It's not well-defined, almost nothing about speech is well-defined. That's why there are cases every year about whether a law or government action violated the 1st amendment and many people disagree about the outcome of such cases.
It doesn't become a free speech issue until the _government_ steps in
Free speech is a principle separate from the government. The 1st amendment protection of free speech is what is limited to the government. Free speech can be celebrated or limited by anybody, it's just illegal for the government to do it. That's the difference. It's not illegal for Google to ban apps that say things critical of Google for instance... but it certainly means they aren't committed to free speech.
That's acceptable when dealing with very broad groups, but surely economists assign different values for subgroups? The people who use a given road are much more diverse than the people at risk for death due to air quality, I would think.
No, that would be if you want 1st amendment protection. There's nothing wrong with a private company supporting free speech on its own, and many do. There are even commenters on this article saying in their business they support free speech and would continue to serve people with disagreeable views.
What distinction are you trying to make? Antifa will throw the bricks through the windows of Nazis because of who they are. They will topple Confederate monuments because of who they represent. Etc.
They came for the "Nazis" but anybody can be labeled a Nazi these days. During the last presidential election I recall pretty much anybody arguing against amnesty for illegal immigrants was called a Nazi.
Plus, SO MANY people will be more happy and productive, because they can actually choose their career.
Well there's the flaw. We need to target this to the low productivity jobs that are being automated, not just people in general. Otherwise it's going to cause a real problem, because we can't automate every job yet. What do you do if on day one, 95% of garbage collectors quit because they can get their UBI check and become pro gamers, singers, etc... but there are no fully automated garbage trucks out there, and cities don't have the budget to replace their entire fleet all at once anyway?
I think it's good for people to do work, both from a consumer perspective (I'd rather tell a person than a machine what I want to eat, if only for the interaction) and from a human perspective (I think work grants some measure of dignity, so even if a machine is equivalent or cheaper, it's still worth it to give people productive jobs).
The people in those circumstances can/should rely on welfare rather than shifting the burden disproportionately to certain industries. Welfare is going to have to undergo some major reform to deal with automation. Basically if the price point of labor becomes close to $0 for many people, well, we still want people to work and contribute to society, so we need a way to give welfare to people who are working but not making money.
Personally I would love to have a yard care service for which I and others in my neighborhood pay a very reasonable $20/month, with the employees picking up an additional couple thousand bucks in benefits. Great. That's better than them getting the welfare and not providing the yard care service and me spending $20000 on a robot lawn manager.
I doubt it. More likely they'll realize they shouldn't be caught up in this kind of stupid crap, that there are consequences, and that a 3 year probation with a felony on your record is actually a lot better than a 15 year prison sentence which they might get next time they go rioting.
I bet there are plenty of people who don't go to sports games in countries where "hooligans" are a big problem. They don't want to be involved, and that's understandable. When that happens to the democratic process I think the punishment should be a lot more severe than intimidating people from going to a soccer game.
I have to say this fills me with joy. Antifa think they can get away with anything these days because they're on "the right side of history" and all that garbage. Well, not today sonny. Even if you're just part of the crowd, being part of a rioting crowd is what gives it strength even if you're not personally destroying stuff.
How so? It's an incredibly dangerous situation. You can't have a functioning democracy when a large group starts using physical violence and intimidation tactics. That's a threat to the very nature of the country.
I think it's great. When people are going around in a mob breaking things, it's very intimidating. That's the real issue I think. It amounts to political intimidation and that should be punished very fucking severely.
So to be clear, your solution is to grant nuclear power a free pass to clear the legal process, whether challenges are legitimate or not?
Not at all, what I'm suggesting is changing the requirements for what a legitimate challenge is, making some challenges easier to dismiss. You could also have a time period wherein all challenges must be initiated, so that groups can't do serial challenges that each halt the project for 90 days or whatever.
How rapidly they forget Fukushima.
What was the death toll from Fukushima? For perspective keep in mind that the tsunami killed thousands of people.
The first official military action of the United States in WW2 was Operation Torch in November 1942
I'm sure this was just an oversight because you seem to know what you're talking about, but the US began unrestricted warfare against Japan in the Pacific within hours of Pearl Harbor. That's if you don't count the defense of Pearl Harbor itself as official for whatever reason.
It's understandable that they're not talking about catastrophic failures in public, especially before they are even ready to test them outside of a simulation. To assume that means they haven't had internal discussions about these issues is a bit naive.
You know it's like, the last car commercial I saw did not devote 5 minutes to "okay we're introducing the new 2018 xyz! but before we look at the cool new features, let's think about what happens if you're trapped inside our car and it catches on fire? and what happens if your kids are strapped into car seats in the back and you fall into a river and your windows were down? and what happens if there's a tornado and projectiles break through the windshield and into your spouse's head?" etc
It's not impossible, but it does depend on the details involved. Amazon's shipping money doesn't just come from Prime, it also charges the businesses that are offering their products as Prime Eligible.
Indeed, on some items you can pretty blatantly see the hidden pricing... just look at any Prime Eligible item that is also available as an add-on item.
I don't know if this is enough to make up for every possible pattern of shipment, but I think there are definitely some patterns of weekly shipments that Amazon can still profit off of. It really depends what you're ordering.
In my area, there is already only 1 person per garbage truck -- the driver, who also manipulates the grabber arm. I'm sure that arm can be automated.
Mail trucks shouldn't be too far behind, which would sure help with the post office's budget issues. We will have a few million newly unemployed/unemployable people to think about though when this all pans out.
Yup, self-driving cars will be a game changer for traffic. Since the majority of traffic in most places is local day-to-day traffic, like getting to/from work, stores, restaurants, etc. I don't think the increased car utilization will come close to outweighing the improved traffic efficiency.
You have me pretty excited about road trips though. I hadn't really thought about it, but clearly cars will be designed more for passenger comfort. It'll be like first class or better travel, with privacy, at your convenience, with complete control over making stops and route changes. If efficiency improves enough, we can have fewer lanes that are wider so cars can have more interior room.
On the other hand, self-driving buses are also going to be a game changer. According to this article operating expenses for buses are huge, and about 70% are for employees. Self-driving buses will mean we can have twice as many buses, or maybe 10 times as many cheaper buses with lower capacity. If the bus came every 5 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, and went to more places, a lot of people are going to stop owning a car.
So the very first thing about traffic control is to control human reproduction rates.
Self-driving cars, telecommuting, public transportation, expanding roadways, tunneling, cheaper and faster point to point delivery via drones, encouraging businesses to become more geographically diverse... you think government control of reproduction rates should be done BEFORE all of those things? The very first thing? wtf lol
a) you increase the overheads of the companies as they have to spend more on transportation, management, warehousing, etc to maintain their sales and customers, this brings prices of the good up
That is highly dependent on the situation. For almost anything requiring warehousing, you save money by having it outside of the city. If you put a furniture store in a downtown area, it's almost certainly just for display models, and the furniture is delivered to the customer from a remote warehouse. Building the warehouse in a remote area saves far more money than the increased costs for transportation.
b) you increase people's need to travel from one place to another, further increasing overall time spent on traveling as well as money spent on fuel
The whole point of spacing out stores is to make them more easily accessible and cheaper. I don't know how it is in your county but where I live cities have a majority of the population living outside of the downtown area. Building a store on the edge of the city will dramatically lower the transit time for customers who live on that edge. Building in a downtown area here is more about prestige and exclusivity than efficiency. It's great for things like... a museum, a theatre, a high-end jewelry store, that have a tiny and dispersed customer base anyway.
Also it seems like you're thinking of "spacing out" as spacing out every single individual store, like a customer now has to drive 10 minutes between every single store. But you still have shopping centers. So if I'm going to look at suitcases, buy some good walking shoes, stop at the bookstore to read some travel guides and have a coffee, pick up some new clothes, get a haircut, and then buy groceries for the weekend... that's not multiple trips with driving in-between, that's 1 trip and a few minutes of walking around the (large) parking lot. That's what I did last Friday after work a the shopping center 10 minutes from my house.
If I tried to replicate that downtown, it'd be a much longer car ride to get there. Then a lot more walking to get to each type of store, or probably driving... I'm not going to walk for blocks and blocks with 5 bags of groceries. And much higher prices (there's no cheap haircut downtown for instance, it's just fancy places... err I mean outside of the ghetto areas).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not well-defined, almost nothing about speech is well-defined. That's why there are cases every year about whether a law or government action violated the 1st amendment and many people disagree about the outcome of such cases.
It doesn't become a free speech issue until the _government_ steps in
Free speech is a principle separate from the government. The 1st amendment protection of free speech is what is limited to the government. Free speech can be celebrated or limited by anybody, it's just illegal for the government to do it. That's the difference. It's not illegal for Google to ban apps that say things critical of Google for instance... but it certainly means they aren't committed to free speech.
That's acceptable when dealing with very broad groups, but surely economists assign different values for subgroups? The people who use a given road are much more diverse than the people at risk for death due to air quality, I would think.
It works pretty well for genres that don't depend on jokes, emotion, and timing. Documentaries, history, educational stuff.
So why do you think that a business restricting the speech of its customers is not censorship? Do you know what the definition of censorship is?
No, that would be if you want 1st amendment protection. There's nothing wrong with a private company supporting free speech on its own, and many do. There are even commenters on this article saying in their business they support free speech and would continue to serve people with disagreeable views.
What distinction are you trying to make? Antifa will throw the bricks through the windows of Nazis because of who they are. They will topple Confederate monuments because of who they represent. Etc.
They came for the "Nazis" but anybody can be labeled a Nazi these days. During the last presidential election I recall pretty much anybody arguing against amnesty for illegal immigrants was called a Nazi.
Wait, what? You think if you're born Jewish or any other religion that you can't change that?
Plus, SO MANY people will be more happy and productive, because they can actually choose their career.
Well there's the flaw. We need to target this to the low productivity jobs that are being automated, not just people in general. Otherwise it's going to cause a real problem, because we can't automate every job yet. What do you do if on day one, 95% of garbage collectors quit because they can get their UBI check and become pro gamers, singers, etc... but there are no fully automated garbage trucks out there, and cities don't have the budget to replace their entire fleet all at once anyway?
I think it's good for people to do work, both from a consumer perspective (I'd rather tell a person than a machine what I want to eat, if only for the interaction) and from a human perspective (I think work grants some measure of dignity, so even if a machine is equivalent or cheaper, it's still worth it to give people productive jobs).
The people in those circumstances can/should rely on welfare rather than shifting the burden disproportionately to certain industries. Welfare is going to have to undergo some major reform to deal with automation. Basically if the price point of labor becomes close to $0 for many people, well, we still want people to work and contribute to society, so we need a way to give welfare to people who are working but not making money.
Personally I would love to have a yard care service for which I and others in my neighborhood pay a very reasonable $20/month, with the employees picking up an additional couple thousand bucks in benefits. Great. That's better than them getting the welfare and not providing the yard care service and me spending $20000 on a robot lawn manager.
I doubt it. More likely they'll realize they shouldn't be caught up in this kind of stupid crap, that there are consequences, and that a 3 year probation with a felony on your record is actually a lot better than a 15 year prison sentence which they might get next time they go rioting.
I bet there are plenty of people who don't go to sports games in countries where "hooligans" are a big problem. They don't want to be involved, and that's understandable. When that happens to the democratic process I think the punishment should be a lot more severe than intimidating people from going to a soccer game.
I have to say this fills me with joy. Antifa think they can get away with anything these days because they're on "the right side of history" and all that garbage. Well, not today sonny. Even if you're just part of the crowd, being part of a rioting crowd is what gives it strength even if you're not personally destroying stuff.
How so? It's an incredibly dangerous situation. You can't have a functioning democracy when a large group starts using physical violence and intimidation tactics. That's a threat to the very nature of the country.
I think it's great. When people are going around in a mob breaking things, it's very intimidating. That's the real issue I think. It amounts to political intimidation and that should be punished very fucking severely.
So to be clear, your solution is to grant nuclear power a free pass to clear the legal process, whether challenges are legitimate or not?
Not at all, what I'm suggesting is changing the requirements for what a legitimate challenge is, making some challenges easier to dismiss. You could also have a time period wherein all challenges must be initiated, so that groups can't do serial challenges that each halt the project for 90 days or whatever.
How rapidly they forget Fukushima.
What was the death toll from Fukushima? For perspective keep in mind that the tsunami killed thousands of people.
The first official military action of the United States in WW2 was Operation Torch in November 1942
I'm sure this was just an oversight because you seem to know what you're talking about, but the US began unrestricted warfare against Japan in the Pacific within hours of Pearl Harbor. That's if you don't count the defense of Pearl Harbor itself as official for whatever reason.
but not mentioned by the Hyped loop people
It's understandable that they're not talking about catastrophic failures in public, especially before they are even ready to test them outside of a simulation. To assume that means they haven't had internal discussions about these issues is a bit naive.
You know it's like, the last car commercial I saw did not devote 5 minutes to "okay we're introducing the new 2018 xyz! but before we look at the cool new features, let's think about what happens if you're trapped inside our car and it catches on fire? and what happens if your kids are strapped into car seats in the back and you fall into a river and your windows were down? and what happens if there's a tornado and projectiles break through the windshield and into your spouse's head?" etc
Should be pretty obvious why.
It's not impossible, but it does depend on the details involved. Amazon's shipping money doesn't just come from Prime, it also charges the businesses that are offering their products as Prime Eligible.
Indeed, on some items you can pretty blatantly see the hidden pricing... just look at any Prime Eligible item that is also available as an add-on item.
I don't know if this is enough to make up for every possible pattern of shipment, but I think there are definitely some patterns of weekly shipments that Amazon can still profit off of. It really depends what you're ordering.
In my area, there is already only 1 person per garbage truck -- the driver, who also manipulates the grabber arm. I'm sure that arm can be automated.
Mail trucks shouldn't be too far behind, which would sure help with the post office's budget issues. We will have a few million newly unemployed/unemployable people to think about though when this all pans out.
Yup, self-driving cars will be a game changer for traffic. Since the majority of traffic in most places is local day-to-day traffic, like getting to/from work, stores, restaurants, etc. I don't think the increased car utilization will come close to outweighing the improved traffic efficiency.
You have me pretty excited about road trips though. I hadn't really thought about it, but clearly cars will be designed more for passenger comfort. It'll be like first class or better travel, with privacy, at your convenience, with complete control over making stops and route changes. If efficiency improves enough, we can have fewer lanes that are wider so cars can have more interior room.
On the other hand, self-driving buses are also going to be a game changer. According to this article operating expenses for buses are huge, and about 70% are for employees. Self-driving buses will mean we can have twice as many buses, or maybe 10 times as many cheaper buses with lower capacity. If the bus came every 5 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, and went to more places, a lot of people are going to stop owning a car.
So the very first thing about traffic control is to control human reproduction rates.
Self-driving cars, telecommuting, public transportation, expanding roadways, tunneling, cheaper and faster point to point delivery via drones, encouraging businesses to become more geographically diverse... you think government control of reproduction rates should be done BEFORE all of those things? The very first thing? wtf lol
a) you increase the overheads of the companies as they have to spend more on transportation, management, warehousing, etc to maintain their sales and customers, this brings prices of the good up
That is highly dependent on the situation. For almost anything requiring warehousing, you save money by having it outside of the city. If you put a furniture store in a downtown area, it's almost certainly just for display models, and the furniture is delivered to the customer from a remote warehouse. Building the warehouse in a remote area saves far more money than the increased costs for transportation.
b) you increase people's need to travel from one place to another, further increasing overall time spent on traveling as well as money spent on fuel
The whole point of spacing out stores is to make them more easily accessible and cheaper. I don't know how it is in your county but where I live cities have a majority of the population living outside of the downtown area. Building a store on the edge of the city will dramatically lower the transit time for customers who live on that edge. Building in a downtown area here is more about prestige and exclusivity than efficiency. It's great for things like... a museum, a theatre, a high-end jewelry store, that have a tiny and dispersed customer base anyway.
Also it seems like you're thinking of "spacing out" as spacing out every single individual store, like a customer now has to drive 10 minutes between every single store. But you still have shopping centers. So if I'm going to look at suitcases, buy some good walking shoes, stop at the bookstore to read some travel guides and have a coffee, pick up some new clothes, get a haircut, and then buy groceries for the weekend... that's not multiple trips with driving in-between, that's 1 trip and a few minutes of walking around the (large) parking lot. That's what I did last Friday after work a the shopping center 10 minutes from my house.
If I tried to replicate that downtown, it'd be a much longer car ride to get there. Then a lot more walking to get to each type of store, or probably driving... I'm not going to walk for blocks and blocks with 5 bags of groceries. And much higher prices (there's no cheap haircut downtown for instance, it's just fancy places... err I mean outside of the ghetto areas).