The president is who we chose. Putting him in office then telling him "No" every time he tries to do something is just ridiculous. We elected him, why and how is it possible to elect someone to our top-most leadership position and at the same time elect people who intentionally block him from doing *anything* at all? Something is seriously fucked up here.
Maybe he would get less "No"s if he proposed less retarded ideas.
As for "we", you need to understand that American society has a diverse set of interests, and the federal political system is designed not to let 50% + 1 tyrannize the other 49.999999% of the population.
He's a president of a federal republic, not an absolute dictator. That you think being president gives him some right to be unopposed and uncriticized reflects a failure in your civics education.
I agree, but I don't know what fantasyland do you currently live in where credit card companies are not trying to create economic activity. People wouldn't be able to buy the crap they can't afford if it wasn't for pocketable credit, a.k.a. credit cards. In other words: the credit card companies were creating economic activity almost since day one, by allowing the gullible to buy stuff they can't afford. This hashtag purchase option just further lowers the bar that is already too low. IMHO it'll only be used by the most clueless -- those who are easiest to exploit by the system anyway. The whole idea is basically just to further exploit the underprivileged, as those are the ones vastly most likely to buy stuff they can't afford. It's not even shafting the little people, it's shafting the poorest of the little people. It is monstrous, but it's not new.
How many underprivileged people have AmEx cards *and* Internet access?
AmEx cards are accepted at fewer locations, and my experience has been that AmEx cards tend to charge membership fees - while many Visa/MC offers do not. In short, I don't expect AmEx to be a credit card the "underprivileged" use, or something they could be easily exploited on.
Actually 12, though not necessarily base 12, was very common in past civilizations because you can count to 12 on one hand. How? Count the number of segments in your fingers, using your thumb to keep track. 3 segments per finger with 4 fingers equals 12. Pinky finger, segment nearest your palm, is 1 and the tip of your index finger is 12. (At least that is the way I have always seen it done.) You can also count to 120 in base 10 with it by using your other hand to keep track of the tens place.
Shouldn't you be able to hit 144 using both hands?
For fun, if you learn to count in binary with your fingers, you could reach 1024....
Well count me then as one of those idiot marketers, because if I was in their position, I would have been proud to do the same, not for the money, but because it simple BETTER to be consistent with the rest of the scientific world. We're behind by saying 1KB = 1024 bytes, not them.
Behind what?
Computing fundamentally revolves around base-2, and KB is a base-2 unit, the right unit for the job.
It's not about them rejecting technology, it's about them rejecting an overhaul of their teaching methods to best use the tools at their disposal.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
New and flashier isn't necessarily better; what technology-enhanced teaching methods have generated better results than the status quo? (examples of actual results, please, not theoretical gains)
This would suggest that computer science did originally adopt the standard definitions of kilo etc. but then started to deviate from them in the mid-60's for the sake of ease.
All kilo = 1000 references before the mid-60s were in reference to bits.
Bytes is a new unit, as was kilobyte; attempts to redefine kilobyte is causing more damage than the redundancy of the "kilo" of "kilobyte" with the SI unit.
Would you restrict a person from immigrating due to their criminal record? (Let's say it's murder, to make the choice simple)
If you would restrict that case, then you're already doing the cost-benefit analysis. Other people are just using a higher threshold than you are.
The article is also pretty bad to conflate illegal ("undocumented") immigration with legal immigration. There should be no debate about whether we should enforce the law.
I'd support laxer immigration laws if someone makes the case for it; but amnesty for those who broke the rules is a giant FU to every legal immigrant who jumped through every hoop.
Only one? Really? A123, Beacon, Abound Solar and Ener1 also took stimulus money and lost it all. Who was in charge of evaluating these companies for financial health? Would those people be so careless with their own money? Aren't we tired of having money taken from us and wasted on bad decisions?
The economic illiterates only care to defend their "team". Their economic illiteracy allows them to believe artificial "demand" will kickstart a green energy revolution; reality's objections are simply ignored.
From their PoV, there's no net gain to do it your way; the guy who bought it used from you is also willing to buy a new copy at that price point.
So they could sell a copy to you and your friend for (say) $30 each, or sell it once to you for $60, after which you resell and your friend (or whomever) ends up not buying new.
Not that I like them trying to kill resale with those methods, but just pointing out the (perceived) benefit to them.
Worse, in order to remain competitive with Nintendo and Sony, they're going to have to sink billions more into the next-generation of consoles if they want to stay in that business (and pride pretty much dictates they have to stay in that business).
MS's loss is our gain. I think MS's competition has kept Sony and Nintendo on their toes in the console market and improved the options available to gamers.
Though I wouldn't mind if more of the XBox game library was available on the PC...
Certainly enough to say that your blind faith that any feedback effect is going to kick in fast enough, or at all, in changing conditions is magical thinking.
Blind faith? I repeatedly refer to historical examples to justify my understanding and expectations; this included exponential technological improvement. That's evidence based faith. My "faith" may be wrong, but it's not blind. Yet another wrong label.
The existence of negative feedback is not in of itself proof that the system will be stable or that the equilibrium is good; but if you're going to dismiss negative feedback without analysis, then I know your predictions are based on feelings instead of thought.
Firstly, I didn't say it was brief, I was saying that you were saying it's brief. You then said that you wouldn't disclaim it. Whatever. Secondly, it's structural unemployment if it has a structural cause such as a large local employer moving, widespread crop failure, sudden lack of a resource critical to an industry, or changing technology obsoleting a particular job or industry. There's no precise definition about the duration, just a vague understanding that it tends to last longer than some other forms of unemployment
Cute, but you have to realize that you're mis-representing me. When I say that you're claiming that unemployment is brief, it's not the same thing as me claiming that unemployment is brief. If you're not mis-representing me on purpose, then you must simply be failing to comprehend some pretty straight-forward sentences.
I said I wouldn't disclaim the sentence you didn't recall me saying, which was, "I claimed that technology does not contribute to structural unemployment." If there's no precise definition for structural unemployment, then there's the source of the misunderstanding. I've been using it in the sense of "unavoidable `permanent' unemployment".
If you're going to use an ill-defined word to summarize my position, there should be no surprise that I'm not going to agree with your summary. I know you think that that technology causes non-brief structural (permanent) unemployment. Don't confuse my disagreement with your summary of my position with an insistence that you adopt my position.
I'll take back "nonsensical" - the word doesn't have a nailed down definition, so the confusion was over different definitions, not mis-use of the word.
This statement is, overall, correct. I haven't actually denied this anywhere.
Your prediction of a robotic dystopia where the masses are poor requires this trend to reverse direction. Complete robotic automation would be a huge technological improvement over now; but everyone having no job and starving without the benevolent socialist state is a huge downgrade over now. The relationship between technology and prosperity must flip if you think technology is a force towards your robotic dystopia.
This is another one of those things where you're going to say that disagreeing with you is just failure, I can tell.
You keep telling me that you understand my points. If you understand me, you can summarize my position and have me agree that the summary is 100% correct. That is a simple and practical way to demonstrate understanding.
A failure of understanding is demonstrated when the summary is completely unrelated to the original points. You've done that several times, but I'm more interested to see if you can if you try.
So, how does this relate to your italicized text. I'm tempted to just say it doesn't and leave it at that, but I'll persevere. It best relates to your example if it's being applied to a society with a heavily controlled command economy that forces whatever is being measured in between certain values (and does it through a stupid brute force method). Here's a hint, the market-based economies you're fond of don't come with setpoints. You may
It's a suggestion, not a claim. You don't take a grain of salt with a suggestion, you evaluate it on its merits. What are your problems with this one?
A suggestion claims there is a problem for which it is a solution. A suggestion claims it is a good way to solve said problem.
So yes, a suggestion is a claim. If I suggest that you install Linux on your computer, I am claiming that Linux is an OS that is capable of serving your computing needs.
If I'm technically illiterate, then you'd be justified in taking my suggestion with a grain of salt. Even if my suggestion happened to be a good idea, there's a good chance it was just blind luck, rather than expertise.
factors you're talking about seem to mostly consist of your absurdly simplistic complexity rule and your few historical examples which only really hold in their historical context and weren't really as rosy underneath as you seem to think. I conclude that your objections make little difference to the possibility of my scenario. There are no magic rules that prevent joblessness and suffering, if they just automatically cut in to prevent these things from happening, then we wouldn't be arguing about them, because I wouldn't even be aware of the concepts of unemployment or poverty.
Negative feedback must seem like magic to you then. With that sentence, you've again demonstrated a lack of understanding of my PoV, despite your repeated insistence that you do. It's not magic; it's your lack of understanding that makes it seem like "magic".
I don't remember you claiming that. I had thought you were claiming that structural unemployment from changing technology was brief and followed by new job growth.
I didn't claim it directly, but if you inferred it from other things I said, I wouldn't disclaim it.
As for your attempt to re-phrase my claim - If it's brief, it's not "structural". Your ability to throw out nonsensical labels is amusing. But you did get closer this time. Technology can disrupt; there is a time period of chaos and oscillation as society adapts, but I claim, and recent history has shown that the end-state of increased productivity has been increased prosperity.
If you can explain to me how this picture relates to the italicized sentence, I will concede that you understand my PoV. (if you want to try to research the topic; it's linked from the PID controller wiki page)
I think I have successfully identified the assumptions you are operating under, and furthermore have identified how these assumptions assume away relevant counter-forces.
The way you put this strongly applies that you're only evaluating my arguments with the goal of confirming your own biases. You start by assuming that my opinion, which differs from yours, must differ due to some incorrect assumption. Your underlying assumption, of course, appears to be that you are never wrong.
Errr, no. Identifying your assumptions was a step towards understanding your perspective. That we disagree at all is due to different assumptions. Identifying those is necessary to understanding.
I find it interesting how you interpreted "I assumed you were wrong" from a sentence that merely meant, "I took a careful look at your PoV".
And, once again, you're the one making the extraordinary claim that your theory of the world trumps _ALL_ and that alternatives are impossible
You're the one who's predicting the future. I'm pointing out factors that make your prediction inaccurate.
Based on your inability to grasp my points, I'm concluding that your prediction does not consider the factors I'm bringing up, and so the future will not happen as you say. What I'm doing isn't extraordinary at all. I'm applying skepticism.
Claiming that skepticism is an extraordinary claim is itself an extraordinary claim. (The "extraordinary claim" rule is stupid anyways - who decides what's "ordinary"?)
You really do come off as lacking significant self awareness, you know? What that plainly exists am I insisting on the non-existance of?
You claimed that the relationship between complexity and failure doesn't exist. Which is why everyone tries to build as complex a widget as they can, because it obviously has not effect on the end result.
You seem to be the one insisting on the non-existence of things such as historical widespread suffering due to structural unemployment.
Strawman. At most, I claimed that technology does not contribute to structural unemployment. The existence of the computing industry supports that claim.
I disputed your use of imagination as historical proof that past technologies caused people to starve and die in the gutter, that they were unable to adjust to the obsolescence of another technology and its impact on their jobs. It's possible, but you have no business treating it as historical fact unless you use historical proof. And no, the Napoleonic wars are not a "new technology".
Except for absolutely linear properties for things such as job growth and technological development, I can't think of anything that I'm saying does not exist in this discussion. I have considered the forces involved, and my approximation of them doesn't seem to lead to a good place for a lot of people. I understand these concepts just fine. It seems to be a bit of an arrogant streak that causes you to think that I don't.
... Technological development is not linear. It's been exponential. Job growth is not linear, as it has tracked the non-linear growth of the world's human population (which makes sense if jobs are a function of human demand). Neither of those things have "absolutely linear properties". Don't you get tired of being corrected?
The forces you haven't considered are the ones I'm bringing up, but you insist they do not exist. Fine. They don't exist. Just don't expect to persuade me that yours is the enlightened conclusion.
Errr... Is this another strawman^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h analogy?
Yes, it is an analagous hypothetical situation analysis. I was using it to illustrate how artifiical hypothetical situations can be.
Just as an FYI, "denialism" implies that I secretly agree with you, but am denying it due to irrational factors. I do not secretly agree with you. Applying "denialism" to a vague future prediction is even more asinine. The history is fixed and fact; the future, not so much.
Interesting statistic, though that assumes that a one hour wait is sufficient to make $5 million worth of sales redirect to a competitor. Amazon has some level of brand loyalty and reputation compared to others, and I'd bet that Amazon sales are not equally distributed throughout the day.
I guess "Amazon might have suffered $5 million in losses" doesn't sound as interesting as claiming they actually did.
It would be nice if something had gotten through on your end as well, but I get the impression that you're still being pretty close-minded about the possibilities.
I haven't changed my perspective because you never showed any understanding.
I think I have successfully identified the assumptions you are operating under, and furthermore have identified how these assumptions assume away relevant counter-forces. You insist that they do not apply, when I have to deal with them as part of my job. Insisting that your theory of the world trumps my reality is simply unpersuasive.
Rather than insisting the non-existence of something that plainly exists, you should have been approximating the magnitude of the forces involved, and providing a mechanism by which negative feedback is dwarfed by the positive feedback. That you don't seem to understand these concepts tells me that you don't have the level of technical training or experience I have on these subjects.
... The only thing I'm really denying is that my scenario is impossible.
Assume a naked human being on the moon. What happens next? He suffocates and die.
Is it impossible for a naked human being to end up on the moon? Not quite - but there's absolutely no economic reason why anyone would spend that much money to do it. Politically, there's not much reason either. Is it a likely scenario that humanity needs to derive an answer for? Nope. Is there a chance? Sure, if you want to put it that way.
So yeah. Assume a robotic dystopia. I agree, your assumed robotic dystopia sucks. But because you have consistently failed to understand my objections or their relevance, you have not persuaded me that it's even remotely likely.
To persuade a different mind, you have to be able to adopt their perspective and explain why they are wrong from their own reference points. You've consistently failed to understand my reference points.
Me, I've decided it's impossible to get any further with you because your primary reference point isn't based on the constraints of reality. You win. Celebrate!
I will admit, although I still can't share your optimism, this discussion has made me think more about the issue....
Thank you. *Something* got through, if only that the robotic dystopia isn't as "obvious" as you think it is.
... I still certainly think it's something to worry about, but for the time being, I've broadened my views about the possibilities a bit. Frankly, even your denialism is a little encouraging in some ways. People can build entire economies on that sort of blind faith if enough people believe in it.
Aren't we a sore winner.
Then again, you won because you assumed away everything that might threaten your conclusions, so there's not much to be proud of there. Come to think of it, that type of behavior is "denialism", isn't it?
Now, you are right that debt and spending aren't the same thing either. That is splitting hairs a bit though - and the debt is larger than the deficit so if anything that error tends to make the problem look worse than it is. US debt isn't anywhere near 100% of GDP.
US GDP: 15~ Trillion.
Total US public debt: 16.4 Trillion.
If you meant the US deficit isn't near 100% GDP, that's nice, but we're still borrowing roughly 40% of our spending. That translates to 66% above our means.
Slashdot Mirror
The president is who we chose. Putting him in office then telling him "No" every time he tries to do something is just ridiculous. We elected him, why and how is it possible to elect someone to our top-most leadership position and at the same time elect people who intentionally block him from doing *anything* at all? Something is seriously fucked up here.
Maybe he would get less "No"s if he proposed less retarded ideas.
As for "we", you need to understand that American society has a diverse set of interests, and the federal political system is designed not to let 50% + 1 tyrannize the other 49.999999% of the population.
He's a president of a federal republic, not an absolute dictator. That you think being president gives him some right to be unopposed and uncriticized reflects a failure in your civics education.
I agree, but I don't know what fantasyland do you currently live in where credit card companies are not trying to create economic activity. People wouldn't be able to buy the crap they can't afford if it wasn't for pocketable credit, a.k.a. credit cards. In other words: the credit card companies were creating economic activity almost since day one, by allowing the gullible to buy stuff they can't afford. This hashtag purchase option just further lowers the bar that is already too low. IMHO it'll only be used by the most clueless -- those who are easiest to exploit by the system anyway. The whole idea is basically just to further exploit the underprivileged, as those are the ones vastly most likely to buy stuff they can't afford. It's not even shafting the little people, it's shafting the poorest of the little people. It is monstrous, but it's not new.
How many underprivileged people have AmEx cards *and* Internet access?
AmEx cards are accepted at fewer locations, and my experience has been that AmEx cards tend to charge membership fees - while many Visa/MC offers do not. In short, I don't expect AmEx to be a credit card the "underprivileged" use, or something they could be easily exploited on.
Actually 12, though not necessarily base 12, was very common in past civilizations because you can count to 12 on one hand. How? Count the number of segments in your fingers, using your thumb to keep track. 3 segments per finger with 4 fingers equals 12. Pinky finger, segment nearest your palm, is 1 and the tip of your index finger is 12. (At least that is the way I have always seen it done.) You can also count to 120 in base 10 with it by using your other hand to keep track of the tens place.
Shouldn't you be able to hit 144 using both hands?
For fun, if you learn to count in binary with your fingers, you could reach 1024 ....
Well count me then as one of those idiot marketers, because if I was in their position, I would have been proud to do the same, not for the money, but because it simple BETTER to be consistent with the rest of the scientific world. We're behind by saying 1KB = 1024 bytes, not them.
Behind what?
Computing fundamentally revolves around base-2, and KB is a base-2 unit, the right unit for the job.
No juggling a stack of flash cards or USB sticks and trying to figure out whose is whose.
It's not about them rejecting technology, it's about them rejecting an overhaul of their teaching methods to best use the tools at their disposal.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
New and flashier isn't necessarily better; what technology-enhanced teaching methods have generated better results than the status quo? (examples of actual results, please, not theoretical gains)
This would suggest that computer science did originally adopt the standard definitions of kilo etc. but then started to deviate from them in the mid-60's for the sake of ease.
All kilo = 1000 references before the mid-60s were in reference to bits.
Bytes is a new unit, as was kilobyte; attempts to redefine kilobyte is causing more damage than the redundancy of the "kilo" of "kilobyte" with the SI unit.
So only electrical engineers should buy hard drives, is that what you are saying? Otherwise your comment is irrelevant to this discussion.
Hard drives should be marketed in bits. "Byte" is not an SI unit.
Why? "Because I says so".
Would you restrict a person from immigrating due to their criminal record? (Let's say it's murder, to make the choice simple)
If you would restrict that case, then you're already doing the cost-benefit analysis. Other people are just using a higher threshold than you are.
The article is also pretty bad to conflate illegal ("undocumented") immigration with legal immigration. There should be no debate about whether we should enforce the law.
I'd support laxer immigration laws if someone makes the case for it; but amnesty for those who broke the rules is a giant FU to every legal immigrant who jumped through every hoop.
I'll adopt the "official" prefixes when they come up with something that isn't embarrassing to say out loud.
Who died and appointed them king?
Please join us here in the 19th century. We don't use a different base depending on what we want to measure. Makes everything a lot easier.
You've never heard of the mol, huh.
Only one? Really? A123, Beacon, Abound Solar and Ener1 also took stimulus money and lost it all. Who was in charge of evaluating these companies for financial health? Would those people be so careless with their own money? Aren't we tired of having money taken from us and wasted on bad decisions?
The economic illiterates only care to defend their "team". Their economic illiteracy allows them to believe artificial "demand" will kickstart a green energy revolution; reality's objections are simply ignored.
From their PoV, there's no net gain to do it your way; the guy who bought it used from you is also willing to buy a new copy at that price point.
So they could sell a copy to you and your friend for (say) $30 each, or sell it once to you for $60, after which you resell and your friend (or whomever) ends up not buying new.
Not that I like them trying to kill resale with those methods, but just pointing out the (perceived) benefit to them.
Consoles have been a money pit for Microsoft.
Worse, in order to remain competitive with Nintendo and Sony, they're going to have to sink billions more into the next-generation of consoles if they want to stay in that business (and pride pretty much dictates they have to stay in that business).
MS's loss is our gain. I think MS's competition has kept Sony and Nintendo on their toes in the console market and improved the options available to gamers.
Though I wouldn't mind if more of the XBox game library was available on the PC ...
I think we should.
The form factor and interface limits your ability to perform productive work on them, but that's a limitation of the UI, not the computing hardware.
I think the definitions of PC that try to limit the term to productivity tools are better captured by "Workstation".
Certainly enough to say that your blind faith that any feedback effect is going to kick in fast enough, or at all, in changing conditions is magical thinking.
Blind faith? I repeatedly refer to historical examples to justify my understanding and expectations; this included exponential technological improvement. That's evidence based faith. My "faith" may be wrong, but it's not blind. Yet another wrong label.
The existence of negative feedback is not in of itself proof that the system will be stable or that the equilibrium is good; but if you're going to dismiss negative feedback without analysis, then I know your predictions are based on feelings instead of thought.
Firstly, I didn't say it was brief, I was saying that you were saying it's brief. You then said that you wouldn't disclaim it. Whatever. Secondly, it's structural unemployment if it has a structural cause such as a large local employer moving, widespread crop failure, sudden lack of a resource critical to an industry, or changing technology obsoleting a particular job or industry. There's no precise definition about the duration, just a vague understanding that it tends to last longer than some other forms of unemployment
Cute, but you have to realize that you're mis-representing me. When I say that you're claiming that unemployment is brief, it's not the same thing as me claiming that unemployment is brief. If you're not mis-representing me on purpose, then you must simply be failing to comprehend some pretty straight-forward sentences.
I said I wouldn't disclaim the sentence you didn't recall me saying, which was, "I claimed that technology does not contribute to structural unemployment." If there's no precise definition for structural unemployment, then there's the source of the misunderstanding. I've been using it in the sense of "unavoidable `permanent' unemployment".
If you're going to use an ill-defined word to summarize my position, there should be no surprise that I'm not going to agree with your summary. I know you think that that technology causes non-brief structural (permanent) unemployment. Don't confuse my disagreement with your summary of my position with an insistence that you adopt my position.
I'll take back "nonsensical" - the word doesn't have a nailed down definition, so the confusion was over different definitions, not mis-use of the word.
This statement is, overall, correct. I haven't actually denied this anywhere.
Your prediction of a robotic dystopia where the masses are poor requires this trend to reverse direction. Complete robotic automation would be a huge technological improvement over now; but everyone having no job and starving without the benevolent socialist state is a huge downgrade over now. The relationship between technology and prosperity must flip if you think technology is a force towards your robotic dystopia.
This is another one of those things where you're going to say that disagreeing with you is just failure, I can tell.
You keep telling me that you understand my points. If you understand me, you can summarize my position and have me agree that the summary is 100% correct. That is a simple and practical way to demonstrate understanding.
A failure of understanding is demonstrated when the summary is completely unrelated to the original points. You've done that several times, but I'm more interested to see if you can if you try.
So, how does this relate to your italicized text. I'm tempted to just say it doesn't and leave it at that, but I'll persevere. It best relates to your example if it's being applied to a society with a heavily controlled command economy that forces whatever is being measured in between certain values (and does it through a stupid brute force method). Here's a hint, the market-based economies you're fond of don't come with setpoints. You may
It's a suggestion, not a claim. You don't take a grain of salt with a suggestion, you evaluate it on its merits. What are your problems with this one?
A suggestion claims there is a problem for which it is a solution. A suggestion claims it is a good way to solve said problem.
So yes, a suggestion is a claim. If I suggest that you install Linux on your computer, I am claiming that Linux is an OS that is capable of serving your computing needs.
If I'm technically illiterate, then you'd be justified in taking my suggestion with a grain of salt. Even if my suggestion happened to be a good idea, there's a good chance it was just blind luck, rather than expertise.
factors you're talking about seem to mostly consist of your absurdly simplistic complexity rule and your few historical examples which only really hold in their historical context and weren't really as rosy underneath as you seem to think. I conclude that your objections make little difference to the possibility of my scenario. There are no magic rules that prevent joblessness and suffering, if they just automatically cut in to prevent these things from happening, then we wouldn't be arguing about them, because I wouldn't even be aware of the concepts of unemployment or poverty.
Negative feedback must seem like magic to you then. With that sentence, you've again demonstrated a lack of understanding of my PoV, despite your repeated insistence that you do. It's not magic; it's your lack of understanding that makes it seem like "magic".
I don't remember you claiming that. I had thought you were claiming that structural unemployment from changing technology was brief and followed by new job growth.
I didn't claim it directly, but if you inferred it from other things I said, I wouldn't disclaim it.
As for your attempt to re-phrase my claim - If it's brief, it's not "structural". Your ability to throw out nonsensical labels is amusing. But you did get closer this time. Technology can disrupt; there is a time period of chaos and oscillation as society adapts, but I claim, and recent history has shown that the end-state of increased productivity has been increased prosperity.
If you can explain to me how this picture relates to the italicized sentence, I will concede that you understand my PoV. (if you want to try to research the topic; it's linked from the PID controller wiki page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Change_with_Ki.png
But if not, don't fret. I've already conceded that you win. Anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint must simply be in denial.
I think I have successfully identified the assumptions you are operating under, and furthermore have identified how these assumptions assume away relevant counter-forces.
The way you put this strongly applies that you're only evaluating my arguments with the goal of confirming your own biases. You start by assuming that my opinion, which differs from yours, must differ due to some incorrect assumption. Your underlying assumption, of course, appears to be that you are never wrong.
Errr, no. Identifying your assumptions was a step towards understanding your perspective. That we disagree at all is due to different assumptions. Identifying those is necessary to understanding.
I find it interesting how you interpreted "I assumed you were wrong" from a sentence that merely meant, "I took a careful look at your PoV".
And, once again, you're the one making the extraordinary claim that your theory of the world trumps _ALL_ and that alternatives are impossible
You're the one who's predicting the future. I'm pointing out factors that make your prediction inaccurate.
Based on your inability to grasp my points, I'm concluding that your prediction does not consider the factors I'm bringing up, and so the future will not happen as you say. What I'm doing isn't extraordinary at all. I'm applying skepticism.
Claiming that skepticism is an extraordinary claim is itself an extraordinary claim. (The "extraordinary claim" rule is stupid anyways - who decides what's "ordinary"?)
You really do come off as lacking significant self awareness, you know? What that plainly exists am I insisting on the non-existance of?
You claimed that the relationship between complexity and failure doesn't exist. Which is why everyone tries to build as complex a widget as they can, because it obviously has not effect on the end result.
You seem to be the one insisting on the non-existence of things such as historical widespread suffering due to structural unemployment.
Strawman. At most, I claimed that technology does not contribute to structural unemployment. The existence of the computing industry supports that claim.
I disputed your use of imagination as historical proof that past technologies caused people to starve and die in the gutter, that they were unable to adjust to the obsolescence of another technology and its impact on their jobs. It's possible, but you have no business treating it as historical fact unless you use historical proof. And no, the Napoleonic wars are not a "new technology".
Except for absolutely linear properties for things such as job growth and technological development, I can't think of anything that I'm saying does not exist in this discussion. I have considered the forces involved, and my approximation of them doesn't seem to lead to a good place for a lot of people. I understand these concepts just fine. It seems to be a bit of an arrogant streak that causes you to think that I don't.
... Technological development is not linear. It's been exponential. Job growth is not linear, as it has tracked the non-linear growth of the world's human population (which makes sense if jobs are a function of human demand). Neither of those things have "absolutely linear properties". Don't you get tired of being corrected?
The forces you haven't considered are the ones I'm bringing up, but you insist they do not exist. Fine. They don't exist. Just don't expect to persuade me that yours is the enlightened conclusion.
Errr... Is this another strawman^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h analogy?
Yes, it is an analagous hypothetical situation analysis. I was using it to illustrate how artifiical hypothetical situations can be.
Just as an FYI, "denialism" implies that I secretly agree with you, but am denying it due to irrational factors. I do not secretly agree with you. Applying "denialism" to a vague future prediction is even more asinine. The history is fixed and fact; the future, not so much.
Interesting statistic, though that assumes that a one hour wait is sufficient to make $5 million worth of sales redirect to a competitor. Amazon has some level of brand loyalty and reputation compared to others, and I'd bet that Amazon sales are not equally distributed throughout the day.
I guess "Amazon might have suffered $5 million in losses" doesn't sound as interesting as claiming they actually did.
Sorry, I take back "never showed understanding".
Rather, it's that you haven't shown me a superior understanding, which would behoove me to adopt it.
It would be nice if something had gotten through on your end as well, but I get the impression that you're still being pretty close-minded about the possibilities.
I haven't changed my perspective because you never showed any understanding.
I think I have successfully identified the assumptions you are operating under, and furthermore have identified how these assumptions assume away relevant counter-forces. You insist that they do not apply, when I have to deal with them as part of my job. Insisting that your theory of the world trumps my reality is simply unpersuasive.
Rather than insisting the non-existence of something that plainly exists, you should have been approximating the magnitude of the forces involved, and providing a mechanism by which negative feedback is dwarfed by the positive feedback. That you don't seem to understand these concepts tells me that you don't have the level of technical training or experience I have on these subjects.
... The only thing I'm really denying is that my scenario is impossible.
Assume a naked human being on the moon. What happens next? He suffocates and die.
Is it impossible for a naked human being to end up on the moon? Not quite - but there's absolutely no economic reason why anyone would spend that much money to do it. Politically, there's not much reason either. Is it a likely scenario that humanity needs to derive an answer for? Nope. Is there a chance? Sure, if you want to put it that way.
So yeah. Assume a robotic dystopia. I agree, your assumed robotic dystopia sucks. But because you have consistently failed to understand my objections or their relevance, you have not persuaded me that it's even remotely likely.
To persuade a different mind, you have to be able to adopt their perspective and explain why they are wrong from their own reference points. You've consistently failed to understand my reference points.
Me, I've decided it's impossible to get any further with you because your primary reference point isn't based on the constraints of reality. You win. Celebrate!
ROFL.
So which one is going out of business? Time Warner or Google?
I will admit, although I still can't share your optimism, this discussion has made me think more about the issue....
Thank you. *Something* got through, if only that the robotic dystopia isn't as "obvious" as you think it is.
... I still certainly think it's something to worry about, but for the time being, I've broadened my views about the possibilities a bit. Frankly, even your denialism is a little encouraging in some ways. People can build entire economies on that sort of blind faith if enough people believe in it.
Aren't we a sore winner.
Then again, you won because you assumed away everything that might threaten your conclusions, so there's not much to be proud of there. Come to think of it, that type of behavior is "denialism", isn't it?
Now, you are right that debt and spending aren't the same thing either. That is splitting hairs a bit though - and the debt is larger than the deficit so if anything that error tends to make the problem look worse than it is. US debt isn't anywhere near 100% of GDP.
US GDP: 15~ Trillion.
Total US public debt: 16.4 Trillion.
If you meant the US deficit isn't near 100% GDP, that's nice, but we're still borrowing roughly 40% of our spending. That translates to 66% above our means.