I remember reading that short story many years ago. I also remember thinking, why do these dudes have to be total a-holes? And why did they have to die (other than they were a-holes)? A lot of nice dudes (yes, we exist!) would roll with the situation (don't tell me that not one of the all-fem society wouldn't be curious and want to try out a dude). A really cool premise with a crappy ending that painted all men as turds.:( It could have been redeemed if there was one cool, nice guy who got to live.
Teaching people about media companies will fix our problems? You can lead a horse to water... I honestly think most of the Obama haters do not want facts to interfere with their beliefs. It is much more satisfying to continue thinking he is a foreign born Muslim.
defy physics in a cartoon. At least it was all in the name of humor. I naively went to the Peter Jackson movies hoping to see my favorite fantasy novel brought to life and instead saw my favorite Warner Bros cartoons translated into CGI Middle Earth action scenes.
Yes but we can always reinterpret reality to suite our whims. Extreme weather? Cities getting swamped by hurricanes? Rising sea levels? Melting glaciers and sea ice? Obviously God's punishment on the illegal alien Islamic homosexual libtards who have corrupted our country with this satanic lie of climate change in order to steal our coal jobs and decrease shareholder value. Harrumph!
>I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work. How old fashioned!
Really agree with this! And I say this, as a fairly left-leaning person who probably would fit in (politically) with the views that predominate at Google. If someone is fidgety enough to be basing work decisions based on personal politics, I think maybe they just don't have enough real work to do! I want to work with folks who get stuff done, and as long as they do, I don't really care if they are Trump voters, Greenies (like me), religious, non-religious, whatever.
Data source please? Nevermind, try this: http://data.worldbank.org/indi... Fertility rate in the 1960's was 4 to 5 children per female, which was definitely meant upward population. Only in recent years has the global average gotten down towards 2.4, which is still greater than replacement (i.e. growing population). Places like US, Western Europe, and Japan have sub-replacement fertility, but are still more than made up for by developing countries.
In fact, I do. Mexico, Peru, Europe, China. I've seen a lot of people living in rural conditions with nothing like what we have in the US. In China (which has high CO2 emissions but averaged out over 1.3 billion people is not so high per capita as US) I had to wear multiple layers of clothes inside during the winter due to lack of central heating in many places. Also had to bring toilet paper with me because it was not always provided. Carbon footprint of average US citizen is multiple times that of the average person in many other countries. So yeah, go to any country, even disintegrating places like Venezuela or Syria, and you can find nice conditions with AC, internet, good food, etc. It all looks great if you stay inside the nice expensive hotel and don't go out to see how the average person is living.
Overpopulation. The planet has 7.5 billion people, all of whom want to live the good life as seen in Hollywood movies and TV. One estimate has us reaching 10 billion by 2050. If there were only a billion, some plastic waste and CO2 emissions might not be such a problem. But the existing 7.5 billion folks are already destroying the biosphere, and that is today, where only a few percent (like the US, Western Europe) are enjoying the wonderful lifestyle. Good luck trying to convince all 7.5+ billion people to stop aspiring to own a car and eat steak. It will only get worse. In the long run, however, it will probably be a self-correcting problem, if you know what I mean.
Yeah, but we're in the only livable part of space that we know of. Every other part that we can get to, and all of the parts that we can't get to but observe, hold nothing but beautiful views and death. If we can't survive on the only livable spot in the universe that we know of (and only making it worse over time) what chance do we out there? Forget about terraforming Mars, we'll need to be terraforming Earth before too long.
>"I don't think the world's going to need as many coders after 2020. Ninety percent of coding is taking some business specs and translating them into computer logic. That's really ripe for machine learning and low-end AI."
This must come from someone who has never worked on a serious, complex business problem that utilized a software solution. Automation of coding has been talked about for many years, and we are not even close. Anyone who has been involved in translating marketing/regulatory/operations/etc. requirements into software knows how easy it is for things to get lost in translation. When AI is capable of intimately knowing the background of the business specs and infer the details that the spec writer sloppily omitted, then maybe. But at that point, the AI will be far smarter than we are and we won't be thinking about lost coder jobs.
>I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
Because he gives them false promises that changing trade deals and repealing regulations are going to bring back their jobs. Scrap all the trade agreements, remove all regulations, hell, shoot a "job-stealing" dolphin or two, nothing will bring back the jobs because the economics have changed, including massive automation. Trump might as well have promised to burn down some national forests or chew some bubblegum, because it would certainly bring back all of the lost blacksmith jobs from a few centuries ago.
No one wants people to be unemployed, that leads to social instability. But people do not hesitate to take advantage of frustration and fear to get elected.
Trump is above the facts. So even if he does something hypocritical, it is not hypocritical. And for you to suggest that, means that you invented ISIS.
While it is true that automation has not caused human labor to become obsolete yet, we are heading in that direction. And it does not need to be 100% obsolete to cause big changes in society. Just a few percent causes a lot of issues. Consider: technological progress has been on an exponential curve. That means in the early part of the industrial revolution, changes were slow, and there was a lot of other things that displaced workers could eventually do. However, fast forward to the 21st century, and the rate of job elimination is outpacing job creation. That means that net jobs (per capita) go down. If you do not believe this is happening, google "bls labor participation rate". Indeed, the actual labor participation rate has been dropping since around the year 2000. Partisans try to blame it on Bush, on Obama, etc. but really it is just a paradigm shift. We went from "mostly farmers" to "mostly city dwelling employees" as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Now something else is happening, though it is not clear where it is heading. There is no law of physics or God-given law that states that the economy must produce enough jobs for near-full employment. The political regime might influence the economy but cannot stop a massive paradigm shift, not today anymore than it could have been stopped 200 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading that short story many years ago. I also remember thinking, why do these dudes have to be total a-holes? And why did they have to die (other than they were a-holes)? A lot of nice dudes (yes, we exist!) would roll with the situation (don't tell me that not one of the all-fem society wouldn't be curious and want to try out a dude). A really cool premise with a crappy ending that painted all men as turds. :( It could have been redeemed if there was one cool, nice guy who got to live.
Teaching people about media companies will fix our problems? You can lead a horse to water...
I honestly think most of the Obama haters do not want facts to interfere with their beliefs. It is much more satisfying to continue thinking he is a foreign born Muslim.
defy physics in a cartoon. At least it was all in the name of humor. I naively went to the Peter Jackson movies hoping to see my favorite fantasy novel brought to life and instead saw my favorite Warner Bros cartoons translated into CGI Middle Earth action scenes.
Yes but we can always reinterpret reality to suite our whims. Extreme weather? Cities getting swamped by hurricanes? Rising sea levels? Melting glaciers and sea ice? Obviously God's punishment on the illegal alien Islamic homosexual libtards who have corrupted our country with this satanic lie of climate change in order to steal our coal jobs and decrease shareholder value. Harrumph!
I thought we all agreed last year in November that we weren't going to let science, evidence, or logic cloud our judgement anymore.
>I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work. How old fashioned!
Really agree with this! And I say this, as a fairly left-leaning person who probably would fit in (politically) with the views that predominate at Google. If someone is fidgety enough to be basing work decisions based on personal politics, I think maybe they just don't have enough real work to do! I want to work with folks who get stuff done, and as long as they do, I don't really care if they are Trump voters, Greenies (like me), religious, non-religious, whatever.
Save the politics for happy hour.
Data source please?
Nevermind, try this:
http://data.worldbank.org/indi...
Fertility rate in the 1960's was 4 to 5 children per female, which was definitely meant upward population.
Only in recent years has the global average gotten down towards 2.4, which is still greater than replacement (i.e. growing population).
Places like US, Western Europe, and Japan have sub-replacement fertility, but are still more than made up for by developing countries.
>You don't travel much, do you?
In fact, I do. Mexico, Peru, Europe, China. I've seen a lot of people living in rural conditions with nothing like what we have in the US. In China (which has high CO2 emissions but averaged out over 1.3 billion people is not so high per capita as US) I had to wear multiple layers of clothes inside during the winter due to lack of central heating in many places. Also had to bring toilet paper with me because it was not always provided. Carbon footprint of average US citizen is multiple times that of the average person in many other countries. So yeah, go to any country, even disintegrating places like Venezuela or Syria, and you can find nice conditions with AC, internet, good food, etc. It all looks great if you stay inside the nice expensive hotel and don't go out to see how the average person is living.
Overpopulation. The planet has 7.5 billion people, all of whom want to live the good life as seen in Hollywood movies and TV. One estimate has us reaching 10 billion by 2050. If there were only a billion, some plastic waste and CO2 emissions might not be such a problem. But the existing 7.5 billion folks are already destroying the biosphere, and that is today, where only a few percent (like the US, Western Europe) are enjoying the wonderful lifestyle. Good luck trying to convince all 7.5+ billion people to stop aspiring to own a car and eat steak. It will only get worse. In the long run, however, it will probably be a self-correcting problem, if you know what I mean.
Could we just send Justin Bieber to Mars? That might help the situation here on Earth a bit.
Yeah, but we're in the only livable part of space that we know of. Every other part that we can get to, and all of the parts that we can't get to but observe, hold nothing but beautiful views and death. If we can't survive on the only livable spot in the universe that we know of (and only making it worse over time) what chance do we out there? Forget about terraforming Mars, we'll need to be terraforming Earth before too long.
>"I don't think the world's going to need as many coders after 2020. Ninety percent of coding is taking some business specs and translating them into computer logic. That's really ripe for machine learning and low-end AI."
This must come from someone who has never worked on a serious, complex business problem that utilized a software solution. Automation of coding has been talked about for many years, and we are not even close. Anyone who has been involved in translating marketing/regulatory/operations/etc. requirements into software knows how easy it is for things to get lost in translation. When AI is capable of intimately knowing the background of the business specs and infer the details that the spec writer sloppily omitted, then maybe. But at that point, the AI will be far smarter than we are and we won't be thinking about lost coder jobs.
>I wonder why they listen to someone like Trump instead?
Because he gives them false promises that changing trade deals and repealing regulations are going to bring back their jobs. Scrap all the trade agreements, remove all regulations, hell, shoot a "job-stealing" dolphin or two, nothing will bring back the jobs because the economics have changed, including massive automation. Trump might as well have promised to burn down some national forests or chew some bubblegum, because it would certainly bring back all of the lost blacksmith jobs from a few centuries ago.
No one wants people to be unemployed, that leads to social instability. But people do not hesitate to take advantage of frustration and fear to get elected.
this experiment happening in the Black Mesa facility? Maybe right as Gordon Freeman arrives?
Trump is above the facts. So even if he does something hypocritical, it is not hypocritical. And for you to suggest that, means that you invented ISIS.
While it is true that automation has not caused human labor to become obsolete yet, we are heading in that direction. And it does not need to be 100% obsolete to cause big changes in society. Just a few percent causes a lot of issues. Consider: technological progress has been on an exponential curve. That means in the early part of the industrial revolution, changes were slow, and there was a lot of other things that displaced workers could eventually do. However, fast forward to the 21st century, and the rate of job elimination is outpacing job creation. That means that net jobs (per capita) go down. If you do not believe this is happening, google "bls labor participation rate". Indeed, the actual labor participation rate has been dropping since around the year 2000. Partisans try to blame it on Bush, on Obama, etc. but really it is just a paradigm shift. We went from "mostly farmers" to "mostly city dwelling employees" as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Now something else is happening, though it is not clear where it is heading. There is no law of physics or God-given law that states that the economy must produce enough jobs for near-full employment. The political regime might influence the economy but cannot stop a massive paradigm shift, not today anymore than it could have been stopped 200 years ago.