No thank you, but that's no W series. It might be a bridge between the T series and the full-fledged W series, but it is not the typical workstation-type laptop. The W series was meant to be a larger, traditional, no-compromise laptop limited only by technological progress - not as some cut-down box.
What is your snark free plan for dealing with the people displaced from the farms? Remember, the overwhelming majority of the labor force used to work on farms.
Speaking from the perspective of someone that descended from a farming/mining/manufacturing/computing family tree:
A bit of historical perspective would help.
The transitions from agriculture and (early) mining to manufacturing left a wide margin of time to retrain. International threats largely DNE while plenty of work existed to receive and integrate such individuals over time.
The transition from manufacturing to early computing represented a narrower escape. Early computing was an escape hatch that provided relative stability in a much shorter timespan. This point marks the beginning of the effort to reduce overall stability.
Today, the emphasis is in removing any remaining stability as it also represents a higher cost. The Aspen Institute's invention of the "sharing economy" buzzword exists only to sugarcoat the effort to remove any large-scale stability in work arrangements.
Want to know what works? Stop trying to remove stability from work arrangements.
From ~2007/2008 to present day, the rallying cry has been to kill off anything with stability and replace it with high instability.
When individuals have a stable form of employment, they are less controllable. Less stable forms of employment, such as mentioned in my reply, impart more control over the person.
Aside from very few lines of work, provide some certainty by training the people already in existence. Another option is to adjust compensation to get the people you want.
There is no skills gap, just pay and training gaps.
The old nobility and the aristocracies damaged the economies of the old kingdoms by so controlling wealth and power and rights that there was no incentive or even possibility to innovate or build anything new. The nobles had everything locked down and it was there way or they'd literally kill you.
Yet you advocate a new aristocracy, based on business ownership and friendliness. That is, individuals and governments are obligated to bow before the interests of business owners - lest they threaten economic devastation.
What is critical is economic mobility. Not equality. That is... equal opportunity. NOT equal outcome.
Except that the current, human-eliminating, approach to robotics cuts off the ladder.
You want automation? Fine - have a plan for integrating the displaced in some snark-free way. Otherwise, enjoy being on the business end of a malfunctioning ED-209.
What you are saying is that you're willing to sweep the displaced under the rug and forget that they exist - since there's something new around the corner.
Regarding your post - what is the net result of individuals being able to pick up a small [redacted] here and there? What is the social cost of that? Yeah, it can generate some spending money, but is the overall result to drive down wages of workers, while increasing wealth among business owners?
Correct.
Such arrangements discourage stability and destroy the option for those that thrive best on conventional, FTE arrangements.
Or does it lower costs for business, both in regulation and wages, leading to greater business innovation and business creation, and greater social welfare?
Incorrect.
The only innovation that it "creates" is by creating more "broken windows". The loss in stability is not a positive factor, as it transfers the advantage to the broker/agency/etc, not individuals in general.
No thank you, but the casualization of labor does not lead to anywhere good or sane.
The only way an FTE job loses is when someone has enough ability to deflect the negative consequences of turning down work. These people are few, rare, and have the luxury that nearly everyone else doesn't have.
An FTE job provides the necessary stability. Your arrangements do not.
The idea of promoting unstable work arrangements is one that needs to DIAF. Promoting it as "flexibility" with a Potemkin Village doesn't make it true - it only serves to show that the "on-demand" economy cannot stand on merit, but on deception.
Perhaps you might want to read up on your historical friend, the company town, and wonder why we don't want to head back to the vagaries of the 19th century.
Instead of trying to cram-down "flexibility" from above to dodge benefits laws, why not make it compete with first-tier FTE work and benefits.
That is, an employer cannot make someone accept less than FTE as a condition of accepting work, nor be required to accept employment through a third party - for all skill levels.
That's not me that calls them "Asians", it's the BBC that wants to obfuscate their backgrounds. Never mind it's also the BBC that's willing to stand up for government officials caught committing similar acts of abuse.
Then again, the UK makes it a crime to actually be British, stand up for yourself, defend other culturally non-protected groups, or make any factual objections regarding Mohammedans.
I am guessing from your comment that you are based in the US. Welcome to the same experience many of us we have in the rest of the world. E.g. only a limited selection on Netflix, lots of products get released later than in the US, or you go shopping on Amazon and during checkout you are told that some of the items are not shipped to your country.
Why yes, I am. I do recall it being at least FCC certified to operate, but nothing else.
At least with the 9500 Communicator and other models, there was a willingness to ship across borders. On the other hand, Jolla goes out of its way to make sure that it is a PITA to import one, much like how Nokia's high-end Harmattan device was released to the middle-of-nowhere.
Rotherham: a certain set of BBC-defined "Asians" from the Middle East avoid prosecution for fear of offending their culture. In the government: If you're high enough up in the government (individuals such as Mr. Savile), you get a pass.
In both cases, the accuser is more likely to be the target of government-protected retribution.
Given that it's been associated with people that harass under the banner of "anti-harassment", their claims are impossible to believe. The only reason that such "anti-harassment" groups exist is for the coordinated silencing of individuals that present uncomfortable, narrative-breaking facts.
The bulk of their harassment claims end up being disproven, while their harassment of individuals is well-proven (see Chelsea "ZQ" van Valkenberg, R.H., and others).
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting to see that there's very few brave individuals willing to put a name to their advice of removing all humans from driving.
How about adjusting the car to act more in tune with the humans on the road?
No thank you, but that's no W series. It might be a bridge between the T series and the full-fledged W series, but it is not the typical workstation-type laptop. The W series was meant to be a larger, traditional, no-compromise laptop limited only by technological progress - not as some cut-down box.
What is your snark free plan for dealing with the people displaced from the farms? Remember, the overwhelming majority of the labor force used to work on farms.
Speaking from the perspective of someone that descended from a farming/mining/manufacturing/computing family tree:
A bit of historical perspective would help.
The transitions from agriculture and (early) mining to manufacturing left a wide margin of time to retrain. International threats largely DNE while plenty of work existed to receive and integrate such individuals over time.
The transition from manufacturing to early computing represented a narrower escape. Early computing was an escape hatch that provided relative stability in a much shorter timespan. This point marks the beginning of the effort to reduce overall stability.
Today, the emphasis is in removing any remaining stability as it also represents a higher cost. The Aspen Institute's invention of the "sharing economy" buzzword exists only to sugarcoat the effort to remove any large-scale stability in work arrangements.
Want to know what works? Stop trying to remove stability from work arrangements.
From ~2007/2008 to present day, the rallying cry has been to kill off anything with stability and replace it with high instability.
When individuals have a stable form of employment, they are less controllable. Less stable forms of employment, such as mentioned in my reply, impart more control over the person.
Aside from very few lines of work, provide some certainty by training the people already in existence. Another option is to adjust compensation to get the people you want.
There is no skills gap, just pay and training gaps.
The old nobility and the aristocracies damaged the economies of the old kingdoms by so controlling wealth and power and rights that there was no incentive or even possibility to innovate or build anything new. The nobles had everything locked down and it was there way or they'd literally kill you.
Yet you advocate a new aristocracy, based on business ownership and friendliness. That is, individuals and governments are obligated to bow before the interests of business owners - lest they threaten economic devastation.
What is critical is economic mobility. Not equality. That is... equal opportunity. NOT equal outcome.
Except that the current, human-eliminating, approach to robotics cuts off the ladder.
You want automation? Fine - have a plan for integrating the displaced in some snark-free way. Otherwise, enjoy being on the business end of a malfunctioning ED-209.
What you are saying is that you're willing to sweep the displaced under the rug and forget that they exist - since there's something new around the corner.
Manipulate the numbers the right way and you can get absurd conclusions like this article.
...where the "better" (FTE), is getting replaced by the "worse" (irregular labor such as Uber/1099's/agency).
If anything, it's Uber and the like responding with the call of "Individuals have too much stability, KILL THEM."
Regarding your post - what is the net result of individuals being able to pick up a small [redacted] here and there? What is the social cost of that? Yeah, it can generate some spending money, but is the overall result to drive down wages of workers, while increasing wealth among business owners?
Correct.
Such arrangements discourage stability and destroy the option for those that thrive best on conventional, FTE arrangements.
Or does it lower costs for business, both in regulation and wages, leading to greater business innovation and business creation, and greater social welfare?
Incorrect.
The only innovation that it "creates" is by creating more "broken windows". The loss in stability is not a positive factor, as it transfers the advantage to the broker/agency/etc, not individuals in general.
No thank you, but the casualization of labor does not lead to anywhere good or sane.
The only way an FTE job loses is when someone has enough ability to deflect the negative consequences of turning down work. These people are few, rare, and have the luxury that nearly everyone else doesn't have.
An FTE job provides the necessary stability. Your arrangements do not.
The idea of promoting unstable work arrangements is one that needs to DIAF. Promoting it as "flexibility" with a Potemkin Village doesn't make it true - it only serves to show that the "on-demand" economy cannot stand on merit, but on deception.
Perhaps you might want to read up on your historical friend, the company town, and wonder why we don't want to head back to the vagaries of the 19th century.
The only person that would be happy is a person that has the rare luxury of being able to turn down any form of work.
Uber drivers are not of that set, but of a set that would choose more stable arrangements if offered them.
You leave out the details of how someone gets there or that others do well with an established company.
Such lines of work do not show any net benefit - unless you have the luxury of being able to turn down any line of work.
N/T
No thank you, but you're asking to make the problem worse.
Default to FTE's, and make any lesser form (contract work, third party, and/or combinations) be strictly on no-duress consent.
In more cases than not, contract work (fixed term) only exists to dodge benefits laws.
Instead of trying to cram-down "flexibility" from above to dodge benefits laws, why not make it compete with first-tier FTE work and benefits.
That is, an employer cannot make someone accept less than FTE as a condition of accepting work, nor be required to accept employment through a third party - for all skill levels.
That's not me that calls them "Asians", it's the BBC that wants to obfuscate their backgrounds. Never mind it's also the BBC that's willing to stand up for government officials caught committing similar acts of abuse.
Then again, the UK makes it a crime to actually be British, stand up for yourself, defend other culturally non-protected groups, or make any factual objections regarding Mohammedans.
I am guessing from your comment that you are based in the US. Welcome to the same experience many of us we have in the rest of the world. E.g. only a limited selection on Netflix, lots of products get released later than in the US, or you go shopping on Amazon and during checkout you are told that some of the items are not shipped to your country.
Why yes, I am. I do recall it being at least FCC certified to operate, but nothing else.
At least with the 9500 Communicator and other models, there was a willingness to ship across borders. On the other hand, Jolla goes out of its way to make sure that it is a PITA to import one, much like how Nokia's high-end Harmattan device was released to the middle-of-nowhere.
Rotherham: a certain set of BBC-defined "Asians" from the Middle East avoid prosecution for fear of offending their culture.
In the government: If you're high enough up in the government (individuals such as Mr. Savile), you get a pass.
In both cases, the accuser is more likely to be the target of government-protected retribution.
Given that it's been associated with people that harass under the banner of "anti-harassment", their claims are impossible to believe. The only reason that such "anti-harassment" groups exist is for the coordinated silencing of individuals that present uncomfortable, narrative-breaking facts.
The bulk of their harassment claims end up being disproven, while their harassment of individuals is well-proven (see Chelsea "ZQ" van Valkenberg, R.H., and others).
...this wouldn't be a problem. However, they insist on avoiding the US with an irrational passion.