of our current target. And these are likely the two best alternatives if you are looking at the benefit 20 years from now.
I would also agree with anyone who says you should properly fund your retirement and college savings accounts long before getting a $1000 phone. The same could be said for getting a BMW, a $10k+ family vacation, or many other luxury purchases arguably similar to a flagship phone.
Given a decent processor, everything else is hype.
This is simply not true. There is a big difference between a top of the line mobile processor and a budget one. The same goes for the amount of RAM, size of the screen, and camera quality. It may not be worth the extra $20-30 per month for you, but there are significant improvements you can get to your phone for that money.
Most people I know have decided that all the selling points of flagship devices aren't really that big of a deal and are buying cheap phones that can browse, take some crappy pictures, and do messaging.
My wife and I buy the nicest phone available every other year almost entirely for the camera. We like not having to carry a separate camera for photos of our kids, and it's worth an extra $50 per month for us both to have the best camera phone money can buy today, instead of what the top of the line was 2-3 years ago. There are plenty of other nice things about having the best phones available but the camera is the main selling point.
A thousand dollar phone better last six or seven years
This argument isn't much different than saying "A $100 meal better keep me full for 3 days".
The phone isn't expensive because of extra durability or a longer shelf life, just like a fancy meal isn't expensive because it keeps you full longer. They are expensive because they are at least subjectively better than other phones (or meals) you could purchase for less.
Even his history major example, sure, so they can tell us from the enlightenment why usability is good (apparently, I'm curious what the relevance is myself, last I checked they didn't have touch screen tablets, keyboards, console controllers, and mice back then, but let's go with it) but that doesn't change the fact that they're still useless at actually building a good UI, they're just telling us what we already know.
Without getting too tied up on this one example, it is often important for us to look back at why we already know what we know. And often times this common wisdom is wrong without a stronger knowledge of the past.
For instance many people believe technological advances will create as many (if not more) jobs as they will displace, so people will be better off. This comes from an incomplete understanding of the past. It comes from not knowing that massive technological advancements have often displaced large groups of people for generations before society caught up. I don't know this from my own years of study into the past, I know this because of the work of hundreds of historians. Having a more complete understanding of how societies have handled these periods of change in the past requires never ending research and reflection, because in every case history will repeat itself in a somewhat different way. Nuance is very important, and understanding that nuance generally only comes from very thorough knowledge of the subject matter.
This is only one example. Art history expands our knowledge of visual aesthetics, linguistics helps us design technology to reach different cultures, philosophy helps us ask how complete our current knowledge really is, and the list goes on and on. Better knowledge of the humanities can be important for anyone, and having experts in them helps society as a whole. I think it's clear we need far fewer historians than we do software engineers, but both still play an integral part in the technological advances of the future.
They may only know who if their software tracks the user id doing a SIM card swap but then the criminal employee could be using the log in for another employee. Or if it is a Database admin doing it directly with a query there may not be a record.
Each of these risks are trivial for a company as large as a major telecom to mitigate. Tracking the logged in user of every significant system update is obvious. Tracking the actual user id performing a task even when impersonating another user is also obvious. Logging of all database transactions in a location your database admins do not have edit rights to isn't a novel concept either.
I understand nearly all companies do not take this level of effort in their security, but large financial institutions, telecoms, etc. really should.
Apple is definitely not valued based on its current size. It is currently valued at about 20x net income, which is for companies who are valued primarily on future growth. To use your car example, mature car companies like Ford are valued at closer to 5x net income. If Apple was valued based on its current size it would be closer to $250 billion (still quite impressive).
Slashdot Mirror
[Gender diversity bringing a variety of perspectives to the table that can help foster new and innovative ideas] is bollocks. In my experience at least, fresh perspectives and innovative ideas are fostered by - surprise, surprise - intellectual and cultural diversity.
Your experience doesn't mesh well with the research. While cultural diversity does provide more value than gender diversity, both are still valuable. A McKinsey report shows that companies in the top quartile of gender diversity are 21% more likely to have better than average profits. Just because top quartile cultural diversity companies are 33% more likely to have better than average profits doesn't mean gender diversity is not important. Both seem to provide significant value.
While this is just one study, a quick Google search will show plenty of research showing the value of gender diversity.
And the higher up you get, the smaller the difference seems to get.
Actually according to the study linked to above, the benefit is even more drastic at the board of director level. So it appears the higher up you get the larger the difference seems to get.
Doctors spend about 30 seconds looking at such things. Not much cost there to reduce.
I am not sure that is true, since TFA says "diagnosing eye diseases from ocular scans is complex and time-consuming for doctors". Perhaps ocular scans are far more complex than most MRI/CT scans, but in my experience it can take days to get results from some MRI scans so I doubt it is a 30 second process.
Then again, there are over 100 million MRI/CT scans performed per year in the US alone, so even 30 seconds saved would be 50 million man-hours of doctors' time saved. That's probably worth around $100 million yearly right there. But if I'm right and it is more like a few minutes of time saved per scan, it could easily be over $500 million in yearly savings, in the USA alone. If we are both wrong and it actually saves 10+ minutes per scan, the savings are into the billions.
Things will change, they may change in ways we will like and ways we wont. A lot produce will be larger and more energy dense as C02 levels go up. That might actually help us feed larger populations. Other things are happening we might not like so well.
Higher CO2 levels will not help us feed larger populations. While it is true that increased CO2 levels do assist photosynthesis and increase plant growth, at least in certain plants. But this one minor advantage pales in comparison to the negative consequences of CO2. First off the increase in plant growth has diminishing returns, and eventually plateaus (at about 500 ppm). Second, global climate change will change which areas of the planet have the best climate for crops, but it won't change which areas have the most fertile land (at least not quickly enough). So overall arable land will decrease. Third, more severe weather will harm crop yields far more than increased CO2 levels will help.
There are benefits to higher CO2 levels, but they simply don't compare to the negatives. It is like having one strongly performing stock in your investment portfolio, but 9 others that are tanking by an even greater amount.
Assuming the change doesn't happen to rapidly as to cause an extinction
From TFA: "The broad scientific consensus is that coral reef ecosystems worldwide risk collapse by as early as 2050". This means that based on current research, it will happen too rapidly for nature to handle. That is why the coral reef in this story is potentially important, because it could show an example of coral which is resilient enough to weather this rapid change. But then again the research here is in very early stages, so it doesn't appear they know why this coral is more resistant. Or even if it is the coral at all, instead of some other factor local to this area.
Life as a whole is pretty damned resilient. [...] I don't think we should use this is an excuse to allow ourselves to damage the environment, but rather that we should reject arguments calling for radical action because otherwise life will perish.
The danger is never that life won't find a way. The danger is if the change is too significant for humans to handle. This isn't about saving coral reefs so people can enjoy snorkeling, it is about the US$375 billion per year these reefs add to the global economy. And about the local human societies most at risk if this economic engine is damaged. Whether or not some plants survived and thrived in Chernobyl is not nearly as important as whether or not human crops survived in the area.
And how much will be charged for this service?
A lot, but much less than a doctor or else why use the service in the first place?
The US performs 70 million CT scans per year, and about 40 million MRI exams. Add other exams I don't know about and there is likely a market of around 150 million scans per year in the US alone. Probably closer to 1 billion scans worldwide. Even at $1 per scan, which is worth less than 30 seconds of a doctor's time, that is a billion dollar industry all by itself. My guess is economy of scale will make this service quite cheap.
we could probably automate 50% of the medical industry and still have a shortage of doctors
That's a nice little made up statistic you have there.
I should have preceded that statement with an IF. I meant to imply that we would still have plenty of work for human doctors no matter how much we automate (at least for the foreseeable future). I did not mean to imply that we could actually automate 50% of the medical industry, I only used that as a hyperbolic level of automation to prove a point.
While it is true that any time savings is likely a cost savings, I think you may not appreciate how short a time doctors usually spend on a single case. My wife is a pathologist so I see some of this up close. I've seen pathologist go through 100 to as many as 300 cases in a single 8-12 hour shift.
If they are going through that many cases per day, I would say that increases the benefit automation can do. If they were only doing 10 cases per day, then an automated process of just reading ocular scans might only save maybe 5-10 minutes per day. But if they are going through 300 cases per day, shaving off even 30 seconds per scan would save over two hours per day per optometrist.
There is a reason they are applying AI to imagery scans first, because it is an easily scalable activity. One server farm could service thousands of hospitals and doctors offices. There are 40,000 optometrists in the US. Save each of them one minute per day and that comes to $15-20 million per year in savings. Save them two minutes and that savings doubles. Obviously that is a gross oversimplification for how time savings materialize into actual financial savings, but I think it's clear there is plenty of room for cost savings.
The main reason health care costs more now than in 1950 (age-adjusted) is all the new technology. MRIs still aren't anything like cheap. What people with a political agenda tend to gloss over is that you get much better care now, thanks to that tech.
More accurate diagnostics are a net win, but don't expect costs to come down.
MRIs increase overall healthcare costs because it provides a service which couldn't even be done without the technology. It creates a net new cost (but also improves care). Using software to replace humans providing an existing service is very different, and has a high likelihood of reducing costs. If rules are created were this software can only be used to confirm existing diagnosis then it would be considered a net new service, and would increase costs.
You think adding expensive technology on top of the doctors that are there will decrease costs?
Yes, I think software capable of detecting sight threatening conditions would reduce the cost of preventative eye care. I believe the cost per scan will be less than the cost of having an optometrist do it. Doctors are very expensive.
Well it is good, but more so that our level of healthcare can improve without ever more skyrocketing costs. With an aging population and a nearly never-ending supply of new drugs and treatments, we could probably automate 50% of the medical industry and still have a shortage of doctors. Every time we can move a diagnostic test from requiring 30 minutes of a doctor's time to 30 seconds of a computer's time, that is huge savings.
These stories are often spun as computers taking over a doctor's job, when they really should be thought of as productivity enhancements. The more we can move doctors to more complex work like designing treatment plans which work with a patient's lifestyle, the better we can use their very valuable time.
So Mexico has guards with machine guns with orders to fire on their southern border, but when the US treats illegals much nicer, somehow we're the bad guys?
It is quite disappointing when anyone thinks "at least we are better than Mexico" should be the litmus test for how America should act.
Rather than forgetting about the last 50+ years, trying to pretend that radical leftists never existed and suggesting that all leftists share a common thread in being humane and honest, why don't you maybe get serious.
Instead of pretending that all leftists believe in a completely open border, instead of a very small fraction, why don't you maybe get serious?
There are those who disagree with the manner in which the US is currently doing it though.
That's not, how TFA puts it, however. Simply targeting immigrants (the crucial adjective "illegal" coyly omitted) is enough to make it unethical in these people's imagination.
That is exactly how TFA puts it. Just because you are inserting the word "illegal" in your mind when reading TFA, does not mean that is what it says.
Right... Because it is unethical for America — uniquely among the world's nations — to fight its enemies and enforce its borders.
While you likely already know this and are just trolling, no one disagrees with America fighting its enemies and enforcing its borders. There are those who disagree with the manner in which the US is currently doing it though.
And your systems are likely too brittle.
That is certainly true, but until our CTO secures a mandate from the board to replace about two decades of duct taped systems, that won't change. Four years of new projects being done better certainly helps, but all our technical debt will never go away.
None of my senior developers or architects have to worry about holiday check-ins, but more senior roles require more responsibility.
Responding to emails while on vacation is not cool.
I have generally found that occasionally checking in while on vacation helps me schedule more vacations more freely. Otherwise it is harder to find a week where my wife and I can both take time off. The majority of vacations I never respond to a single email, but being able to leave during a busy time in a project knowing my team can handle anything because I am available just in case makes the whole process of taking a vacation far less stressful.
Or perhaps you could just say I am too indoctrinated into corporate life.
Stock collapse and bank collapse are very different things with grossly different risk profiles. Although I would agree you shouldn't hold too much cash in a single account and instead take advantage of options such as a cash sweep vehicle. Don't criticize Slashdot mods when you really don't have a clue about investing.
"Suckers like me" have made quite a lot of money from Tesla just through stock [...] Why would I care what is going on day to day? I invest for what will be happening ten years from now
These two comments seem to be at odds with each other.
If you have made money from Tesla stock it means you have already sold some of the stock based on recent growth in the last 5 years or so. But that would mean you have been caring what has happened in the short term, since you have been selling stock to make money.
If you haven't sold any Tesla stock recently, you haven't made any money from Tesla. They don't declare dividends so no one has made money off of Tesla stock without selling it. You may see your investment balance going up, but you haven't made any actual money yet. If Tesla runs out of money the stock will be worth nothing long before you are notified. I'm not saying that will happen, but you can never count on money from a single stock until it is sold and put into a more diversified account (even then there are risks).
I don't believe you. Are you truly distributing the highest quality, highest resolution photos you can take with your phone to everyone? [...] Keep in mind the top of the line phones don't always have the best cameras.
The fact you bring up high resolution as one of the key aspects that makes a camera phone better shows you aren't very interested in photography (that is not meant as an insult). Aspects such as aperture, light sensitivity, auto-focusing quality, and software tools are all very important as well, if not more important. And top of the line phones (iPhone, Galaxy, Pixel) absolutely have the best camera phones available. You may find some $200 phones with better cameras than $500 phones, but none of them are as good as the flagship phones of the major manufacturers.
Your kids aren't going to care about those best-quality images nor will you in 20 years. How many photos of your younger years do you look at? How often? Do you throw them out because you can't see everyone's pores? There are other ways you could spend that $600 which will have a far bigger impact on your kids' and your lives.
I would agree that these photos provide more utility now than in 20 years, but not everything we spend money on is only for the benefit it provides decades from now. My guess is we won't care much about how we spent that $600 in 20 years regardless of how we spent it. Put into a retirement account that would grow into about $40k in real dollars over 30 years, increasing our currently planned retirement fund by less than 2%, providing about $100 of extra income per month. Or put into college funds it would come to a little over $5k per child, less than 10% of our current target. And these are likely the two best alternatives if you are looking at the benefit 20 years from now.
I would also agree with anyone who says you should properly fund your retirement and college savings accounts long before getting a $1000 phone. The same could be said for getting a BMW, a $10k+ family vacation, or many other luxury purchases arguably similar to a flagship phone.
Given a decent processor, everything else is hype.
This is simply not true. There is a big difference between a top of the line mobile processor and a budget one. The same goes for the amount of RAM, size of the screen, and camera quality. It may not be worth the extra $20-30 per month for you, but there are significant improvements you can get to your phone for that money.
Most people I know have decided that all the selling points of flagship devices aren't really that big of a deal and are buying cheap phones that can browse, take some crappy pictures, and do messaging.
My wife and I buy the nicest phone available every other year almost entirely for the camera. We like not having to carry a separate camera for photos of our kids, and it's worth an extra $50 per month for us both to have the best camera phone money can buy today, instead of what the top of the line was 2-3 years ago. There are plenty of other nice things about having the best phones available but the camera is the main selling point.
A thousand dollar phone better last six or seven years
This argument isn't much different than saying "A $100 meal better keep me full for 3 days".
The phone isn't expensive because of extra durability or a longer shelf life, just like a fancy meal isn't expensive because it keeps you full longer. They are expensive because they are at least subjectively better than other phones (or meals) you could purchase for less.
Even his history major example, sure, so they can tell us from the enlightenment why usability is good (apparently, I'm curious what the relevance is myself, last I checked they didn't have touch screen tablets, keyboards, console controllers, and mice back then, but let's go with it) but that doesn't change the fact that they're still useless at actually building a good UI, they're just telling us what we already know.
Without getting too tied up on this one example, it is often important for us to look back at why we already know what we know. And often times this common wisdom is wrong without a stronger knowledge of the past.
For instance many people believe technological advances will create as many (if not more) jobs as they will displace, so people will be better off. This comes from an incomplete understanding of the past. It comes from not knowing that massive technological advancements have often displaced large groups of people for generations before society caught up. I don't know this from my own years of study into the past, I know this because of the work of hundreds of historians. Having a more complete understanding of how societies have handled these periods of change in the past requires never ending research and reflection, because in every case history will repeat itself in a somewhat different way. Nuance is very important, and understanding that nuance generally only comes from very thorough knowledge of the subject matter.
This is only one example. Art history expands our knowledge of visual aesthetics, linguistics helps us design technology to reach different cultures, philosophy helps us ask how complete our current knowledge really is, and the list goes on and on. Better knowledge of the humanities can be important for anyone, and having experts in them helps society as a whole. I think it's clear we need far fewer historians than we do software engineers, but both still play an integral part in the technological advances of the future.
Like I said - god complex.
You are not a surgeon. Also, we need waaaaaay more programmers than surgeons.
Someone has a god complex if they compare themselves to a surgeon? You must have quite the admiration for surgeons.
They may only know who if their software tracks the user id doing a SIM card swap but then the criminal employee could be using the log in for another employee. Or if it is a Database admin doing it directly with a query there may not be a record.
Each of these risks are trivial for a company as large as a major telecom to mitigate. Tracking the logged in user of every significant system update is obvious. Tracking the actual user id performing a task even when impersonating another user is also obvious. Logging of all database transactions in a location your database admins do not have edit rights to isn't a novel concept either.
I understand nearly all companies do not take this level of effort in their security, but large financial institutions, telecoms, etc. really should.
Apple is definitely not valued based on its current size. It is currently valued at about 20x net income, which is for companies who are valued primarily on future growth. To use your car example, mature car companies like Ford are valued at closer to 5x net income. If Apple was valued based on its current size it would be closer to $250 billion (still quite impressive).