Not true, people get dogs because they feel a need for that type of companionship for either themselves or their families.
Yeah that was my point. Just like I like to go to a coffee shop to say hello to the guy that makes me coffee. I can do that quicker and cheaper with my robot coffee machine at home, yet cafe's aren't getting less popular. Robots will change the way we do things, not eliminate them altogether.
Sure, there's always going to be menial labor jobs, but they'll be fewer. Look at what is poised to happen in the fast food industry.
And what is that exactly? McDonalds have a fairly modern technology mindset, they now have automated ordering screens, but they didn't lose any staff. It just means they allocate the ordering staff to order management, taking numbers, handing out food, dealing with wrong orders etc to move more product out the door more quickly.
Dominos is another with a decent technology mindset, with mobile ordering, GPS tracking etc they now employ more drivers as more people order from home now. Here they migrated their car fleet to electric bikes and have a guy to maintain them all and keep the batteries charged.
Automation didn't lose any net jobs in these cases, so I'm keen to hear of any counter examples.
"There was never a job opening for a drone pilot until there was something to fly,"
A drone is not automation. A self driving drone that knows what to pick up and where to deliver it autonomously is automation. It doesn't need a pilot.
So give us an example of automation that has completely obliterated the need for human interaction?
My wife has an expensive coffee machine, yet she still goes out and buys coffee from the guy up the road. In fact since coffee machines became really popular, we have tons more coffee shops. How does this fit into your automation kills everything theory?
Sure, automation creates new jobs, But not everyone has the wherewithal to be a software developer. High-skill jobs will always exist, but how many will be available to all of the truck drivers displaced by self-driving trucks?
So make coffee or sell beer. There'll always be jobs for humans, because humans like interacting with other humans, and some jobs just can't be done by robots.
Examples: Robot vacuum cleaner hasn't replaced the cleaning industry. CCTV hasn't replaced the security industry etc
Excuse me? Show me any company that is willing to pass those savings onto customers!
Most businesses work on margins, ie they aim to make 50%, 80%, 100% margin. So if a product cost them $100 and their target margin is 100%, they sell it for $200. If it costs them $50 they sell it for $100.
If you want examples, ask any major retail business anywhere. Amazon is a classic example because they have one of the lowest margin models in the industry.
start by trying to answer "What employment sector can absorb the 3.5 million truck drivers who will be replaced with automated vehicles?". Apply your own biases for how quickly this will have to happen; I'm wild guessing ~5-7 years
And herein lies your problem. You wild guess, then make a fairly solid assumption based on this wild guess.
Based on what I know of implementation and regulation, a transition from fully human driver fleet to fully automated won't happen in less than 20 years.
Why? Because a lot of drivers aren't just driving, they also load and unload, often in unpredictable circumstances, often with hazardous materials. Robot navigation doesn't solve that
So let's say 3.5M jobs decline starting today steadily over 30 years (even after 20 years I expect a place for some humans somewhere in the mix), that's 117k jobs a year, while currently new job creation is around 150k-200k/month. Your disaster will not happen as you think it will, just like it never happened in any other time in human history when new things were invented.
If nothing illegal was done here...what's the problem?
I can't see any problem in this particular case, but I do see a problem with the logic of "not illegal, not a problem".
A Venn diagram of 'things that are illegal' and 'things that are a problem' would show they don't overlap 100%.
The most immediate and obvious comparison is that I not only did not have his family's business connections, but my father didn't give me over ten million dollars in loans to get started. (The quote is "a small one million dollar loan", but the total amount is well over ten.)
Fair enough, but you can't claim he got the Presidency handed to him by anyone. The entire establishment was against him, both major parties and most media yet he still won. As much of a Ronald McDonald that he is, that is a worthy achievement by anyone's standard.
The irony is that you don't understand that the fact that you can only same one 'non-liberal' news channel, essentially proves the point he was making.
I only mentioned Fox New because it is one of the most popular media outlets in the US.
If you had've simply asked instead of making stupid assumptions I could also throw out Breitbart, Drudge Report, WSJ, New York Post, CSM, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity...
I'm not American yet I know all of these of the top of my head. So yeah, not all US media is liberal...
Second, by letting the Chinese and Germans pay the huge development costs, we'd just pay for the final product. Far cheaper to do it that way
And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners. That's a great long term plan for independence you have there.
I bet you'll be the first to bitch that too many jobs are going overseas too....
Welfare: financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government
Welfare is not a subsidy.
Yes it is.
None of that is subsidy. You aren't even close.
The government contributes money on your behalf. So according to your own definition (all three of them) you are wrong
You can build all these things on energy dependence too as the Japanese have discovered.
Japan used to be the second biggest economy in the world, now that is China who are investing heavily in new energy. See the pattern?
Except when war can't be largely avoided. To note a recent example, Iraq was unable to avoid being invaded in 2003.
Over fossil fuels. Do you see how it works now?
You have no reasonable position here.
Either you don't agree with welfare or subsidies in which you need to stop accepting the welfare/subsidised benefits you currently receive from living in a developed nation. Or you don't believe that new technology can be better than old technology, in which case stop using your computer, and reply back on a typewriter.
Since you choose to participate in both a welfare/subsidy economy, and use modern technology, your actions speak louder than words.
Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper.
Of course you will provide references to back that claim up.
For example, if government pays $100 per pet for robotic poop scoopers so that I don't have to exert myself for the $1 of time and effort it takes to collect the poop from my pet, it's not $100 of subsidy to me. It's $1 of subsidy.
What if they pay a bunch of guys to risk their lives so you don't have to risk yours What's that worth to you?
How much stuff do you have right now that you get to keep because someone else is preventing bad guys to killing you and talking your stuff? You can't argue against the concept of welfare if you enjoy the protection of state.
And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies?
Because we're not in the middle east securing the use of solar panels? Really?
They benefit too even if it is a little bit more tenuously than fossil fuels (these wars after all stabilize global trade which renewable energy is dependent on). That's the usual double standard in play.
That really is grasping at straws. Take a look at all the conflict in the world, then see which ones we get involved with, and see if you can find a pattern.
The Iraq conflict has been going for 25 years, and cost us trillions. You seriously think that would've happened if we didn't rely on oil so much?
Oil is the most subsidised energy there is. If you don't like subsidising energy you should be all for new energy because that is the greatest benefit to independence. Once achieved you no longer need to subsidise it. It will only be temporary while fossil fuels will require subsidies forever.
Dishonest comparison since the renewable energy subsidies won't be in the places with the deaths (developed world subsidies versus developing world pollution and deaths) and of course, ignoring the positive externality of cheaper energy.
That's your opinion, the facts says otherwise.
Renewables are the next big industry. Imagine having this same discussion when oil was discovered. You'd be complaining that we shouldn't bother with this new oil fad, let's stick with burning wood and steam engines.
Further, we could eliminate most of these deaths with the usual pollution controls developed in the 1970s and 80s. No need to switch to renewables when there's a cheaper option at hand.
Too late, renewables are already cheaper for developing countries with no existing infrastructure, and getting cheaper every day.
You are betting that you can keep modifying your typewriter to an electronic version to compete with PCs.
They gloss over that more than $2 trillion of that is just due to China's mess
China is the world's leading investor in renewables. They have already recognised the folly of fossil fuels and have jumped in with both feet. Would you prefer the new global mega industry to be monopolised by the Chinese, or should America try get a slice of that pie?
Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?
The choice is gains (get involved) or losses (let the Chinese and Germans own the next big thing). Which do you prefer?
Funny how those things aren't much like subsidies. They're a variety of paid for services operated by government. Actual subsidies are near universally corporate welfare.
They are exactly the same thing. Welfare is welfare whether to a person or a business. You do know that a business is just a group of people right? And they offer goods and service to other people? Whether you offer welfare to individuals one at a time, or to a business that services a bunch of people at once, the result is the same, you pay money to get something back in return.
Did you pay full fees for your school? The roads you drive on? The water out of your tap? Your Internet service? How about the fact you don't speak Russian now, how much did you pay for that on the day you were born? No, the government subsidises the cost of these things because they have a benefit to society greater than the cost of the subsidy.
Energy independence is quite possibly the greatest benefit any country can achieve, because upon that everything else can be built, and the most costly thing to the economy, war can be largely avoided.
Although technically qualifying as "production", a production run of 918 cars isn't really the same as 100,000+. You can buy a Tesla right now, good luck doing that same with a 918 unless you have a couple of $mil. The other scratch and sniff test, have you ever actually seen a 918 in real life? I haven't and I pass Ferrari's and Lamborghini's every day, so I think it's a bit rich calling the 918 a production car. I am actually likely to encounter a Telsa S almost every day, I have zero chances of coming across a 918 in the wild.
And lastly, the 918 isn't in production. it was in production for 1 year as extremely limited run (probably only to shut down Nissan Porsche-killing claims at the 'Ring), but isn't any more.
Any 4WD car with lots of power and torque will be faster than any 2WD propulsion hypercar.
That's why top fuel drag cars are all 4WD?
For the record 4WD improves traction and handling, not acceleration. In dry, straight line conditions (ie a drag race), 4WD offers no value.
These stupid articles always bring up hyper car speeds. The tesla is stupid quick to 60mph, but once you get to 60mph it fades quite fast. Over 60 and it will be clowned by anything. Additionally comparing it to cars that can run endless laps on a track is pointless.
But continue on with the Musk dick sucking
As a motorcycle rider I find it funny when car dudes blab on about track time this, drag race that. For 99% of your life you are stuck in traffic so none of these theoretical race track times apply.
If you actually take real world use cases, the highest gain is travel time reduction between point a and b is achieved by using a vehicle small enough to slip through traffic, ie a motorcycle. Even a 200cc scooter will shit on any car when you take into account lane splitting to the front of every red light, and the ability to park at the front door of every place you visit.
It's hard to go 0-60 when you're starting at not-0. I strongly suspect it will, like almost all launch control programs, be available only prior to launch.
It's also hard to go 0-60 when you're not at the front of the set of lights, which for most drivers in large cities is almost never.
No...I, like many others genuinely LOVE good looking cars, that have high performance.
Performance car is an oxymoron. If you want the fastest, most exciting possible trip between two points, get a motorcycle. If you want comfort, get a luxury sedan. Anything else is marketing.
An innocuous trip up the road to Walgreens, is an adventure to me...
Slashdot Mirror
Not true, people get dogs because they feel a need for that type of companionship for either themselves or their families.
Yeah that was my point. Just like I like to go to a coffee shop to say hello to the guy that makes me coffee. I can do that quicker and cheaper with my robot coffee machine at home, yet cafe's aren't getting less popular. Robots will change the way we do things, not eliminate them altogether.
There's nothing that we need all these people for.
There's nothing you need a pet dog for, yet the pet industry is quite large. I think you failed to make a point.
Sure, there's always going to be menial labor jobs, but they'll be fewer. Look at what is poised to happen in the fast food industry.
And what is that exactly? McDonalds have a fairly modern technology mindset, they now have automated ordering screens, but they didn't lose any staff. It just means they allocate the ordering staff to order management, taking numbers, handing out food, dealing with wrong orders etc to move more product out the door more quickly.
Dominos is another with a decent technology mindset, with mobile ordering, GPS tracking etc they now employ more drivers as more people order from home now. Here they migrated their car fleet to electric bikes and have a guy to maintain them all and keep the batteries charged.
Automation didn't lose any net jobs in these cases, so I'm keen to hear of any counter examples.
"There was never a job opening for a drone pilot until there was something to fly," A drone is not automation. A self driving drone that knows what to pick up and where to deliver it autonomously is automation. It doesn't need a pilot.
So give us an example of automation that has completely obliterated the need for human interaction?
My wife has an expensive coffee machine, yet she still goes out and buys coffee from the guy up the road. In fact since coffee machines became really popular, we have tons more coffee shops. How does this fit into your automation kills everything theory?
Sure, automation creates new jobs, But not everyone has the wherewithal to be a software developer. High-skill jobs will always exist, but how many will be available to all of the truck drivers displaced by self-driving trucks?
So make coffee or sell beer. There'll always be jobs for humans, because humans like interacting with other humans, and some jobs just can't be done by robots.
Examples: Robot vacuum cleaner hasn't replaced the cleaning industry. CCTV hasn't replaced the security industry etc
Excuse me? Show me any company that is willing to pass those savings onto customers!
Most businesses work on margins, ie they aim to make 50%, 80%, 100% margin. So if a product cost them $100 and their target margin is 100%, they sell it for $200. If it costs them $50 they sell it for $100. If you want examples, ask any major retail business anywhere. Amazon is a classic example because they have one of the lowest margin models in the industry.
start by trying to answer "What employment sector can absorb the 3.5 million truck drivers who will be replaced with automated vehicles?". Apply your own biases for how quickly this will have to happen; I'm wild guessing ~5-7 years
And herein lies your problem. You wild guess, then make a fairly solid assumption based on this wild guess.
Based on what I know of implementation and regulation, a transition from fully human driver fleet to fully automated won't happen in less than 20 years.
Why? Because a lot of drivers aren't just driving, they also load and unload, often in unpredictable circumstances, often with hazardous materials. Robot navigation doesn't solve that
So let's say 3.5M jobs decline starting today steadily over 30 years (even after 20 years I expect a place for some humans somewhere in the mix), that's 117k jobs a year, while currently new job creation is around 150k-200k/month. Your disaster will not happen as you think it will, just like it never happened in any other time in human history when new things were invented.
You're already modded to 5, but I came to say the exact same thing.
I agree.
If nothing illegal was done here...what's the problem?
I can't see any problem in this particular case, but I do see a problem with the logic of "not illegal, not a problem".
A Venn diagram of 'things that are illegal' and 'things that are a problem' would show they don't overlap 100%.
In contrast, I think the election was massively rigged, the riggers (barely) won
The riggers also lost. Everyone was rigging, the idea that you are voting for change with any candidate is the biggest fraud going.
The most immediate and obvious comparison is that I not only did not have his family's business connections, but my father didn't give me over ten million dollars in loans to get started. (The quote is "a small one million dollar loan", but the total amount is well over ten.)
Fair enough, but you can't claim he got the Presidency handed to him by anyone. The entire establishment was against him, both major parties and most media yet he still won. As much of a Ronald McDonald that he is, that is a worthy achievement by anyone's standard.
The irony is that you don't understand that the fact that you can only same one 'non-liberal' news channel, essentially proves the point he was making.
I only mentioned Fox New because it is one of the most popular media outlets in the US. If you had've simply asked instead of making stupid assumptions I could also throw out Breitbart, Drudge Report, WSJ, New York Post, CSM, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity...
I'm not American yet I know all of these of the top of my head. So yeah, not all US media is liberal...
Second, by letting the Chinese and Germans pay the huge development costs, we'd just pay for the final product. Far cheaper to do it that way
And pay licensing fees for the rest of life to foreigners. That's a great long term plan for independence you have there.
I bet you'll be the first to bitch that too many jobs are going overseas too....
Words have meaning. For subsidy:
Yes, yes they do
Subsidy: A grant or contribution of money:
Welfare: financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government
Welfare is not a subsidy.
Yes it is.
None of that is subsidy. You aren't even close.
The government contributes money on your behalf. So according to your own definition (all three of them) you are wrong
You can build all these things on energy dependence too as the Japanese have discovered.
Japan used to be the second biggest economy in the world, now that is China who are investing heavily in new energy. See the pattern?
Except when war can't be largely avoided. To note a recent example, Iraq was unable to avoid being invaded in 2003.
Over fossil fuels. Do you see how it works now?
You have no reasonable position here.
Either you don't agree with welfare or subsidies in which you need to stop accepting the welfare/subsidised benefits you currently receive from living in a developed nation. Or you don't believe that new technology can be better than old technology, in which case stop using your computer, and reply back on a typewriter.
Since you choose to participate in both a welfare/subsidy economy, and use modern technology, your actions speak louder than words.
I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.
Weren't they? I recall quite a few people were upset at that too.
Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.
Really? He was facing impeachment, I think that counts as people being bothered.
Weird, like there's a double standard or something.
Of course there's double standards everywhere. But don't pretend that it's only team playing the game.
Problem is that the MSM News Outlets are so in the tank for Liberals that it isn't even funny,
Like Fox News for example?
The mainstream media is at least as bad as the supposed "fake" news sources. All of a stripe - liars to the core. Believe none of it.
Is that what you read on Facebook?
Of course not. If companies had to pay for their own security in the Middle East, it would be vastly cheaper.
Of course you will provide references to back that claim up.
For example, if government pays $100 per pet for robotic poop scoopers so that I don't have to exert myself for the $1 of time and effort it takes to collect the poop from my pet, it's not $100 of subsidy to me. It's $1 of subsidy.
What if they pay a bunch of guys to risk their lives so you don't have to risk yours What's that worth to you?
How much stuff do you have right now that you get to keep because someone else is preventing bad guys to killing you and talking your stuff? You can't argue against the concept of welfare if you enjoy the protection of state.
And why isn't the cost of those wars counted towards the cost of renewable energy subsidies?
Because we're not in the middle east securing the use of solar panels? Really?
They benefit too even if it is a little bit more tenuously than fossil fuels (these wars after all stabilize global trade which renewable energy is dependent on). That's the usual double standard in play.
That really is grasping at straws. Take a look at all the conflict in the world, then see which ones we get involved with, and see if you can find a pattern.
The Iraq conflict has been going for 25 years, and cost us trillions. You seriously think that would've happened if we didn't rely on oil so much? Oil is the most subsidised energy there is. If you don't like subsidising energy you should be all for new energy because that is the greatest benefit to independence. Once achieved you no longer need to subsidise it. It will only be temporary while fossil fuels will require subsidies forever.
Dishonest comparison since the renewable energy subsidies won't be in the places with the deaths (developed world subsidies versus developing world pollution and deaths) and of course, ignoring the positive externality of cheaper energy.
That's your opinion, the facts says otherwise.
Renewables are the next big industry. Imagine having this same discussion when oil was discovered. You'd be complaining that we shouldn't bother with this new oil fad, let's stick with burning wood and steam engines.
Further, we could eliminate most of these deaths with the usual pollution controls developed in the 1970s and 80s. No need to switch to renewables when there's a cheaper option at hand.
Too late, renewables are already cheaper for developing countries with no existing infrastructure, and getting cheaper every day.
You are betting that you can keep modifying your typewriter to an electronic version to compete with PCs.
They gloss over that more than $2 trillion of that is just due to China's mess
China is the world's leading investor in renewables. They have already recognised the folly of fossil fuels and have jumped in with both feet. Would you prefer the new global mega industry to be monopolised by the Chinese, or should America try get a slice of that pie?
Why should I expect either to have good future capital gain over a typical investment horizon?
The choice is gains (get involved) or losses (let the Chinese and Germans own the next big thing). Which do you prefer?
Funny how those things aren't much like subsidies. They're a variety of paid for services operated by government. Actual subsidies are near universally corporate welfare.
They are exactly the same thing. Welfare is welfare whether to a person or a business. You do know that a business is just a group of people right? And they offer goods and service to other people? Whether you offer welfare to individuals one at a time, or to a business that services a bunch of people at once, the result is the same, you pay money to get something back in return.
Did you pay full fees for your school? The roads you drive on? The water out of your tap? Your Internet service? How about the fact you don't speak Russian now, how much did you pay for that on the day you were born? No, the government subsidises the cost of these things because they have a benefit to society greater than the cost of the subsidy.
Energy independence is quite possibly the greatest benefit any country can achieve, because upon that everything else can be built, and the most costly thing to the economy, war can be largely avoided.
Although technically qualifying as "production", a production run of 918 cars isn't really the same as 100,000+. You can buy a Tesla right now, good luck doing that same with a 918 unless you have a couple of $mil. The other scratch and sniff test, have you ever actually seen a 918 in real life? I haven't and I pass Ferrari's and Lamborghini's every day, so I think it's a bit rich calling the 918 a production car. I am actually likely to encounter a Telsa S almost every day, I have zero chances of coming across a 918 in the wild.
And lastly, the 918 isn't in production. it was in production for 1 year as extremely limited run (probably only to shut down Nissan Porsche-killing claims at the 'Ring), but isn't any more.
Any 4WD car with lots of power and torque will be faster than any 2WD propulsion hypercar.
That's why top fuel drag cars are all 4WD?
For the record 4WD improves traction and handling, not acceleration. In dry, straight line conditions (ie a drag race), 4WD offers no value.
These stupid articles always bring up hyper car speeds. The tesla is stupid quick to 60mph, but once you get to 60mph it fades quite fast. Over 60 and it will be clowned by anything. Additionally comparing it to cars that can run endless laps on a track is pointless. But continue on with the Musk dick sucking
As a motorcycle rider I find it funny when car dudes blab on about track time this, drag race that. For 99% of your life you are stuck in traffic so none of these theoretical race track times apply.
If you actually take real world use cases, the highest gain is travel time reduction between point a and b is achieved by using a vehicle small enough to slip through traffic, ie a motorcycle. Even a 200cc scooter will shit on any car when you take into account lane splitting to the front of every red light, and the ability to park at the front door of every place you visit.
It's hard to go 0-60 when you're starting at not-0. I strongly suspect it will, like almost all launch control programs, be available only prior to launch.
It's also hard to go 0-60 when you're not at the front of the set of lights, which for most drivers in large cities is almost never.
No...I, like many others genuinely LOVE good looking cars, that have high performance.
Performance car is an oxymoron. If you want the fastest, most exciting possible trip between two points, get a motorcycle. If you want comfort, get a luxury sedan. Anything else is marketing.
An innocuous trip up the road to Walgreens, is an adventure to me...
Even more adventure if you do it on one wheel ;)
The only US state they are illegal in is Virginia.
FTFY