How many from Trust & Safety/Abuse? Their Abuse/Trust & Safety department has helped cause Twitter's losses through arbitrary enforcement (or even defense of harassers such as Leslie Jones).
Cut those departments, remove the blocking tools, and make Twitter a better company.
That's all fine and good but what you are proposing will only stave off the inevitable for at most a year or two. Automation is coming, it is already here and covering more ground faster and faster. Read "Rise of the Robots" it is an enlightening read.
AI is fine and dandy, but only when it is an intelligent companion, not an existential threat.
If multi-disciplinary automation (such as current-day AI) wants to become a threat, treat it no differently. Nothing says that today's Watson can be treated the same way Mr. Patterson treated the original one.
How would you propose penalizing anyone that overlooks the long-term unemployed/discouraged? Who would you propose get penalized?
The party/parties that overlook the unemployed, including all third parties and contracting services.
What would be the mechanism for detecting and punishing these despicable beings?
The lowest bar of proof constitutionally allowable for the unemployed (that meets criminal/civil standards), such that no "safe reason" can be formed.
As for punishment? A golden ticket to work directly with the organization in question for a guaranteed minimum term measurable in decades, with provisions to survive existential events - including but not limited to acquisition, offshoring, bankruptcy, and/or reorganization. It might put the staffing industry out of business for being a favored benefit dodge, but it's not as if they've been of much use for regular people these days.
The people who would sit on their asses with a UBI are the same people who pretend to have autism and get social security disability checks, i.e. they would amount to nothing anyway
Between the ones that do and the ones that don't, it'd be far better to entice them with a good job on good terms versus the pittance of a Social Security check.
entrepreneur
Not everyone is fit to be the proverbial Richard Branson. They would be fine with their 30ish years of office work as a direct hire at a respectable company, with good benefits and increasing levels of responsibility. Consigning them to 60-70 years of squalor just for not having the startup bug in them is far from optimal.
Never mind that some people have a perfectly fine mindset that does not work well with startups, but works well with established organizations. Unlike some people of my generation, I saw how the latter can work well for people.
Instead of allowing employers to have an entitlement mentality to perfection or desperation, why not make it harder for them to not hire citizens, especially the ones looking for work? Get rid of guest workers, make offshoring a royal PITA, and penalize anyone that overlooks the long-term unemployed/discouraged.
Entrepreneurship doesn't provide a steady income or a good upward path (unless you like casino-level risk), and UBI would serve to reward laziness.
Given that encryption came due to pressure from immodestly exposed celebrities and Apple's failure to unlock to help cases impacting decent, hard-working, ordinary individuals, it's a bad thing.
Given that encryption came due to pressure from celebrities and Apple's failure to unlock to help cases impacting ordinary individuals, it's a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
They have cornered the market on lying.
Not sure, but I sure see them being handed mod points with all the modbombing going around.
It explains them perfectly to a T, especially with their responses to murder.
How many from Trust & Safety/Abuse? Their Abuse/Trust & Safety department has helped cause Twitter's losses through arbitrary enforcement (or even defense of harassers such as Leslie Jones).
Cut those departments, remove the blocking tools, and make Twitter a better company.
They win.
They don't care if you get fake product and warehouse it that way.
"The punchline is that Amazon's twice as big as people give them credit for
That's because they're not counting the contract workers that Amazon mistreats.
That's all fine and good but what you are proposing will only stave off the inevitable for at most a year or two. Automation is coming, it is already here and covering more ground faster and faster. Read "Rise of the Robots" it is an enlightening read.
AI is fine and dandy, but only when it is an intelligent companion, not an existential threat.
If multi-disciplinary automation (such as current-day AI) wants to become a threat, treat it no differently. Nothing says that today's Watson can be treated the same way Mr. Patterson treated the original one.
How would you propose penalizing anyone that overlooks the long-term unemployed/discouraged? Who would you propose get penalized?
The party/parties that overlook the unemployed, including all third parties and contracting services.
What would be the mechanism for detecting and punishing these despicable beings?
The lowest bar of proof constitutionally allowable for the unemployed (that meets criminal/civil standards), such that no "safe reason" can be formed.
As for punishment? A golden ticket to work directly with the organization in question for a guaranteed minimum term measurable in decades, with provisions to survive existential events - including but not limited to acquisition, offshoring, bankruptcy, and/or reorganization. It might put the staffing industry out of business for being a favored benefit dodge, but it's not as if they've been of much use for regular people these days.
The people who would sit on their asses with a UBI are the same people who pretend to have autism and get social security disability checks, i.e. they would amount to nothing anyway
Between the ones that do and the ones that don't, it'd be far better to entice them with a good job on good terms versus the pittance of a Social Security check.
entrepreneur
Not everyone is fit to be the proverbial Richard Branson. They would be fine with their 30ish years of office work as a direct hire at a respectable company, with good benefits and increasing levels of responsibility. Consigning them to 60-70 years of squalor just for not having the startup bug in them is far from optimal.
Never mind that some people have a perfectly fine mindset that does not work well with startups, but works well with established organizations. Unlike some people of my generation, I saw how the latter can work well for people.
Someone would have to pay for it, which is the trouble.
Instead of allowing employers to have an entitlement mentality to perfection or desperation, why not make it harder for them to not hire citizens, especially the ones looking for work? Get rid of guest workers, make offshoring a royal PITA, and penalize anyone that overlooks the long-term unemployed/discouraged.
Entrepreneurship doesn't provide a steady income or a good upward path (unless you like casino-level risk), and UBI would serve to reward laziness.
Stepping into a car where the driver does not understand you is not going to go well.
If there's a war on citizens wrt tech employment, then remove the means to exclude citizens.
Unlike the US Government, he's paid off his debts - despite what the attack ads say about him.
The support by establishment GOP for left-wing candidates and policies isn't evidence enough?
If statement agrees with the establishment: Fact.
If statement disagrees with the establishment: Not Fact.
If the Clintons want to change the name of their charities, they couldn't be more honest by changing their name to the Ouroboros Foundation:
Honorary mention:
The Human Foundation: Money For People
I wonder how much Feinstein gets from various pro-offshoring groups to be completely tone-deaf to her own constituents.
Just deal with it: there are plenty of other jobs around.
Given the push to avoid hiring citizens:
[Citation needed]
Given that encryption came due to pressure from immodestly exposed celebrities and Apple's failure to unlock to help cases impacting decent, hard-working, ordinary individuals, it's a bad thing.
It might help those that already have employment, but it doesn't really help those that are still looking.
Given that encryption came due to pressure from celebrities and Apple's failure to unlock to help cases impacting ordinary individuals, it's a bad thing.
Not only is my market far from any Comcast territory, they don't do any caps.
That, and having Business Class as an insurance policy is kind of nice too.
They've been also quite favorable to the well-heeled, which is why they dragged their feet on encryption until relatively recent.
Thankfully most people aren't going to blow their modpoints trying to modbomb *this* =P
The handover to Icann is a compromise that appears to suit the country very nicely, and not just because Icann will remain in Los Angeles.
If anything, they've handed it over to leftist interests - the same kind that use organizational control to push narratives.
Then explain why Apple all but waited for a certain incident until they'd embrace encryption. An incident involving rich people.
In addition, explain why Apple refused to help in an incident that would have given benefit to tons of ordinary people. That one.