There are always larger factors at work than Automation. Its just one of many ingredients in the mix.
What drives making 'profit' is someone else somewhere has to spend more than their income. Spending creates savings. Ultimately this question makes its way back to who is issuing the currency, their spending decisions that drives aggregate profit.
The private sector always looks to maximise profit. A market entirely left to its own devices Iteratively Revises Down the amount of profit it makes because of changes in wage bargaining power, automation. Reduce workforce with automation and you're reducing someone's paying customers somewhere. So its self-sabotaging. However this dynamic is continuously changing(never static) as innovation creates new products, regulation and protections demand higher levels of quality and currency issuers get to work in Congress/Parliament and conduct discretionary spending which raises aggregate wealth for the private sector.
Robots (broadly automation over last 250 years) always changes the mix of how many people are needed to manufacture X in industry Y. But that's just a subset of what's going on. If we look at 'work' that is both profitable and not profitable its immediately obvious that there is more work than at any point in human history that needs to be done. eg: Today's displaced retails workers could become tomorrows electronic repair technicians if regulations are introduced to reduce e-waste. Manufacturers are required to make stuff that can be un-made, fixed, recycled.
Ageing population suddenly stops being a problem if you introduce the right level of technology and job creation for instance.
Also Jobs that stick around are the ones that have a contingent element of responsibility attached to them. Its easy to automate a Lawyer but hard to change a system that demands a human accountability in the process. That is a big part of why so many jobs are not being automated but others are: A coordinator who is legally responsible but not human? How do you sue that?
I dont buy into 'robots are here so work has ended' it never will and the people selling this idea well meaning or not don't see the whole picture.
The coin that wins will be the commodity that is most useful. You need a lump of tin, gold, platinum or perhaps something like silicon instead?
As with most metals they are in small particles with impurities deep in the ground. Then you have to use a lot of energy to extract them in useful quantities and have the right equipment. Assets required to mine bitcoins are a server farm of hardware and a measure of energy.
Considering most of the debate about which coin will win is probably none of the above. The coin that will win probably does not exist now and will have more than these 3 can offer for the great hordes of unwashed masses. The one that wins will be the one with most coercive uses probably tied to a utility purpose (ownership of said coin will be tied to getting something everyone wants). In the way touch screens were not popular until tied to Apple phones/pads. Or i-tunes gift cards.
The best outcome for it to act like currency for users will be acceptance, price stability not which type of bit-coin is worth the most versus USD but which one can be stored knowing it has stable purchasing power 1+ years from now, and end user experience that is user friendly Otherwise the 3rd intended fork is of relevence only to people who need to use it as a conduit to avoid bank fees (dump into coin, transfer it and excahnge for a currency at the other end), speculators, miners and enthusiasts.
Metal is a commodity not a currency.
Currency has been around since the beginning of the bronze age before most 'metals' were around.
Sorry to disappoint but every time federal government spends by legislation (eg: congress says 'make it so') that is creating currency.
Every time a bank account of a federal employee is credited it is done by treasury as a legal mandated timed obligation.
Likewise every time taxes are paid thats taking currency out of circulation and deleting it.
Its purely a post-rationalisation not a literal transfer of funds that say 'tax dollars pay for X spending'.
QE is not / never will be inflationary. Thats the problem with using a homeopathic term 'printing money' without context:
Quantitative Easing (QE) involves the central bank buying treasuries (or in some cases private sector securities) from the private sector by paying with newly created reserves.
Quantitative easing simply swaps one type of asset on private sector balance sheets (typically treasuries) for another type (deposits backed by bank reserves, or simply bank reserves if a bank did the selling.)
QE effectively changes the duration mix of outstanding government liabilities toward more short term liabilities and less long term ones. As such, it is roughly equivalent to if the treasury had previously chosen to issue relatively more T-Bills (short duration) and less bonds (long duration).
No sectors (or entities within sectors) see any change in balance sheet equity as a direct result of QE. Therefore, there is no meaningful increase in the private sector's purchasing power or propensity to spend. At the level of each individual household or firm who might sell to the Fed during QE, decisions regarding investment portfolio composition tend to be made independently from decisions about how much to spend versus hold in an investment portfolio — so a change in the portfolio mix (cash, bonds, stocks, etc) won't cause more spending. Also, treasuries are almost as liquid as "money" and anyone previously holding treasuries could have easily sold them to support any planned spending.
Get gold is an industrially massive undertaking.
So you dig it up make it pure, create gold ingot's then put it back in a hole (some vault somewhere). Its limited and even gold is not static in value.
Pretty much the definition of what money is not. Money is an IOU its an abstraction of debtor, creditor and bank/some form of intermediary/overseer. Fiat money has been around since ancient Mesopotamia (hence all those clay tablets are bank statements/accounting identities).
How so?
http://neweconomicperspectives...
Banks don't lend reserves. Reserves are driven endogenously by banks expanding their balance sheets making loans. After that they back fill inter-bank swapping of reserves and ultimately go to the FED (US example) to get reserves at the penalty rate.
Why don't you read up on what drives hyperinflation. Hint its not 'printing money' its what money in circulation can buy.
Printing money is false cause of hyperinflation wrongly associated because its the wrong response to an underlying problem.
'printing money' is a bulls**t non-specific term that does not really mean anything. (Can cover one or more scenarios which can be quite similar but also quite different).
Zimbabwe: give modern farms to war veterans during some of the worst drought years on record and you'll find what a unit of currency buys is a lot less. Then give corrupt government officials large loans which they don't have to pay back which they immediately exchange for other currencies and you get ingredients for hyperinflation.
Venezuela: archaic unavailability of modern currency exchange in 2012, and again in February 2013, the government sharply reduced the availability of foreign exchange. It was during this time that shortages of basic goods accelerated, along with inflation and the black market price of the dollar. The official exchange rate, at which the government sold the vast majority of dollars earned from oil sales, was at 6.3 Bolivares Fuertes per dollar. But a parallel market already existed, and the shortage of dollars at the official rate drove the parallel market sharply upward. At the same time, the higher parallel market price of the dollar increased inflation, because it increases the price of imported goods.
Monetary Base = Reserve balances + vault cash + cash in circulation.
M1 = Cash in circulation + Private-bank checking accounts of non-banks, non-federal, non-official foreign economic units.
Best to question by what measure is money "significantly easier to come by today than it was in the 17th century"
A currency issuer (government) drives use of currency by spending (issuing) and taxing (deleting) in said currency (enforces this by all legal and ultimately military means) and has not changed since 17th century (or before).
The people who say "There is a heck of a lot of money out there. Too much, according to some" probably don't understand basics like reserve balances don't EVER circulate in the non-bank part of the economy as an asset on the private sectors balance sheet. (They cant be found in a persons bank account balance rather how banks settle their own reserve balances). The of course there are all those people living in poverty who cant find jobs or have enough money. *at some point the people saying there is "too much" don't understand basic accounting and are out of touch with reality of the 99%.
Bit coin is not 'money' its a 'commodity' and one for that matter that does nothing better than act like a currency (in the way homeopathy cures cancer). When people work that out guess how much it will be worth.;-)
Its not a 'currency' never has been does not in any way fit the definition of a currency its a virtual commodity. Get over it.
http://www.win-vector.com/blog...
If anything the last 6 months has shown why its too volatile for normal people to contemplate getting into.
Of course welcome wall street ponzi-scheme into the mix, its like a big homeopathic cures conference, no shortment of excited con-artists.
Eventually the gig will be up. This will happen when some governments legislate, taxes it in some form and the special interest from the community most interested in the technology will be circumvented. (was to avoid tax wasnt it;-)
If i wanted a commodity that's virtual and takes big oh NP complexity to mine it would have been good if all that energy mining the blocks also cured cancer, looked for ET or some other things . (Hint did something useful)
Its not that at all. If FED 'sets' interest it also sets a component of inflation in the economy. Business leverages/expands credit to operate, if the baseline interest is raised this follows through to increased cost to build things and increased cost of living so the net effect is zero.
The problem is that there is not enough real value adding being done in capitalism. Eg: where work builds something that makes profit. The private sector looks for investment and ultimately government spending creates areas where profit is higher yield than other areas. Eg: Lucrative profit for companies in China is not just operating costs its government creating money by keystroke to grow the economy.
Now look at the efficiency of the financial sector that is supposed to make retirement stable:
"The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year in IPO's and secondary offerings"
"What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about 32 trillion a year. So by the way i calculate it, 99% of what we do in
the industry is people trading with one another, with a gain only to the middleman.It's a waste of resources" -john bogle.
Public pensions where the aggregate savings expand M1 of the money supply, where people DONT Have to take risks with a financial system that does not invest in real production or innovation IS THE PROBLEM nothing to do with interest rates.
Also here are facts about millenials savings. They cant save enough because they dont earn enough. NO matter how you partition the income one of the basic living expenses is going to be defficient.
https://www.principal.com/abou...https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
Employment participation rate is worse in the USA after every recession:
https://i0.wp.com/bilbo.econom...http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom...https://i1.wp.com/bilbo.econom...
People are poorer/earn less/more part time work replacing full time work:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...
Not JUST evident in the USA:
https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom...
The reason a 'generation' eg: baby boomers 1945-1969 could retire earlier by aggregate is the cumulative savings or financial assets they were allowed to keep and accumulate.
Over this period you had capitalism that was adding value, building stuff and investment reflected that.
17% of profit was financialised, the rest went to wages or expanding the core function of the business.
Now 64% is financialised so growth is lower, economic output GAPS are wider, workforce participation is lower. FInancialisation becomes parasitic and slows growth at this level.
Literally pigeonhole principle at work: train 100 pigeons to navigate their way to individual boxes. if there is only 80 boxes it guarantees 20 will miss out. Run this over many iterations and its simply a matter of fact that if there are always a shortage of boxes [jobs] there will be a larger distribution of non-finding boxes [non earning periods in a persons life] amongst the pigeons.
[SOURCE FOR FINANCIALISATION]
https://www.jacobinmag.com/201...
Its mostly ideological not 'real resource constrained' that cumulative assets given to a generation SETS when they retire eg: Higher government spending ADDS to net financial assets claimed by the private sector.
Larger compulsory retirement contributions keep workers working but also provides the choice to retire.
Young people are not unrealistic they either ignorant of the issue entirely or understand to a certain extent the current system does not work and can be changed.
Author just pontificates truisms as if they were true:
"People started feeling the pain of high-cost labor and there's an appetite for automation that we haven't seen before."
Not since 1975... increases in productivity have gone to corporate profits, there has NEVER been a high cost labour problem in the last 30+ years ANYWHERE. Its the opposite they have deliberately undermined purchasing power and are worried about their falling rate of profit.
The great recession was a financial collapse coming to a head with the worst possible policy response creating a real recession that for many has not really ended. It could be fixed with correct policy decisions and by keystroke but that's ideologically opposite to the wishes of the elites.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...
The latest fad is to hype up the 'robots are coming'. Notwithstanding the larger context that automation has to make profit so further undermining spending equals income will make it hard for automation too.
Civil engineer core in the USA says they need to rebuild all the infrastructure 50+ year old bridges. Bring on the robots and the people. The whole paradigm of automation is that it transforms jobs for workers and creates as many as it eliminates by aggregate. All those warehouse robots have electronics and sensors which break often so there's a whole industry of service/repair that will expand.
As much as its the job of places like slashdot to inform its readers it does stoop to the hyperbole or 'fake news' level vested interests saying that their vested interest outcome in inevitable.
But you can use a regular expression to replace tabs with spaces or the opposite way around?
That's what i do anyway, generally i don't see tabs, spaces or positioning of curly braces as issues at all.
People have their arguments but its not worth mentioning as its easily solved with one command in say vim or whatever powerful ide does regex.
Even better yes please to an entire ecosystem of languages.
Its one of the fundamental flaws of software engineering.
We bend the spoon because we don't have time to make a soup ladel.
Stuff that should be competed out of existence [bent spoons] gets band-aided and adopted by everyone.
People do FOREX trades based on flows of government fiscal policy, interest rates and taxation flows often.
Presumably these are linked to real 'investment' eg: when any arm of the US government spends USD to buy literally anything it wants in the currency it issues.
Indeed your criticism is more of currency market hysteria which Bitcoin more prone to or this slashdot article would not be here.
eg: brexit http://www.smh.com.au/business...http://uk.businessinsider.com/...
Meanwhile in the real world most people have seen or know about a government accounting statement...
'Evil' or not:
https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/...
There's your stable supply of USD there. Subtract X trillion from an infinite set.
Thats a lot more stable than X CPU/GPU cycles to get a crypto commodity which is algorithmically pegged at a rising rate of change to your computers ability to 'mine' it.
by 'people' you mean tax collectors. Ultimately currency hold value because the currency issuer can hire police to put you in jail if you use it and dont pay Tax.
bitcoin is not a 'currency'
There is nothing innovative about the Uber model.
Their ride matching algorithm is poor (regressive pattern matching algorithm with weighted outcomes = meh whatever) they just identified a market and monopolized exactly as the taxi companies did.
But hey its 'an app' and f**k it in all those places around the world where real full time jobs are being lost... come in with a 19th century share cropping model.
The middle man extracts the profit, owns the IP, runs the monopoly and relies on a bad low pay gig economy for people desperate enough to run a car making a loss to do the work.
http://qz.com/312537/the-secre...http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...
Exactly.
Multi-Process means nothing if its coded poorly.
Insofar as saying multi-process equals extra security, speed, robust interace but without the right goals (and actually building it well) will just complicate matters.
30 years of SW engineering says this is an ongoing fad that keeps coming back.
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to rob a bank is to own one.
There are always larger factors at work than Automation. Its just one of many ingredients in the mix.
What drives making 'profit' is someone else somewhere has to spend more than their income. Spending creates savings. Ultimately this question makes its way back to who is issuing the currency, their spending decisions that drives aggregate profit.
The private sector always looks to maximise profit. A market entirely left to its own devices Iteratively Revises Down the amount of profit it makes because of changes in wage bargaining power, automation. Reduce workforce with automation and you're reducing someone's paying customers somewhere. So its self-sabotaging. However this dynamic is continuously changing(never static) as innovation creates new products, regulation and protections demand higher levels of quality and currency issuers get to work in Congress/Parliament and conduct discretionary spending which raises aggregate wealth for the private sector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Robots (broadly automation over last 250 years) always changes the mix of how many people are needed to manufacture X in industry Y. But that's just a subset of what's going on. If we look at 'work' that is both profitable and not profitable its immediately obvious that there is more work than at any point in human history that needs to be done. eg: Today's displaced retails workers could become tomorrows electronic repair technicians if regulations are introduced to reduce e-waste. Manufacturers are required to make stuff that can be un-made, fixed, recycled.
Ageing population suddenly stops being a problem if you introduce the right level of technology and job creation for instance.
Also Jobs that stick around are the ones that have a contingent element of responsibility attached to them. Its easy to automate a Lawyer but hard to change a system that demands a human accountability in the process. That is a big part of why so many jobs are not being automated but others are: A coordinator who is legally responsible but not human? How do you sue that?
I dont buy into 'robots are here so work has ended' it never will and the people selling this idea well meaning or not don't see the whole picture.
Once you realise bitcoins are a commodity.
The coin that wins will be the commodity that is most useful. You need a lump of tin, gold, platinum or perhaps something like silicon instead?
As with most metals they are in small particles with impurities deep in the ground. Then you have to use a lot of energy to extract them in useful quantities and have the right equipment. Assets required to mine bitcoins are a server farm of hardware and a measure of energy.
they behave like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Considering most of the debate about which coin will win is probably none of the above. The coin that will win probably does not exist now and will have more than these 3 can offer for the great hordes of unwashed masses. The one that wins will be the one with most coercive uses probably tied to a utility purpose (ownership of said coin will be tied to getting something everyone wants). In the way touch screens were not popular until tied to Apple phones/pads. Or i-tunes gift cards.
The best outcome for it to act like currency for users will be acceptance, price stability not which type of bit-coin is worth the most versus USD but which one can be stored knowing it has stable purchasing power 1+ years from now, and end user experience that is user friendly Otherwise the 3rd intended fork is of relevence only to people who need to use it as a conduit to avoid bank fees (dump into coin, transfer it and excahnge for a currency at the other end), speculators, miners and enthusiasts.
like any ponzi scheme: the best time to invest was way back when it started... or now. Quick ;-)
Metal is a commodity not a currency. Currency has been around since the beginning of the bronze age before most 'metals' were around. Sorry to disappoint but every time federal government spends by legislation (eg: congress says 'make it so') that is creating currency. Every time a bank account of a federal employee is credited it is done by treasury as a legal mandated timed obligation. Likewise every time taxes are paid thats taking currency out of circulation and deleting it. Its purely a post-rationalisation not a literal transfer of funds that say 'tax dollars pay for X spending'.
Quantitative Easing (QE) involves the central bank buying treasuries (or in some cases private sector securities) from the private sector by paying with newly created reserves.
Quantitative easing simply swaps one type of asset on private sector balance sheets (typically treasuries) for another type (deposits backed by bank reserves, or simply bank reserves if a bank did the selling.)
QE effectively changes the duration mix of outstanding government liabilities toward more short term liabilities and less long term ones. As such, it is roughly equivalent to if the treasury had previously chosen to issue relatively more T-Bills (short duration) and less bonds (long duration).
No sectors (or entities within sectors) see any change in balance sheet equity as a direct result of QE. Therefore, there is no meaningful increase in the private sector's purchasing power or propensity to spend. At the level of each individual household or firm who might sell to the Fed during QE, decisions regarding investment portfolio composition tend to be made independently from decisions about how much to spend versus hold in an investment portfolio — so a change in the portfolio mix (cash, bonds, stocks, etc) won't cause more spending. Also, treasuries are almost as liquid as "money" and anyone previously holding treasuries could have easily sold them to support any planned spending.
Get gold is an industrially massive undertaking. So you dig it up make it pure, create gold ingot's then put it back in a hole (some vault somewhere). Its limited and even gold is not static in value. Pretty much the definition of what money is not. Money is an IOU its an abstraction of debtor, creditor and bank/some form of intermediary/overseer. Fiat money has been around since ancient Mesopotamia (hence all those clay tablets are bank statements/accounting identities).
How so? http://neweconomicperspectives... Banks don't lend reserves. Reserves are driven endogenously by banks expanding their balance sheets making loans. After that they back fill inter-bank swapping of reserves and ultimately go to the FED (US example) to get reserves at the penalty rate.
Bitcoin is not a currency its a commodity.
http://www.win-vector.com/blog...
Why don't you read up on what drives hyperinflation. Hint its not 'printing money' its what money in circulation can buy. Printing money is false cause of hyperinflation wrongly associated because its the wrong response to an underlying problem. 'printing money' is a bulls**t non-specific term that does not really mean anything. (Can cover one or more scenarios which can be quite similar but also quite different).
Zimbabwe: give modern farms to war veterans during some of the worst drought years on record and you'll find what a unit of currency buys is a lot less. Then give corrupt government officials large loans which they don't have to pay back which they immediately exchange for other currencies and you get ingredients for hyperinflation.
Venezuela: archaic unavailability of modern currency exchange in 2012, and again in February 2013, the government sharply reduced the availability of foreign exchange. It was during this time that shortages of basic goods accelerated, along with inflation and the black market price of the dollar. The official exchange rate, at which the government sold the vast majority of dollars earned from oil sales, was at 6.3 Bolivares Fuertes per dollar. But a parallel market already existed, and the shortage of dollars at the official rate drove the parallel market sharply upward. At the same time, the higher parallel market price of the dollar increased inflation, because it increases the price of imported goods.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...
Monetary Base = Reserve balances + vault cash + cash in circulation.
M1 = Cash in circulation + Private-bank checking accounts of non-banks, non-federal, non-official foreign economic units.
Best to question by what measure is money "significantly easier to come by today than it was in the 17th century"
A currency issuer (government) drives use of currency by spending (issuing) and taxing (deleting) in said currency (enforces this by all legal and ultimately military means) and has not changed since 17th century (or before).
The people who say "There is a heck of a lot of money out there. Too much, according to some" probably don't understand basics like reserve balances don't EVER circulate in the non-bank part of the economy as an asset on the private sectors balance sheet. (They cant be found in a persons bank account balance rather how banks settle their own reserve balances). The of course there are all those people living in poverty who cant find jobs or have enough money. *at some point the people saying there is "too much" don't understand basic accounting and are out of touch with reality of the 99%.
Bit coin is not 'money' its a 'commodity' and one for that matter that does nothing better than act like a currency (in the way homeopathy cures cancer). When people work that out guess how much it will be worth. ;-)
Its not a 'currency' never has been does not in any way fit the definition of a currency its a virtual commodity. Get over it. http://www.win-vector.com/blog... If anything the last 6 months has shown why its too volatile for normal people to contemplate getting into. Of course welcome wall street ponzi-scheme into the mix, its like a big homeopathic cures conference, no shortment of excited con-artists. Eventually the gig will be up. This will happen when some governments legislate, taxes it in some form and the special interest from the community most interested in the technology will be circumvented. (was to avoid tax wasnt it ;-)
If i wanted a commodity that's virtual and takes big oh NP complexity to mine it would have been good if all that energy mining the blocks also cured cancer, looked for ET or some other things . (Hint did something useful)
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom...
Its not that at all. If FED 'sets' interest it also sets a component of inflation in the economy. Business leverages/expands credit to operate, if the baseline interest is raised this follows through to increased cost to build things and increased cost of living so the net effect is zero. The problem is that there is not enough real value adding being done in capitalism. Eg: where work builds something that makes profit. The private sector looks for investment and ultimately government spending creates areas where profit is higher yield than other areas. Eg: Lucrative profit for companies in China is not just operating costs its government creating money by keystroke to grow the economy. Now look at the efficiency of the financial sector that is supposed to make retirement stable: "The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year in IPO's and secondary offerings" "What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about 32 trillion a year. So by the way i calculate it, 99% of what we do in the industry is people trading with one another, with a gain only to the middleman.It's a waste of resources" -john bogle. Public pensions where the aggregate savings expand M1 of the money supply, where people DONT Have to take risks with a financial system that does not invest in real production or innovation IS THE PROBLEM nothing to do with interest rates. Also here are facts about millenials savings. They cant save enough because they dont earn enough. NO matter how you partition the income one of the basic living expenses is going to be defficient. https://www.principal.com/abou... https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... Employment participation rate is worse in the USA after every recession: https://i0.wp.com/bilbo.econom... http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom... https://i1.wp.com/bilbo.econom... People are poorer/earn less/more part time work replacing full time work: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... Not JUST evident in the USA: https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom...
The reason a 'generation' eg: baby boomers 1945-1969 could retire earlier by aggregate is the cumulative savings or financial assets they were allowed to keep and accumulate. Over this period you had capitalism that was adding value, building stuff and investment reflected that. 17% of profit was financialised, the rest went to wages or expanding the core function of the business. Now 64% is financialised so growth is lower, economic output GAPS are wider, workforce participation is lower. FInancialisation becomes parasitic and slows growth at this level. Literally pigeonhole principle at work: train 100 pigeons to navigate their way to individual boxes. if there is only 80 boxes it guarantees 20 will miss out. Run this over many iterations and its simply a matter of fact that if there are always a shortage of boxes [jobs] there will be a larger distribution of non-finding boxes [non earning periods in a persons life] amongst the pigeons. [SOURCE FOR FINANCIALISATION] https://www.jacobinmag.com/201... Its mostly ideological not 'real resource constrained' that cumulative assets given to a generation SETS when they retire eg: Higher government spending ADDS to net financial assets claimed by the private sector. Larger compulsory retirement contributions keep workers working but also provides the choice to retire. Young people are not unrealistic they either ignorant of the issue entirely or understand to a certain extent the current system does not work and can be changed.
There is not shortage of skilled workers never has been. That's supply-side myth used to suppress the movement of value into profit not wages. Nowhere near full employment: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...
So essentially the uber software is malware. It classifies as the definition of malware. Goodbye Uber.
Author just pontificates truisms as if they were true: "People started feeling the pain of high-cost labor and there's an appetite for automation that we haven't seen before." Not since 1975... increases in productivity have gone to corporate profits, there has NEVER been a high cost labour problem in the last 30+ years ANYWHERE. Its the opposite they have deliberately undermined purchasing power and are worried about their falling rate of profit. The great recession was a financial collapse coming to a head with the worst possible policy response creating a real recession that for many has not really ended. It could be fixed with correct policy decisions and by keystroke but that's ideologically opposite to the wishes of the elites. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... The latest fad is to hype up the 'robots are coming'. Notwithstanding the larger context that automation has to make profit so further undermining spending equals income will make it hard for automation too. Civil engineer core in the USA says they need to rebuild all the infrastructure 50+ year old bridges. Bring on the robots and the people. The whole paradigm of automation is that it transforms jobs for workers and creates as many as it eliminates by aggregate. All those warehouse robots have electronics and sensors which break often so there's a whole industry of service/repair that will expand. As much as its the job of places like slashdot to inform its readers it does stoop to the hyperbole or 'fake news' level vested interests saying that their vested interest outcome in inevitable.
But you can use a regular expression to replace tabs with spaces or the opposite way around? That's what i do anyway, generally i don't see tabs, spaces or positioning of curly braces as issues at all. People have their arguments but its not worth mentioning as its easily solved with one command in say vim or whatever powerful ide does regex. Even better yes please to an entire ecosystem of languages. Its one of the fundamental flaws of software engineering. We bend the spoon because we don't have time to make a soup ladel. Stuff that should be competed out of existence [bent spoons] gets band-aided and adopted by everyone.
i want what you're smoking.
People do FOREX trades based on flows of government fiscal policy, interest rates and taxation flows often. Presumably these are linked to real 'investment' eg: when any arm of the US government spends USD to buy literally anything it wants in the currency it issues. Indeed your criticism is more of currency market hysteria which Bitcoin more prone to or this slashdot article would not be here. eg: brexit http://www.smh.com.au/business... http://uk.businessinsider.com/...
the 'fiddle' is its market value. Markets being rational, stable, predictable ;-)
Meanwhile in the real world most people have seen or know about a government accounting statement... 'Evil' or not: https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/... There's your stable supply of USD there. Subtract X trillion from an infinite set. Thats a lot more stable than X CPU/GPU cycles to get a crypto commodity which is algorithmically pegged at a rising rate of change to your computers ability to 'mine' it.
by 'people' you mean tax collectors. Ultimately currency hold value because the currency issuer can hire police to put you in jail if you use it and dont pay Tax. bitcoin is not a 'currency'
There is nothing innovative about the Uber model. Their ride matching algorithm is poor (regressive pattern matching algorithm with weighted outcomes = meh whatever) they just identified a market and monopolized exactly as the taxi companies did. But hey its 'an app' and f**k it in all those places around the world where real full time jobs are being lost... come in with a 19th century share cropping model. The middle man extracts the profit, owns the IP, runs the monopoly and relies on a bad low pay gig economy for people desperate enough to run a car making a loss to do the work. http://qz.com/312537/the-secre... http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n...
Exactly. Multi-Process means nothing if its coded poorly. Insofar as saying multi-process equals extra security, speed, robust interace but without the right goals (and actually building it well) will just complicate matters. 30 years of SW engineering says this is an ongoing fad that keeps coming back.