WEDC could require a business to repay any tax benefits the business claims for a year in
which it failed to maintain employment levels or a significant capital investment in property
required by an agreement between the business and WEDC.
Also, note that the previous law would have required them to repay five years of their benefits, not just the current one.
I have lived in an area destroyed by the boom and bust cycle caused by the introduction of a large corporate plant promising jobs and collapsing within a decade - because the plant had built the generation of products it was designed to build.
The only good thing that I see about this is that it appears that they are placing it in the Chicago / Milwaukee metropolitan region which will likely be more resilient to the cycle than the rural areas often chosen for these projects.
Assuming it even gets built - the lifetime of these highly automated plants is not two decades. It will need to be rebuilt in order to not close down prior to that point. There will be a whole new set of "incentives" at those points in time to keep the plant.
But, the construction companies - often owned by the associates and family of local politicians - will make a killing. The "incentives" likely won't even cover their planned cost overruns. That's all that matters to the powers that be - the kickbacks and other gains to be made during the up-front expenditures.
The goal of those in power has been reached when the construction money has been spent.
Does anyone not understand that our President is in the business of real estate?
Did I really just read that Google employees are worried about the backlash they might get from their publicly stated thoughts, opinions, etc. being freely available all over the web? Cry me a river.
Without cable at home, my phone would be near worthless. According to my phone, I'm using over 30GB a month of data. Luckily less than 2 is over cellular. If it wasn't for that fact, my phone plan would cost more than my current plan plus my home internet.
And I don't want to hear about MetroPCS or other "unlimited" providers. My partner has that. I can't stand the 3G throttling after the first couple of GBs.
The vast bulk of my phone internet usage goes over WiFi. Even my phone calls go over WiFi because I'm in some sort of a cellular shadow that causes the cellular to drop calls despite being in a major US city.
If I look at the whole of our usage, we're steadily over 200 GB / month - with no illegal downloading or other semi-unusual usage. That's just Youtube, Netflix, etc. for a three person family. No way that is going over cellular with my budget.
You say programmer's time is expensive, but I wonder how it compares to the full system-wide cost. I suspect that a massive amount of cost has been pushed to the unknowing consumer - possibly many times what the cost of better programming would be.
Is the combined time saved by modern sloppy programming practices greater or less than the cost of all of the extra memory required in billions of devices and the extra distribution costs for all of those apps. We don't consider things like, what is the energy cost for downloads? If 80% of that is bloat that could be removed, what does that mean in terms of internet infrastructure. These apps often download full new copies every month. Is it a significant portion of traffic? Does it push us to putting in new fibers or rushing 5G?
I'd like to see a full analysis of the system-wide cost of app size.
Now, not so often. Once Google deploys self-driving software, every time a connected car with their software goes down your street.
I don't agree that the system will evolve to give up the databases. Rather, the databases will become real-time and include much more than signs. There will be warnings about icy spots that are derived from earlier drivers hitting them, puddles, new potholes, a home that frequently has kids running into the street, etc. Every little thing you can imagine will be communicated. But the system won't rely on it, it's just one input of many.
And, as a human driver, you always look at every sign that you see every day? You don't ever become blind to the stop sign at the end of the street you live on? Or perhaps you do use an internal database for the vast majority of your travels?
Self-driving cars will synthesize situation awareness from many sources including their previous experiences and the experiences of all the other vehicles on the road contributing to the database.
The physical stop sign won't rule. When it becomes obscured by the bush growing beside it or anyone messing with it using stickers, they will still stop.
And that is exactly what good location algorithms working in conjunction with a system that can see do. You can improve the location knowledge with every bend or bump in the road and many landmarks. Buildings, hydrants, etc. rarely move. You just have to make sure to use a consensus view and never let any one system rule.
I'm not really down with the video yet - that won't happen until it can create video specific to my request on the fly. But, I'm toatally down with talking to my phone, TV, Google Home, etc.
I really don't understand why people are still pulling their phones out of their pocket so much.
I find it easier to just say "OK Google, text I'll be there in ten to Mom". If Mom replies, Google just reads it to me.
When I want directions (which I never need but always ask for just to get warnings of traffic issues), it's just "OK Google, take me to xxxxx". And the voice directions are fine. I rarely have to look at a screen during navigation.
If I'd like to listen to some tunes, it's "OK Google, play xxxxxx from spotify".
There are few smartphone activities I can't perform more quickly with voice than text input. Need a calculation, just ask - even with pretty complex equations. Need a stock quote, ask. Need to know movie times, ask. Turn the lights on - ask. Get a wake up at 6:30 AM, ask. Remind me to get something the next time I'm in Walmart, ask.
If they would just bring all of this fully to Chrome and give the linux crowd some hooks to tie it into the desktop, I'd be very pleased. It wouldn't eliminate my typing, but it would eliminate the need to redirect my attention from the foreground app to command or get status about background activities.
Even with the swipe keyboard, I can't enter text with the keyboard anywhere near as fast as with voice. So, almost all of my texting is with voice - and much of what I receive is read to me as it saves me from pulling the phone out of my pocket.
There was an article on here complaining about the changes in the newer generation recently (as in probably every week of slashdot
s existence). The truth is, the older generations almost always end their reign with their lifestyle subsumed by the new. It is the way of the world. I do my best to minimize it by trying to focus on how amazing it is, seeking to understand the new balances, and adapting as much as I can. Fighting it just leads to misery.
I think you're justifying your views based on your preferences. I don't think the evidence supports your view as being in the dominant trend, but I'm no economic expert.
From what I see, consumer spending gains have been steadily outpacing inflation even in the face of a falloff in vehicle sales since vehicles peaked in the 2014 timeframe. If that isn't due to an increase in spending on the stuff normally sold in stores even while stores are closing, then what is it?
In addition, it appears that e-commerce has been growing at a steady rate of 13-19% year over year every year since 2009 while overall commerce growth is much lower. So, e-commerce is scavenging commerce.
I'd say that the numbers don't hold up your opinion that the closing of stores is due to apparent problems in the consumer spending front. Rather, many people are happy with shopping online and as the online businesses get better and better at customer service (returning clothes to Amazon is just a matter of putting the package back on your doorstep), the changeover will only accelerate. Eventually, the brick and mortar stores will lose enough volume that they will have to change their business to one of selling at a premium to the few left who have to have that hands on experience.
I'm pretty sure the most tricked out Model 3 offered is in the mid 50s.
And stores and malls are closing because they are being replaced by online sales and Walmart - not due to any drop in consumer spending.
Even with Walmart, I drove through for my groceries today instead of going in. Once they develop free autonomous delivery, they can move to a warehouse on less valuable land.
I hope that they all die, and we restore the land to parks. Much of it is near roads in accessible locations that are ideal for badly needed places to get outdoors.
Many people aren't afraid to die. Some have deliberately committed suicide with plane loads of passengers. An autopilot can be programmed to be afraid to die all of the time - not so with humans.
This was my reaction too. I once cracked a block hitting a speed bump at 30 mph.
Of course, the resulting lawsuit might be better aimed at the manufacturer who didn't design in a proper limit to the travel of the front springs. My engine actually contacted the ground due to that mistake.
So, study it. Build a single tunnel and use it for cargo or other purposes. If it works, build the parallel tunnels. In the end, it is likely cheaper and more of a sure thing than experiencing the cost increases related to spending time thinking about the problem.
The only reason I can think of for not trying it would be if someone can think of why it might be dangerous for people on the surface. That one is hard to imagine. I've lived in areas that have much shallower mines underneath virtually every square foot of whole counties. A single tube 500 ft down is not going to effect people on the surface.
When I was six years old, it was a game for me to try to figure out where we'd be in an hour or exactly when we'd get to our destination. Of course, most speed limits at the time were 60mph or 30mph, making it much easier.
Through most of my life of driving, I've spent a couple of days when I first move to a place memorizing the map. I also have a really good sense of compass direction. So, if you know where you are in relation to the major roads in the area and can recognize the difference between smaller and larger roads going in the direction you want to go, you can usually get places efficiently without a map.
I doubt that I've been "lost" more than a couple of dozen times in my life, and I rarely need maps.
I turn on Google Drive for traffic guidance, not directions.
This person's log shows a tremendous deficit in the training of what should be a basic human skill. There are many skills that derive from developing your innate sense of direction and ability to relate a map to where you're at. And I doubt those regions of the brain are very multipurpose. They would be highly developed by evolution. They've given up something that likely didn't free neural resources up for another intelligence gain.
Thank you. The calculator I used and linked to is apparently bad. Wolfram confirmed your number of approximately 10km radius.
Still, that makes it basically infeasible to follow terrain in any significant way. At a speed near to a km every 3 seconds, your changes in gradients will need to span many kilometers to not cause stomach lurching effects. I suppose you'd be good for the plains and many coastal areas, but something like a Chicago - Pittsburgh - New York City route would be a bit tough.
The vast majority of the problems are solved simply by going deep. They would be silly to plan these new systems less than 500 ft down. That is why they are planning for the vehicles to enter the system via shafts.
At 700 mph an upward change in gradient with a radius of 100 km produces 1G of downward acceleration. That added to the earth's gravity gives you 2Gs. Your passengers are not going to be happy with that kind of force.
Imagine if you tried to actually follow the real terrain, even of a typical interstate. You'd have puddles, not passengers.
You may be right in general, but it doesn't describe my circumstances at all. I wonder if 2009 hasn't changed that a bit. A lot of engineering and near-engineering level folks now work in lesser positions outside of the profession they trained for and are locked out of the profession even if very willing to start over.
I'm not a millennial. But I prefer creation over leadership (i.e. I'd rather design and code). So it is my desire to be hands-on and thus near the lower levels of the project though I do also thrive as tech lead and usually have the highest SLOC count on the team.
Because I am established and own everything I have free and clear, I am free to work for free if the project sounds fun enough. I am old enough to know that working for money is the path to burnout. I work because I enjoy making things - the money is a side benefit.
As to pesky family commitments, the average millennial over 25 has a baby at home. You can't get much peskier than that. If you're sticking that baby with someone else all of the time, you need to review your life priorities a bit. At the least, find a place where you can keep your kid at work or work from home. The under two years are the most important IMO.
Today I worked till 4 AM and woke up at 10 AM. I do admit that it wasn't in a sleeping bag underneath the raised floor in the lab as it occasionally was in school or in the corporate world, but that's just because I don't have a raised floor at home. That was an awesome place to sleep during hot summers like this one.
In short, I've heard your excuses before, but I've also heard excuses of a very similar nature in the early stages of desegregation back in the 60s and 70s. It all sounds good, but justifications usually do.
But, back to the spirit of the original post, I'm OK with the segregation in this case. In a team that works, eats, and sleeps together, the social side of the equation becomes very important. Though I may be able to keep up with millennial work habits, their social culture tends to make me feel like I've entered some alternate reality or been taken over by aliens who have inserted me into some strangely "off" version of the Matrix. I love watching it and believe it's really cool that the world can produce these wild differences in such a short amount of time, but it's not a party I could ever join even if I was invited. And diversity needs a place that is a bit exclusive to thrive within.
The millennial incubators are incubating more than products. They are incubating the world that they will live in, and it is good for that to be done without the insertion of my preconceptions.
The mistake always made by those making this argument is assuming an unchanging world. My observation is that the under 30 folks are operating under completely different rules than what I grew up with. Interestingly, I am as locked out of their world as they are from mine. There are many millenial companies that basically won't hire folks over 30.
They may be less confident in in-person social interactions, but if that is not what dominates their world when they get to power (20-30 years from now when they are in their 50s and 60s), then it won't matter. And if that is not their skill, then it WILL NOT be what dominates their world. The "world" is adjusted by each generation to fit their skills and mindset when they take over the reigns. Those who do not have the strong electronic communications skills will be the ones kicked to the curb.
Every moderator who moderated the parent up needs to go RTFA. Nothing in the parent post allows one to change the actual colors used to represent the ANSI color codes. That is what MS has done. Amongst others, blue is no longer the same blue.
I think you've misunderstood a bit. I had the same first reaction as you, but then read the article.
They changed the colors used to represent the colors you can change to.
For example, I've always changed mine to a yellow or bright green on dark blue background. If you look at the examples in the article, you can see that was a very high contrast but somewhat restful combination before. It is now actually reduced in contrast and I can't see a color combination in the new example that I would find comfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
Read it again.
WEDC could require a business to repay any tax benefits the business claims for a year in which it failed to maintain employment levels or a significant capital investment in property required by an agreement between the business and WEDC.
Also, note that the previous law would have required them to repay five years of their benefits, not just the current one.
I have lived in an area destroyed by the boom and bust cycle caused by the introduction of a large corporate plant promising jobs and collapsing within a decade - because the plant had built the generation of products it was designed to build.
The only good thing that I see about this is that it appears that they are placing it in the Chicago / Milwaukee metropolitan region which will likely be more resilient to the cycle than the rural areas often chosen for these projects.
Assuming it even gets built - the lifetime of these highly automated plants is not two decades. It will need to be rebuilt in order to not close down prior to that point. There will be a whole new set of "incentives" at those points in time to keep the plant.
But, the construction companies - often owned by the associates and family of local politicians - will make a killing. The "incentives" likely won't even cover their planned cost overruns. That's all that matters to the powers that be - the kickbacks and other gains to be made during the up-front expenditures.
The goal of those in power has been reached when the construction money has been spent.
Does anyone not understand that our President is in the business of real estate?
Did I really just read that Google employees are worried about the backlash they might get from their publicly stated thoughts, opinions, etc. being freely available all over the web? Cry me a river.
Take a chill pill and recognize an opportunity for a joke fest when you see it! Few postings provide material this good!
Let the jokes fly and moderators BREAK THE GLASS OVER YOUR FUNNY BUTTONS!
Without cable at home, my phone would be near worthless. According to my phone, I'm using over 30GB a month of data. Luckily less than 2 is over cellular. If it wasn't for that fact, my phone plan would cost more than my current plan plus my home internet.
And I don't want to hear about MetroPCS or other "unlimited" providers. My partner has that. I can't stand the 3G throttling after the first couple of GBs.
The vast bulk of my phone internet usage goes over WiFi. Even my phone calls go over WiFi because I'm in some sort of a cellular shadow that causes the cellular to drop calls despite being in a major US city.
If I look at the whole of our usage, we're steadily over 200 GB / month - with no illegal downloading or other semi-unusual usage. That's just Youtube, Netflix, etc. for a three person family. No way that is going over cellular with my budget.
You say programmer's time is expensive, but I wonder how it compares to the full system-wide cost. I suspect that a massive amount of cost has been pushed to the unknowing consumer - possibly many times what the cost of better programming would be.
Is the combined time saved by modern sloppy programming practices greater or less than the cost of all of the extra memory required in billions of devices and the extra distribution costs for all of those apps. We don't consider things like, what is the energy cost for downloads? If 80% of that is bloat that could be removed, what does that mean in terms of internet infrastructure. These apps often download full new copies every month. Is it a significant portion of traffic? Does it push us to putting in new fibers or rushing 5G?
I'd like to see a full analysis of the system-wide cost of app size.
Now, not so often. Once Google deploys self-driving software, every time a connected car with their software goes down your street.
I don't agree that the system will evolve to give up the databases. Rather, the databases will become real-time and include much more than signs. There will be warnings about icy spots that are derived from earlier drivers hitting them, puddles, new potholes, a home that frequently has kids running into the street, etc. Every little thing you can imagine will be communicated. But the system won't rely on it, it's just one input of many.
And, as a human driver, you always look at every sign that you see every day? You don't ever become blind to the stop sign at the end of the street you live on? Or perhaps you do use an internal database for the vast majority of your travels?
Self-driving cars will synthesize situation awareness from many sources including their previous experiences and the experiences of all the other vehicles on the road contributing to the database.
The physical stop sign won't rule. When it becomes obscured by the bush growing beside it or anyone messing with it using stickers, they will still stop.
And that is exactly what good location algorithms working in conjunction with a system that can see do. You can improve the location knowledge with every bend or bump in the road and many landmarks. Buildings, hydrants, etc. rarely move. You just have to make sure to use a consensus view and never let any one system rule.
I'm not really down with the video yet - that won't happen until it can create video specific to my request on the fly. But, I'm toatally down with talking to my phone, TV, Google Home, etc.
I really don't understand why people are still pulling their phones out of their pocket so much.
I find it easier to just say "OK Google, text I'll be there in ten to Mom". If Mom replies, Google just reads it to me.
When I want directions (which I never need but always ask for just to get warnings of traffic issues), it's just "OK Google, take me to xxxxx". And the voice directions are fine. I rarely have to look at a screen during navigation.
If I'd like to listen to some tunes, it's "OK Google, play xxxxxx from spotify".
There are few smartphone activities I can't perform more quickly with voice than text input. Need a calculation, just ask - even with pretty complex equations. Need a stock quote, ask. Need to know movie times, ask. Turn the lights on - ask. Get a wake up at 6:30 AM, ask. Remind me to get something the next time I'm in Walmart, ask.
If they would just bring all of this fully to Chrome and give the linux crowd some hooks to tie it into the desktop, I'd be very pleased. It wouldn't eliminate my typing, but it would eliminate the need to redirect my attention from the foreground app to command or get status about background activities.
Even with the swipe keyboard, I can't enter text with the keyboard anywhere near as fast as with voice. So, almost all of my texting is with voice - and much of what I receive is read to me as it saves me from pulling the phone out of my pocket.
There was an article on here complaining about the changes in the newer generation recently (as in probably every week of slashdot s existence). The truth is, the older generations almost always end their reign with their lifestyle subsumed by the new. It is the way of the world. I do my best to minimize it by trying to focus on how amazing it is, seeking to understand the new balances, and adapting as much as I can. Fighting it just leads to misery.
I think you're justifying your views based on your preferences. I don't think the evidence supports your view as being in the dominant trend, but I'm no economic expert.
From what I see, consumer spending gains have been steadily outpacing inflation even in the face of a falloff in vehicle sales since vehicles peaked in the 2014 timeframe. If that isn't due to an increase in spending on the stuff normally sold in stores even while stores are closing, then what is it?
In addition, it appears that e-commerce has been growing at a steady rate of 13-19% year over year every year since 2009 while overall commerce growth is much lower. So, e-commerce is scavenging commerce.
I'd say that the numbers don't hold up your opinion that the closing of stores is due to apparent problems in the consumer spending front. Rather, many people are happy with shopping online and as the online businesses get better and better at customer service (returning clothes to Amazon is just a matter of putting the package back on your doorstep), the changeover will only accelerate. Eventually, the brick and mortar stores will lose enough volume that they will have to change their business to one of selling at a premium to the few left who have to have that hands on experience.
Who the heck modded the parent up?
I'm pretty sure the most tricked out Model 3 offered is in the mid 50s.
And stores and malls are closing because they are being replaced by online sales and Walmart - not due to any drop in consumer spending.
Even with Walmart, I drove through for my groceries today instead of going in. Once they develop free autonomous delivery, they can move to a warehouse on less valuable land.
I hope that they all die, and we restore the land to parks. Much of it is near roads in accessible locations that are ideal for badly needed places to get outdoors.
Many people aren't afraid to die. Some have deliberately committed suicide with plane loads of passengers. An autopilot can be programmed to be afraid to die all of the time - not so with humans.
This was my reaction too. I once cracked a block hitting a speed bump at 30 mph.
Of course, the resulting lawsuit might be better aimed at the manufacturer who didn't design in a proper limit to the travel of the front springs. My engine actually contacted the ground due to that mistake.
So, study it. Build a single tunnel and use it for cargo or other purposes. If it works, build the parallel tunnels. In the end, it is likely cheaper and more of a sure thing than experiencing the cost increases related to spending time thinking about the problem.
The only reason I can think of for not trying it would be if someone can think of why it might be dangerous for people on the surface. That one is hard to imagine. I've lived in areas that have much shallower mines underneath virtually every square foot of whole counties. A single tube 500 ft down is not going to effect people on the surface.
When I was six years old, it was a game for me to try to figure out where we'd be in an hour or exactly when we'd get to our destination. Of course, most speed limits at the time were 60mph or 30mph, making it much easier.
Through most of my life of driving, I've spent a couple of days when I first move to a place memorizing the map. I also have a really good sense of compass direction. So, if you know where you are in relation to the major roads in the area and can recognize the difference between smaller and larger roads going in the direction you want to go, you can usually get places efficiently without a map.
I doubt that I've been "lost" more than a couple of dozen times in my life, and I rarely need maps.
I turn on Google Drive for traffic guidance, not directions.
This person's log shows a tremendous deficit in the training of what should be a basic human skill. There are many skills that derive from developing your innate sense of direction and ability to relate a map to where you're at. And I doubt those regions of the brain are very multipurpose. They would be highly developed by evolution. They've given up something that likely didn't free neural resources up for another intelligence gain.
Thank you. The calculator I used and linked to is apparently bad. Wolfram confirmed your number of approximately 10km radius.
Still, that makes it basically infeasible to follow terrain in any significant way. At a speed near to a km every 3 seconds, your changes in gradients will need to span many kilometers to not cause stomach lurching effects. I suppose you'd be good for the plains and many coastal areas, but something like a Chicago - Pittsburgh - New York City route would be a bit tough.
The vast majority of the problems are solved simply by going deep. They would be silly to plan these new systems less than 500 ft down. That is why they are planning for the vehicles to enter the system via shafts.
At 700 mph an upward change in gradient with a radius of 100 km produces 1G of downward acceleration. That added to the earth's gravity gives you 2Gs. Your passengers are not going to be happy with that kind of force.
Imagine if you tried to actually follow the real terrain, even of a typical interstate. You'd have puddles, not passengers.
Here is a calculator to play with ... https://rechneronline.de/g-acc...
You may be right in general, but it doesn't describe my circumstances at all. I wonder if 2009 hasn't changed that a bit. A lot of engineering and near-engineering level folks now work in lesser positions outside of the profession they trained for and are locked out of the profession even if very willing to start over.
I'm not a millennial. But I prefer creation over leadership (i.e. I'd rather design and code). So it is my desire to be hands-on and thus near the lower levels of the project though I do also thrive as tech lead and usually have the highest SLOC count on the team.
Because I am established and own everything I have free and clear, I am free to work for free if the project sounds fun enough. I am old enough to know that working for money is the path to burnout. I work because I enjoy making things - the money is a side benefit.
As to pesky family commitments, the average millennial over 25 has a baby at home. You can't get much peskier than that. If you're sticking that baby with someone else all of the time, you need to review your life priorities a bit. At the least, find a place where you can keep your kid at work or work from home. The under two years are the most important IMO.
Today I worked till 4 AM and woke up at 10 AM. I do admit that it wasn't in a sleeping bag underneath the raised floor in the lab as it occasionally was in school or in the corporate world, but that's just because I don't have a raised floor at home. That was an awesome place to sleep during hot summers like this one.
In short, I've heard your excuses before, but I've also heard excuses of a very similar nature in the early stages of desegregation back in the 60s and 70s. It all sounds good, but justifications usually do.
But, back to the spirit of the original post, I'm OK with the segregation in this case. In a team that works, eats, and sleeps together, the social side of the equation becomes very important. Though I may be able to keep up with millennial work habits, their social culture tends to make me feel like I've entered some alternate reality or been taken over by aliens who have inserted me into some strangely "off" version of the Matrix. I love watching it and believe it's really cool that the world can produce these wild differences in such a short amount of time, but it's not a party I could ever join even if I was invited. And diversity needs a place that is a bit exclusive to thrive within.
The millennial incubators are incubating more than products. They are incubating the world that they will live in, and it is good for that to be done without the insertion of my preconceptions.
The mistake always made by those making this argument is assuming an unchanging world. My observation is that the under 30 folks are operating under completely different rules than what I grew up with. Interestingly, I am as locked out of their world as they are from mine. There are many millenial companies that basically won't hire folks over 30.
They may be less confident in in-person social interactions, but if that is not what dominates their world when they get to power (20-30 years from now when they are in their 50s and 60s), then it won't matter. And if that is not their skill, then it WILL NOT be what dominates their world. The "world" is adjusted by each generation to fit their skills and mindset when they take over the reigns. Those who do not have the strong electronic communications skills will be the ones kicked to the curb.
Every moderator who moderated the parent up needs to go RTFA. Nothing in the parent post allows one to change the actual colors used to represent the ANSI color codes. That is what MS has done. Amongst others, blue is no longer the same blue.
I think you've misunderstood a bit. I had the same first reaction as you, but then read the article.
They changed the colors used to represent the colors you can change to.
For example, I've always changed mine to a yellow or bright green on dark blue background. If you look at the examples in the article, you can see that was a very high contrast but somewhat restful combination before. It is now actually reduced in contrast and I can't see a color combination in the new example that I would find comfortable.