Slave drivers tend to make more money - upto a point - the more they drive their slaves. What you seem to be talking of is productivity _per hour_ worked, which is a different topic.
No. Usually, individual employee productivity (total output) in a 72 hour workweek is higher than a 40 hour week. Not proportionally (80% higher), but certainly more than you'd normally get with a 40 hour workweek.
The problem lies with the waste this engenders within management -- they'd take a path, reverse it, have you to do meaningless crap reports, ignore inefficiencies and problems because "you're on it", basically for free, etc.
As a result, the productivity of the entire system goes down.
Its such a waste , this guy thinking these things when he could be creating and working. If she has flaws or gaps in thinking (I think so), he needs to point them out humbly. No good comes from pride of any sort - the most important thing we have, life itself, we didn't earn. The best we can do is to treat others as we would like to be treated and earn a quiet sober satisfaction when we work and create.
Nice summary. My take: this jet is unsafe. To make a cheap new jet fly longer routes, Boeing made engineering compromises: they stuck on new engines that were too large, onto an existing design. They saved money by opting not to properly redesign the airframe. This introduced a mechanical bug. To mitigate it, they introduced a workaround in controls and software. They saved further money by not implementing and/or 'documenting' the workaround properly (skipping on sensor redundancy, indicators, training).
Well, the workaround turned out buggy. It began fighting the pilot, trying to crash the plane. It succeeded twice. The Boeing CEO's response, in effect, 'read the manual'.
The benefit - to Boeing: 4000+ orders for this plane.
The cost - to us: 346 lives in 2 crashes in 5 months.
Australia, China, Singapore have already banned this jet flying. The US has not. Boeing wants to 'improve' the jet in the cheapest way: in software. The same software that helped crash these planes. No airframe redesign. No sensor redundancy, indicators, training..
"Japanese car companies on the other hand invented the kanban board and people with the right skills and motivation drifted to the top, the rest fell to the wayside."
So GM not firing workers led to this mess, while the Japanese, who were famous for being _unwilling_ to fire workers, leapfrogged them?
He gave us a solid number (10 TW-hr/yr out of 130,000) - which I am grateful for. So he understands. But he does not accept 1 out of 13000 is too large a proportion of a resource used by 7 billion people.
That spike in demand (often localised) causes negative effects - people without electricity, higher power prices, outages affect operation theatres... that sort of stuff. Eventually, we run out of non-renewables faster.
I get what you're saying re: Mars missions and cancellations. It's seeming that way so far.
> That's because investment in better agriculture, cancer treatment, etc does happen independent of space exploration, and that's my entire point that I obviously did a poor job at getting across.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, progress does occurs upto a point -- _if_ finances are not sucked from these essential, but less-glamorous programs. There is opportunity cost to expensive bet-the-family-home initiatives: the payback may _not_ be ultimately worth it.
Even the moon-program in the '70s cost 120 Billion (in today's money) and died when it got too expensive. A Mars program's costs will be 10 times that. When I see order-of-magnitude jumps, I get skeptical whether it's worth it.
People are both the problem, and possible resources to solve the problem.
That crank handle isn't going to stop turning if we blast 50 (or 50000) people to Mars. We'll just export our existing problems from a relative paradise (Earth) to a poison-planet (Mars).
A trillion dollar Mars-shot "because it's there" doesn't make economic sense to me. It works out $1000/taxpayer (assuming a billion people paying for the effort). I have no objection to someone ponying up their personal fortune for this. But they're likely to invoke govt. spending. That's gonna suck money out of other initiatives.
> " why is it we are only allowed to solve one problem at a time?" No, we _must_ solve problems simultaneously. But a Mars base is _not_ a problem.
We need to solve real problems here -- on earth. Bioengineering to break down perchlorates here on _Earth_ could help terraform _Mars_. But with drones. Sending Matt Damon (or Musk) there is not gonna help.
> "We haven't gone out of Earth orbit since the early 1970s, why haven't we made massive progress toward solving these other problems if talking about space is the biggest block? "
No - we made progress.
A trillion dollar Mars-shot "because it's there" doesn't make sense to me. It works out $1000/taxpayer (assuming a billion people paying for the effort). I have no objection to someone ponying up their personal fortune for this. But they're likely to invoke govt. spending.
"Because it's there"? Uh, poverty is "there". Cancer is "there". Ageing is "there". Pollution (including perchlorates in the environment) is "there". Hunger is "there". Oppression, dishonesty, murder, lying, cheating, is all "there".
Exporting all this to an already-poisoned planet fixes nothing. We need to start here.
You're right. Maybe a phone app that understands verbal cues and commands, your personal agenda, your contact list (including their faces) and uses this knowledge to handle media *as you generate it*.
E.g., you saying "this is such a gorgeous place" when snapping a picture of scenery in Kawai'i uploads a suitable resolution of the photo, along with a distribution list, to your parents phone, or to a couple of peers, who then distribute it using some sort of bit-torrent P2P method. Maybe a low-power RasPi or $10/yr server serving as backup store of high-res media.
Videoing a picture of a concert poster, saying "hey wifey, wanna go for this", OCRs and transcribes event time and place, queries your wife, and sets up purchase and management of concert tickets.
Saying "smile", as you take a snap at a wedding recognises the faces of your friends and automatically syncs the picture to their phones. If a friend of a friend is in the pic, it is similarly recognised and forwarded by your friend's phone to their phone.
Federated recognition. If your phone does not recognise where it's at, what you're doing, it uses input from other untrusted/trusted devices. E.g., '[event: wedding [entities:...]]'
Dynamically setup conversation groups, linked to your phone and mediated by multiple PKI keypairs linked to your phone. Maybe using good old SMTP as messaging backbone. (I.e. Messages exchanged via email, but presented via app)
Offline multi- factor authentication, maybe a printed page with QR code, or a handwritten page of codes, or a code carved in a tree trunk, or a combination of some or all the above (so a codebreaker must go on a near impossible quest).
Voice response to conversation threads, transcribed in real time, with confirmation requested where necessary by a conversational interface.
Slashdot Mirror
(Shrug). Can't find it. Here's what I did find... What's going on with the managerial class.
http://www.ccl.org/leadership/...
Slave drivers tend to make more money - upto a point - the more they drive their slaves. What you seem to be talking of is productivity _per hour_ worked, which is a different topic.
Do you have a time versus output curve?
Yes, several spots of very high technology where the Government intervened early - like in telecom:
http://www.cdot.in/cdotweb/web...
But it's not consistent -- note the PHP website.
No. Usually, individual employee productivity (total output) in a 72 hour workweek is higher than a 40 hour week. Not proportionally (80% higher), but certainly more than you'd normally get with a 40 hour workweek.
The problem lies with the waste this engenders within management -- they'd take a path, reverse it, have you to do meaningless crap reports, ignore inefficiencies and problems because "you're on it", basically for free, etc.
As a result, the productivity of the entire system goes down.
Since Tesla were too cheap (many meanings here) to build-in a camera pointed at the driver, this study installed one...
Not only does the driver know they are being watched, the type of driver that agrees to enroll in this study is comfortable being surveilled.
How were the results corrected for that? How *can* they be?
Its such a waste , this guy thinking these things when he could be creating and working. If she has flaws or gaps in thinking (I think so), he needs to point them out humbly. No good comes from pride of any sort - the most important thing we have, life itself, we didn't earn. The best we can do is to treat others as we would like to be treated and earn a quiet sober satisfaction when we work and create.
So they had 3 seperate chances to take the right path.
1. Design the airplane right
2. Design the workaround right
3. Train the pilots right
They chose the wrong path 3 times, taking shortcuts instead. Why?
The only common reason I can think of: Greed.
Saving dollars on manpower, sensors.. making the model appeal more to customers, shortening time-to-market, taking business away from competitors.
Nice summary. My take: this jet is unsafe. To make a cheap new jet fly longer routes, Boeing made engineering compromises: they stuck on new engines that were too large, onto an existing design. They saved money by opting not to properly redesign the airframe. This introduced a mechanical bug. To mitigate it, they introduced a workaround in controls and software. They saved further money by not implementing and/or 'documenting' the workaround properly (skipping on sensor redundancy, indicators, training).
Well, the workaround turned out buggy. It began fighting the pilot, trying to crash the plane. It succeeded twice. The Boeing CEO's response, in effect, 'read the manual'.
The benefit - to Boeing: 4000+ orders for this plane.
The cost - to us: 346 lives in 2 crashes in 5 months.
Australia, China, Singapore have already banned this jet flying. The US has not. Boeing wants to 'improve' the jet in the cheapest way: in software. The same software that helped crash these planes. No airframe redesign. No sensor redundancy, indicators, training..
#PassengerUnion
#BoycottBoeingMAX
#MadMAX
A plane that can turn an expert pilot into an "idiot" is not one I wish to fly in.
"I think with heightened awareness on the part of pilots after these N tragedies, the MAX 8 is still safe to fly on."
Earlier N was 1. Now it is two.
No buddy, not me - count me out of the 5G charm offensive as well.
FYI: "John Dvorak: 5G Got Me Fired"
http://scientists4wiredtech.co...
So _weak_ electromagnetic fields _can_ have biological effects... besides just 'heating effects'.
And that means there is a theoretical mechanism for (say) cell phone radiation to cause cancer.
Deepfakes: https://www.google.com/search?...
Adobe voice fakes : https://www.google.com/search?...
But I guess a couple of hardware tokens (issued, say, to the member and his aide) could be used to authenticate the session.
Scanning for reply by elrous1...
"Japanese car companies on the other hand invented the kanban board and people with the right skills and motivation drifted to the top, the rest fell to the wayside."
So GM not firing workers led to this mess, while the Japanese, who were famous for being _unwilling_ to fire workers, leapfrogged them?
He gave us a solid number (10 TW-hr/yr out of 130,000) - which I am grateful for. So he understands. But he does not accept 1 out of 13000 is too large a proportion of a resource used by 7 billion people.
That spike in demand (often localised) causes negative effects - people without electricity, higher power prices, outages affect operation theatres... that sort of stuff. Eventually, we run out of non-renewables faster.
The Eth inventor accepts this.
I get what you're saying re: Mars missions and cancellations. It's seeming that way so far.
> That's because investment in better agriculture, cancer treatment, etc does happen independent of space exploration, and that's my entire point that I obviously did a poor job at getting across.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, progress does occurs upto a point -- _if_ finances are not sucked from these essential, but less-glamorous programs. There is opportunity cost to expensive bet-the-family-home initiatives: the payback may _not_ be ultimately worth it.
Even the moon-program in the '70s cost 120 Billion (in today's money) and died when it got too expensive. A Mars program's costs will be 10 times that. When I see order-of-magnitude jumps, I get skeptical whether it's worth it.
You misunderstood the AC poster -- when he wrote "but for cloud", he meant "except for cloud".
Yes, Amazon reaps rich profits from its cloud division.
People are both the problem, and possible resources to solve the problem.
That crank handle isn't going to stop turning if we blast 50 (or 50000) people to Mars. We'll just export our existing problems from a relative paradise (Earth) to a poison-planet (Mars).
A trillion dollar Mars-shot "because it's there" doesn't make economic sense to me. It works out $1000 /taxpayer (assuming a billion people paying for the effort). I have no objection to someone ponying up their personal fortune for this. But they're likely to invoke govt. spending. That's gonna suck money out of other initiatives.
> " why is it we are only allowed to solve one problem at a time?"
No, we _must_ solve problems simultaneously. But a Mars base is _not_ a problem.
We need to solve real problems here -- on earth. Bioengineering to break down perchlorates here on _Earth_ could help terraform _Mars_. But with drones. Sending Matt Damon (or Musk) there is not gonna help.
> "We haven't gone out of Earth orbit since the early 1970s, why haven't we made massive progress toward solving these other problems if talking about space is the biggest block? "
No - we made progress.
A trillion dollar Mars-shot "because it's there" doesn't make sense to me. It works out $1000 /taxpayer (assuming a billion people paying for the effort). I have no objection to someone ponying up their personal fortune for this. But they're likely to invoke govt. spending.
"Because it's there"? Uh, poverty is "there". Cancer is "there". Ageing is "there". Pollution (including perchlorates in the environment) is "there". Hunger is "there". Oppression, dishonesty, murder, lying, cheating, is all "there".
Exporting all this to an already-poisoned planet fixes nothing. We need to start here.
"Do you think Kansas has the available expertise within the government to secure a data center?"
A 12-person company may not have that expertise, but a state govt. should. If it lost the capacity, it's a sad state of affairs.
Why I thought so..
https://www.google.com/search?...
No? I thought these plants already did this... Does this protein increase capture and conversion rate?
You're right. Maybe a phone app that understands verbal cues and commands, your personal agenda, your contact list (including their faces) and uses this knowledge to handle media *as you generate it*.
E.g., you saying "this is such a gorgeous place" when snapping a picture of scenery in Kawai'i uploads a suitable resolution of the photo, along with a distribution list, to your parents phone, or to a couple of peers, who then distribute it using some sort of bit-torrent P2P method. Maybe a low-power RasPi or $10/yr server serving as backup store of high-res media.
Videoing a picture of a concert poster, saying "hey wifey, wanna go for this", OCRs and transcribes event time and place, queries your wife, and sets up purchase and management of concert tickets.
Saying "smile", as you take a snap at a wedding recognises the faces of your friends and automatically syncs the picture to their phones. If a friend of a friend is in the pic, it is similarly recognised and forwarded by your friend's phone to their phone.
Federated recognition. If your phone does not recognise where it's at, what you're doing, it uses input from other untrusted/trusted devices. E.g., '[event: wedding [entities:...]]'
Dynamically setup conversation groups, linked to your phone and mediated by multiple PKI keypairs linked to your phone. Maybe using good old SMTP as messaging backbone. (I.e. Messages exchanged via email, but presented via app)
Offline multi- factor authentication, maybe a printed page with QR code, or a handwritten page of codes, or a code carved in a tree trunk, or a combination of some or all the above (so a codebreaker must go on a near impossible quest).
Voice response to conversation threads, transcribed in real time, with confirmation requested where necessary by a conversational interface.