Imagine two people born in 1800 that are discussing what kind of jobs would be available in 2000, after they're being told about the level of automation there will be. I doubt they'll get more than 1%. The fact that you or I can't imagine what people will be doing instead, doesn't mean that new jobs won't be created.
For instance, I run a small business, but my skills are limited to a certain area, and I can't afford to hire anybody else. Maybe with smarter technology, I can get a robot to help me with the areas I'm not very good at, and grow my business. After I grow, I can afford to hire another person to do something that computers/robots are not good at doing.
Or maybe Elon Musk (or someone else) will succeed in making an brain-computer connection on the neural level, and we can augment people's minds with a computer brain, giving people additional skills they lack on their own, and letting them do completely novel jobs.
I find often find myself looking at the disassembly listing to solve tricky issues. For instance, if I want to find out why a certain library call was included, or if I want to see if the interrupt handler was optimized well enough by the compiler. In some cases, writing a little bit of assembly is useful for task switching, or accessing special features in the CPU.
I was a late bloomer, as it were, in my relation to math
Sure, there are always exceptions, but if you want to be smart about doing the most with a limited education budget, it's smarter to go by general rules that apply to 99% of the people. And rare geniuses among the 1% will probably find their way in the end.
People who get demoralized by math, probably shouldn't pursue a career in a STEM field. The earlier you can sort out who's interested and who's not, the better. That applies to both men and women equally, by the way.
Which means it'll have to be the more difficult task of returning the 1st stage to the launch site as recovering it from the drone ship will take much too long.
Probably not this one. It's already an older design, and too much work. Newer (block 5) designs are coming up that should be a lot simpler to relaunch.
Until then, real people are needed to buy the stuff the robots make.
Why ? Rich people with robots can have stuff made for themselves. Extra consumers are not necessary. Worse, they use up valuable resources and produce nothing of value.
Briefly, practically every scientist agrees that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a change in temperature of.7-.9 degrees. And that's not enough for anyone to worry about. Alarmist scientists say, "but there are feedbacks that will in addition cause temperature to rise 5-9 degrees with a doubling of CO2!"
Current consensus is about 3 degrees C per doubling. We haven't even doubled since industrial revolution, but temperature has already increased 1 degree C, and temperatures haven't even caught up with CO2 rise so far. Clearly, we're going to be way higher than 0.7-0.9 degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
But do you open stuff you get somewhere else ? e-mail is just a medium.
Such as?
Imagine two people born in 1800 that are discussing what kind of jobs would be available in 2000, after they're being told about the level of automation there will be. I doubt they'll get more than 1%. The fact that you or I can't imagine what people will be doing instead, doesn't mean that new jobs won't be created.
For instance, I run a small business, but my skills are limited to a certain area, and I can't afford to hire anybody else. Maybe with smarter technology, I can get a robot to help me with the areas I'm not very good at, and grow my business. After I grow, I can afford to hire another person to do something that computers/robots are not good at doing.
Or maybe Elon Musk (or someone else) will succeed in making an brain-computer connection on the neural level, and we can augment people's minds with a computer brain, giving people additional skills they lack on their own, and letting them do completely novel jobs.
Except those displaced by optimization...
They have an opportunity to do something more useful.
I find often find myself looking at the disassembly listing to solve tricky issues. For instance, if I want to find out why a certain library call was included, or if I want to see if the interrupt handler was optimized well enough by the compiler. In some cases, writing a little bit of assembly is useful for task switching, or accessing special features in the CPU.
Then there's the stack stuff, PUSH, POP, CALL, RET, and a few others
How are these obsolete or dumb ? All four are in the top 20 of most used x86 instructions.
A more optimized delivery system benefits us all.
A good compiler will warn you if you use '=' in a test.
So, learn assembly in your free time.
What if you use Ada to write something as complex as a C interpreter ?
Consensus doesn't mean true, it just means that it's our best bet with current insight.
Are there big pushes elsewhere to get more men into female-dominated professions?
I've never seen those. Also, there are no big pushes to get more women in male-dominated dangerous and/or low wage jobs either.
I was a late bloomer, as it were, in my relation to math
Sure, there are always exceptions, but if you want to be smart about doing the most with a limited education budget, it's smarter to go by general rules that apply to 99% of the people. And rare geniuses among the 1% will probably find their way in the end.
Which bit is hard?
Depends on the person. Myself, I had a lot of trouble with Wiener processes.
Mathematics isn't hard if it's taught correctly
No, it's still hard, but a good teacher can teach you the basic stuff.
Women were demoralized
People who get demoralized by math, probably shouldn't pursue a career in a STEM field. The earlier you can sort out who's interested and who's not, the better. That applies to both men and women equally, by the way.
The needed more STEM people, and while the number of female students stayed the same, the number of male entries increased, so that's a good result.
Which means it'll have to be the more difficult task of returning the 1st stage to the launch site as recovering it from the drone ship will take much too long.
They'll launch it from the drone ship :)
Probably not this one. It's already an older design, and too much work. Newer (block 5) designs are coming up that should be a lot simpler to relaunch.
Musk said goal is 10 launches without refurb, 100 with.
Rich people do not stay rich behaving that way
If you have a slave army of robots working for you, surely, you'll stay rich. All you need is for your robots to produce more than they consume.
As long as the masses have the vote, and therefore the ability to command police and military forces
It's easy enough for those in power to take away the votes from the masses. And we don't need police and military when we have battle bots.
Until then, real people are needed to buy the stuff the robots make.
Why ? Rich people with robots can have stuff made for themselves. Extra consumers are not necessary. Worse, they use up valuable resources and produce nothing of value.
paid for by taxing the owners of the capital infrastructure (i.e. the robots) that do all of the production
You're making a crazy assumption that the owners of the infrastructure will agree to voluntarily pay taxes in order to support useless masses.
Unless you're a sea shell, or another piece of calcium carbonate, then the ocean is becoming more corrosive.
Briefly, practically every scientist agrees that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a change in temperature of .7-.9 degrees. And that's not enough for anyone to worry about. Alarmist scientists say, "but there are feedbacks that will in addition cause temperature to rise 5-9 degrees with a doubling of CO2!"
Current consensus is about 3 degrees C per doubling. We haven't even doubled since industrial revolution, but temperature has already increased 1 degree C, and temperatures haven't even caught up with CO2 rise so far. Clearly, we're going to be way higher than 0.7-0.9 degrees.