Even within a society which has a very cheap price of labor there can exist people whose labor is very costly. Your example was inappropriate because it was an example of automating away jobs of just such people within China. China is not automating away the jobs of the people with lowest wages. It only makes sense to automate away the wages of those whose skills are in high demand, but who have little political sway or control over the process (highly-skill non-manager positions). So your example in no way whatsoever disproved the point that "automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people".
This assertion is a load of crap
Fuck you with a cherry on top. I am just not in a mood for dumb asses who think they know something, but who in reality are cherry picking facts to prove points which are utterly wrong. You are the prime example of why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you knew less, then at least you wouldn't have the confidence to assert the dumb ass shit you are asserting. But because you know a few things, but can't piece them together, you think you are coming from a position of reason. You are not. You are coming from a knee-jerk towards your favorite pipe dream based on cherry picked facts.
Anyone who thinks that competition can removed from work-incentive process completely disregards the fact that sexual conquest is present in all societies other than theocracies. So to remove all sources of competitiveness a society would need to introduce a strict moral code (Soviet Union certainly tried). This would mean suppressing natural human urges and would lead to development of authoritarian elements within the society. And authoritarian institutions would attract the most aggressive (most competitive) individuals. The end result would be a totalitarian regime existing for the sake of preserving its power rather than the originally intended purpose of social progress.
If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs?
A classic example of how to make an argument seem like it addresses a point, while in fact it just makes an entirely different point, is to counter an argument which draws a comparison between 2 values with an argument which talks about one absolute value; or the other way around -- to counter a point about an absolute value with an argument about a comparative value.
I said automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. You countered that "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs". It may mean that in this particular instance of Foxconn people were more expensive than the cost of automation. That does not extrapolate to conclusion that it would work out that way with all or even many industries in China. Human labor there is still very cheap. In most industries it's still cheaper than the cost of machines. A few examples where that's not the case do not prove the opposite point.
Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.
Low cost health care and universal education are needed in the USA. There. Fixed it for you. What's the point of cheap college education for people who fail to learn much during free public school education? And what's the point of universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to provide the care?
And I want that '95 Chevy that you are buying from me to run like the best Ferrari you can imagine. Automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. And China isn't running out of people any time soon.
If I were pretending to be a lawyer, I would have said that this was what the Turkish constitution stated rather than saying that this is what I heard on the news. For the sake of disclosure, I'll make the unnecessary disclaimer. I am not a lawyer.
Despite the fact that this is how it is reported, it's somewhat misleading to call it a coup. While it's extra legal, it's been reported that the Turkish constitution puts military in charge of being the last-ditch effort of dissolving and reforming the government if the government goes too far in making Turkey a non-secular state. Given that the current President of Turkey belongs to the party which officially started out as an Islamist party, but then de jour (albeit not necessarily de facto) abandoned its Islamic direction, it stands to reason that making a decision on whether the ruling party is trying to undermine secular institutions is legitimately the military's judgement call.
It's not a clean solution to having a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of the government can completely dismantle all other branches, but it's also not a blanket attempt at a power grab which is usually associated with a coup.
Certainly, having so many dead an injured over, what amounts to, a political dispute is tragic. But having a secular state descent into a theocracy would almost certainly result in much more losses of life and civic freedoms and, therefore, would be a larger tragedy.
Also most of the things he wrote about Python are very similar to things I've seen stated by Python programmers.
That doesn't make them true. I started using Python around version 1.2 (ONE point 2). So I am going to claim that I am fairly familiar with the language. Despite the fact that Python 3 broke some C code which uses Python and despite the fact that Python 3 features are still backported to Python 2.7 branch, the push to Python 3 to replace Python 2 is there. It just happens to be more of a gentle nudge than a push. But this fact, in itself, signifies that Python 3 is meant to replace Python 2 and that's the opposite of what he said.
I know what he is referring to. Most of the money from Perl was made by O'Reilly Press. They published documentation dumps on Perl, Perl modules and everything and anything Perl and people bought those when Perl was in vogue (even if they never read them). The collective cost was probably comparable to what he would have gotten if he released Perl commercially and charged per-copy license fee (and got paid for about 1/3 of all copies which were in use).
It's not similar. It's unrelated. It has similarity to yield as a statement for producing generators, but not to a single yield from a context manager closure. And this syntax... Sigh. Yes, Perl was good at regular expressions. But then, as this syntax shows, it decide to make everything look like regular expressions. It's unreadable.
Really? Because combining yield and "with" keyword allows you to have cascading contexts. As in.. use my connection if I have, or some more global connection if I don't, or an even more global connection if that one is not available. And after you are done, if you are the one who created the connection, release it, otherwise let it be. And all of this takes less code and is more clear in Python than the few sentences that I just used to describe it and it has full handling of exceptions at just the right context layer.
Is he just bitter? He didn't give away his billions to "the people". He essentially gave it to O'Reilly Press. He keeps making statements about Python which are just aren't true. Oh, and as much as I regret it, Python 3 *is* meant to replace Python 2. I like the Python 2 print statement, but such is life.
I stopped reading at Python gives you one way of doing things well. Python's 'yield' allows you to maintain state entirely within re-entrant functions. Which removes a lot of need for classes (as keepers of state of methods). The data-operation duality is much more fluid in Python than it is in Perl. The only reason Perl was ever successful is because it did wild card operations really, really well. Everything else about it is unreadable. Python allows you to have both RAII(with 'with' keyword) and gc-style resource collection. Perl (and I admit that just like everyone else I didn't bother with Perl 6) never had RAII despite living in the networking world, where msg parsing makes it of paramount importance.
If they offer free domestic calling and one calls a premium number and they connect it, where's the hack? Your agreement with anyone (including large corporations) is what you agreed to -- not what someone claims you agreed to.
This is a fairly strong statement to make about the universe. First of all, (-1,1) has essentially all the properties of (-inf, inf). You can think of both of them as projections of (-1,1)x{1} from 2 different points. What this boils down to is that not believing in infinite sets suggests that the universe is a closed set. Which is a very strong statement to make. In fact, it suggests that all information sets are closed sets which is an even stronger statement to make. It's much more justified to remain agnostic on infinite sets.
Of course, Russian Federation is building a bomber. It can't manufacture cars, planes and despite its vast territory is forced to import food. But they are building technology more advanced than all industrialized countries can manage to, at this moment. I am guessing it's going to be manned by volunteers from RF who occupied Crimea. Didn't they say they were going to mars within 5 years at some point in the previous year? This is just another attempt at distraction or attention grabbing when the world's still shell-shocked from the events of the past week. Technologically, they are just coasting on the accomplishments of the past century. They still have designs of nuclear reactors, so they sell them states around the world. They still have tanks, so they use them to threaten their neighbors. It's highly doubtful that they can still mass produce tanks (something they were capable of 50 years ago). No brilliant scientist would work for RF government today. They don't have the money to pay them and they don't have a base cadre of scientist left to train new ones.
Of course, Russian Federation is building a bomber. It can't manufacture cars, planes and despite its vast territory is forced to import food. But they are building technology more advanced than all industrialized countries can manage to, at this moment. I am guessing it's going to be manned by volunteers from RF who occupied Crimea. Didn't they say they were going to mars within 5 years at some point in the previous year? This is just another attempt at distraction or attention grabbing when the world's still shell-shocked from the events of the past week. Technologically, they are just coasting on the accomplishments of the past century. They still have designs of nuclear reactors, so they sell them states around the world. They still have tanks, so they use them to threaten their neighbors. It's highly doubtful that they can still mass produce tanks (something they were capable of 50 years ago). No brilliant scientist would work for RF government today. They don't have the money to pay them and they don't have a base cadre of scientist left to train new ones.
poor memory is not necessarily a downside. understanding is not just repurposing of knowledge to new contexts. it's also culling of unimport information. and forgetting is a culling mechanism. so this may be useful in long-term study of complicated ideas (the ones which require deep perception).
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Polls don't matter, but direction of the polls matter. Mostly because we don't have a collective mind. And information propagation takes time to take hold in public's mind. As information disseminates polls follow the knowledge which this information spreads. So polls at any one point in time don't tell much. But polls directions do.
is that the summary didn't have the tag "democrats"... at least the last time i checked. it had a tag donaldtrump, clintons, politics, but not democrats. Given how anything every involving a Republican gets a "republicans" tag right away, this is quite a fit. The fact that he endorsed her right after FBI stated that she clearly and knowingly lied to Congress is quite something, too. I don't think many Bernie supporters expected him to do that under such circumstances.
Another reason for Americans to not study programming.
To be more precise, another reason for Americans not to study programming on Android. According to the summary only 1/4 of 4 million Indian developers are working on mobile. And these are supposed to be additional 2 million developers. So the program plans to increase the number of Indian developers by 50%. I have to admit, this seriously gives me pause about having learn-android-platform on my todo list. It moves it somewhere below learn-cobol level. I am surprised to see this come out of Google though. Instead of finding ways to automate many tasks of Android development they decide to hand it off to be done through repetitive cheap human labor. Didn't expect it from the company which used to strive to be at the forefront of development. I am curious though what Kurzweil thinks of it. It's certainly a move towards flattening the singularity trend rather than allowing it to spike.
Slashdot Mirror
This assertion is a load of crap
Fuck you with a cherry on top. I am just not in a mood for dumb asses who think they know something, but who in reality are cherry picking facts to prove points which are utterly wrong. You are the prime example of why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you knew less, then at least you wouldn't have the confidence to assert the dumb ass shit you are asserting. But because you know a few things, but can't piece them together, you think you are coming from a position of reason. You are not. You are coming from a knee-jerk towards your favorite pipe dream based on cherry picked facts.
And holding down a job and being rewarded for it also feels nice for your self-esteem
So does playing video games which reward you for doing meaningless tasks while you do nothing useful with your time.
Anyone who thinks that competition can removed from work-incentive process completely disregards the fact that sexual conquest is present in all societies other than theocracies. So to remove all sources of competitiveness a society would need to introduce a strict moral code (Soviet Union certainly tried). This would mean suppressing natural human urges and would lead to development of authoritarian elements within the society. And authoritarian institutions would attract the most aggressive (most competitive) individuals. The end result would be a totalitarian regime existing for the sake of preserving its power rather than the originally intended purpose of social progress.
If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs?
A classic example of how to make an argument seem like it addresses a point, while in fact it just makes an entirely different point, is to counter an argument which draws a comparison between 2 values with an argument which talks about one absolute value; or the other way around -- to counter a point about an absolute value with an argument about a comparative value.
I said automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. You countered that "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs". It may mean that in this particular instance of Foxconn people were more expensive than the cost of automation. That does not extrapolate to conclusion that it would work out that way with all or even many industries in China. Human labor there is still very cheap. In most industries it's still cheaper than the cost of machines. A few examples where that's not the case do not prove the opposite point.
Do you mean that the People's Republic of China does not ensure comfortable working conditions for the working class? Inconceivable.
Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.
Low cost health care and universal education are needed in the USA. There. Fixed it for you. What's the point of cheap college education for people who fail to learn much during free public school education? And what's the point of universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to provide the care?
And I want that '95 Chevy that you are buying from me to run like the best Ferrari you can imagine. Automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. And China isn't running out of people any time soon.
He's a waiter pretending to be a lawyer.
If I were pretending to be a lawyer, I would have said that this was what the Turkish constitution stated rather than saying that this is what I heard on the news. For the sake of disclosure, I'll make the unnecessary disclaimer. I am not a lawyer.
You seem to have confused du jour and de jure.
Yes, I did make that mistake. Thank you.
Despite the fact that this is how it is reported, it's somewhat misleading to call it a coup. While it's extra legal, it's been reported that the Turkish constitution puts military in charge of being the last-ditch effort of dissolving and reforming the government if the government goes too far in making Turkey a non-secular state. Given that the current President of Turkey belongs to the party which officially started out as an Islamist party, but then de jour (albeit not necessarily de facto) abandoned its Islamic direction, it stands to reason that making a decision on whether the ruling party is trying to undermine secular institutions is legitimately the military's judgement call.
It's not a clean solution to having a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch of the government can completely dismantle all other branches, but it's also not a blanket attempt at a power grab which is usually associated with a coup.
Certainly, having so many dead an injured over, what amounts to, a political dispute is tragic. But having a secular state descent into a theocracy would almost certainly result in much more losses of life and civic freedoms and, therefore, would be a larger tragedy.
Also most of the things he wrote about Python are very similar to things I've seen stated by Python programmers.
That doesn't make them true. I started using Python around version 1.2 (ONE point 2). So I am going to claim that I am fairly familiar with the language. Despite the fact that Python 3 broke some C code which uses Python and despite the fact that Python 3 features are still backported to Python 2.7 branch, the push to Python 3 to replace Python 2 is there. It just happens to be more of a gentle nudge than a push. But this fact, in itself, signifies that Python 3 is meant to replace Python 2 and that's the opposite of what he said.
I know what he is referring to. Most of the money from Perl was made by O'Reilly Press. They published documentation dumps on Perl, Perl modules and everything and anything Perl and people bought those when Perl was in vogue (even if they never read them). The collective cost was probably comparable to what he would have gotten if he released Perl commercially and charged per-copy license fee (and got paid for about 1/3 of all copies which were in use).
It's not similar. It's unrelated. It has similarity to yield as a statement for producing generators, but not to a single yield from a context manager closure. And this syntax... Sigh. Yes, Perl was good at regular expressions. But then, as this syntax shows, it decide to make everything look like regular expressions. It's unreadable.
Really? Because combining yield and "with" keyword allows you to have cascading contexts. As in.. use my connection if I have, or some more global connection if I don't, or an even more global connection if that one is not available. And after you are done, if you are the one who created the connection, release it, otherwise let it be. And all of this takes less code and is more clear in Python than the few sentences that I just used to describe it and it has full handling of exceptions at just the right context layer.
Is he just bitter? He didn't give away his billions to "the people". He essentially gave it to O'Reilly Press. He keeps making statements about Python which are just aren't true. Oh, and as much as I regret it, Python 3 *is* meant to replace Python 2. I like the Python 2 print statement, but such is life.
I stopped reading at Python gives you one way of doing things well. Python's 'yield' allows you to maintain state entirely within re-entrant functions. Which removes a lot of need for classes (as keepers of state of methods). The data-operation duality is much more fluid in Python than it is in Perl. The only reason Perl was ever successful is because it did wild card operations really, really well. Everything else about it is unreadable. Python allows you to have both RAII(with 'with' keyword) and gc-style resource collection. Perl (and I admit that just like everyone else I didn't bother with Perl 6) never had RAII despite living in the networking world, where msg parsing makes it of paramount importance.
If they offer free domestic calling and one calls a premium number and they connect it, where's the hack? Your agreement with anyone (including large corporations) is what you agreed to -- not what someone claims you agreed to.
"I don't believe in infinite sets"
This is a fairly strong statement to make about the universe. First of all, (-1,1) has essentially all the properties of (-inf, inf). You can think of both of them as projections of (-1,1)x{1} from 2 different points. What this boils down to is that not believing in infinite sets suggests that the universe is a closed set. Which is a very strong statement to make. In fact, it suggests that all information sets are closed sets which is an even stronger statement to make. It's much more justified to remain agnostic on infinite sets.
Of course, Russian Federation is building a bomber. It can't manufacture cars, planes and despite its vast territory is forced to import food. But they are building technology more advanced than all industrialized countries can manage to, at this moment. I am guessing it's going to be manned by volunteers from RF who occupied Crimea. Didn't they say they were going to mars within 5 years at some point in the previous year? This is just another attempt at distraction or attention grabbing when the world's still shell-shocked from the events of the past week. Technologically, they are just coasting on the accomplishments of the past century. They still have designs of nuclear reactors, so they sell them states around the world. They still have tanks, so they use them to threaten their neighbors. It's highly doubtful that they can still mass produce tanks (something they were capable of 50 years ago). No brilliant scientist would work for RF government today. They don't have the money to pay them and they don't have a base cadre of scientist left to train new ones.
Of course, Russian Federation is building a bomber. It can't manufacture cars, planes and despite its vast territory is forced to import food. But they are building technology more advanced than all industrialized countries can manage to, at this moment. I am guessing it's going to be manned by volunteers from RF who occupied Crimea. Didn't they say they were going to mars within 5 years at some point in the previous year? This is just another attempt at distraction or attention grabbing when the world's still shell-shocked from the events of the past week. Technologically, they are just coasting on the accomplishments of the past century. They still have designs of nuclear reactors, so they sell them states around the world. They still have tanks, so they use them to threaten their neighbors. It's highly doubtful that they can still mass produce tanks (something they were capable of 50 years ago). No brilliant scientist would work for RF government today. They don't have the money to pay them and they don't have a base cadre of scientist left to train new ones.
poor memory is not necessarily a downside. understanding is not just repurposing of knowledge to new contexts. it's also culling of unimport information. and forgetting is a culling mechanism. so this may be useful in long-term study of complicated ideas (the ones which require deep perception).
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Polls don't matter, but direction of the polls matter. Mostly because we don't have a collective mind. And information propagation takes time to take hold in public's mind. As information disseminates polls follow the knowledge which this information spreads. So polls at any one point in time don't tell much. But polls directions do.
is that the summary didn't have the tag "democrats"... at least the last time i checked. it had a tag donaldtrump, clintons, politics, but not democrats. Given how anything every involving a Republican gets a "republicans" tag right away, this is quite a fit. The fact that he endorsed her right after FBI stated that she clearly and knowingly lied to Congress is quite something, too. I don't think many Bernie supporters expected him to do that under such circumstances.
Adding 2 million to the total number of 4 million is a 50% increase.
Another reason for Americans to not study programming.
To be more precise, another reason for Americans not to study programming on Android. According to the summary only 1/4 of 4 million Indian developers are working on mobile. And these are supposed to be additional 2 million developers. So the program plans to increase the number of Indian developers by 50%. I have to admit, this seriously gives me pause about having learn-android-platform on my todo list. It moves it somewhere below learn-cobol level. I am surprised to see this come out of Google though. Instead of finding ways to automate many tasks of Android development they decide to hand it off to be done through repetitive cheap human labor. Didn't expect it from the company which used to strive to be at the forefront of development. I am curious though what Kurzweil thinks of it. It's certainly a move towards flattening the singularity trend rather than allowing it to spike.