He chose an act that was compatible with what Vladamir Putin has on offer, where Putin in particular being a raging homophobe allows him to kill two birds with one stone.
There was nothing homophobic about his comment, however extreme it may have been.
I'm aware of all this, my wife is Chinese (native speaker). I don't think I'm talking about adults learning anything, I'm talking about what our kids and their kids will learn in school alongside their native tongue, and use in business. I will probably never speak another language well. However tonality is not an impediment, much as I can with English speakers, I can understand both her emotional state, and the relationship of the person she is speaking to on the phone when she speaks her native language, just by listening (i.e. no body language clues). Tonality is part of their diction, but it exists in all languages to some degree or another. I can change the meaning of a sentence just by pitching my voice, I cannot do it in writing, but I can do it while speaking. They also can use that same tonality to imply sarcasm, or whatever they want, all while speaking the phonemes required to be understood. I've always thought of it as amplitude modulation: sending music or meaning on a carrier wave, except that the carrier wave changes too to modify the speech.
There are numerous different ways of using phonetic Chinese, I'm not an expert on any of them. They already learn them in school in China, and I am under the impression that it's part of how they type Chinese characters since their keyboards do not have tens of thousands of characters either. They simply do not use the phonetic language as their written medium. And it's possible that changes over time too, I predict some bastardization if indeed the language becomes dominant. Already native Chinese speakers use english words for certain things, even when Chinese words exist to express that identical idea, much as English took in a number of French words.
My money is on a billion native speakers, and, if they can get rid of their oppressive and evil government, a tremendous business and manufacturing powerhouse that will fuel and even more significant R&D. The US will never be able to compete with that, particularly as we're on the road to stagnation (while assiduously stating that our policies are to prevent it!). That sort of power could drive change, but they are held back by a huge boat-anchor. I suspect their business leaders will eventually realize this and divest themselves of it, one way or another, and our grandkids will learn Chinese in school alongside whatever their native language is.
Yes, I know it's a difficult language to learn, but I don't imagine any of us will start speaking it suddenly or even in our lifetimes. English didn't become widely spoken overnight, it took a long time to replace French, and neither will it's successor.
Spanish would be my second pick, it has a huge speaker base and relatively logical (if not simple) grammar. But it has the problem that most countries that speak it are poor and mostly irrelevant on the world stage, with no evidence of that changing any time soon. Without that, it's like the various dialects in India - a lot of speakers, but they tend to speak only to each other casually, but speak other languages professionally. German has wealth and power behind it, but even if you sum up all the similar languages spoken in northern europe, doesn't really have much of a speaker base, and it's not clear that they can prop up the rest of Europe forever.
With reddit full of auto-correct errors ranging from lewd to obscene, I cannot imagine the already stressful process of interviewing will be enhanced with the frustration of texting.
OS X is the software desired, with xcode and some stuff from homebrew. That's what I want.
Linux is not quite there, it has the right applications but the window system is still buggy and doesn't always do what I want, but it will do if nothing else exists. Last...there's windows, which I consider to be unusable with any amount of effort. It's a glorified game console now.
Yes, but the headline asks "should", and I answered based on the case of how things are now and as far as I'm concerned if a company doesn't at least do 'a' AND they do not pay their employee for all hours worked (none do in my experience), they have no leg to stand on and should be thrown out the door without any further comment. In other words, employee is innocent until proven guilty. In reality it won't go down that way, but often does.
My actual opinion is that my option 'a' should be illegal and unenforceable (i.e. the employer only owns what they pay me to do), and as a matter of law investors should be aware that employees are not fully invested (fwiw, we're not anyway). In every place I have ever worked, 'a' is how it is done. Of course, I have never known people to actually adhere to it, they just hide is plausibly well.
This leaves employers with the option of hiring the necessary labor and/or paying for the work they need done and having strictly defined hours during which they own that employees time. This is the best, cleanest option, and the one most in keeping with the concept of employment. It's expensive, and it may be inconvenient, in urban areas it creates significant problems, but some can be mitigated.
The other alternative is being left with a court battle to prove that employee moonlight project was created as a direct consequence of work he was paid to do and therefore not his work. This would require specifically stating what work the employee is being paid to do. Proving this is not totally straightforward in all cases. But, and this is the best part, it does leave both the employee and employer in a state where they cannot be certain of the outcome and should prepare for any possible consequences. Employers would need to decide whether it is worth pursuing, which is basically the probability of winning/settling profitably. Cracking down on open source type projects would be unprofitable, for example. Employees would have to decide if their idea really is competitive or too work-relevant, and weigh potential consequences if they intend to become super rich entrepreneurs from the effort.
I have often considered writing some open source tools to replace the highly expensive, bloated crap I get from certain EDA manufacturers. I have resisted it since it really is too close to home (although strictly speaking, my employers are not in the EDA business) and my employer also owns everything I do. However if I did so, it would be open source and would probably be destructive to these companies whose existence is largely through parasitic and harmful maintenance contracts. On the other hand, it would absolutely lower the investment barrier to entering the market I am in where burn rates are measured in the 10s to 100s of millions a year (about half of which is in tool licenses and maintenance contracts), and enable more competition and product variation. Given a) the EDA companies in question tend to be large shareholders of my employers and b) my employers never want more competition, option 'a' above enables a perfectly anti-competitive setup and is actively harmful, even if the employee has no particular interest in greed, he just wants tools that work and obey 20 year old standards, dammit. But, I have little doubt that if I did this I would be squished like a bug, even if I went out of my way to conceal it.
This is just one way corporate ownership of employees lives is objectively harmful, even if one rejects the notion that employees should not be bound to their employer by anything other than delivering what they are paid to deliver.
If you have signed something in writing to that affect. If no such contract exists, and it is found that the employee is spending significant uncompensated after-hours time working for the employer, then the courts should tell everyone involved to get lost.
I think this will drive the best possible behaviors: either a) employers will formalize all arrangements and employees can take it or leave it (or as is usually done, conceal it well), or b) investors can be warned that employees are not fully harnessed and are contributing their time in exchange for money, and unpaid time is not owned by them (this should be the law, as far as I'm concerned), or c) employers hire sufficient labor and/or pay sufficient overtime to ensure that employees are being compensated for every hour the work, or there is someone to cover outside work hours, such that the employee never has an excuse to be off task on company time.
Most of the issue I think is around "b". In most cases I've been made aware of, the investors don't actually care about the side project interfering with the employer of the person in question and their investment in that employer, it's that the side project is disruptive or "destroys value" in some unrelated area where they have investments and they want to kill the competition, or the side project becomes valuable and the investor wants to believe he should own the new cheeseburger product when his investment was in a company that makes lugnuts. Personally I think the law should always side with the employee in that case, and tell the investor to go fuck himself. Unfortunately in technology it's not always that clear cut, particularly if your degree is in law.
Different people have different arrangements, I'm sure a lot of people here are strictly 8-5. But in my world I'm expected to be available and on call around the clock based on the specific function I perform (it's a lot of hurry up and wait). So I may be working at 11PM, but at 2PM I may be free. I do not get paid any extra for overtime. So who is to say that I'm on company time?
While the simple answer might be that I should always be on task during work hours, I strongly doubt my bosses would like me to just abdicate when a job finishes at 11PM and needs my attention but doesn't get it until the next morning, nor do they want to pay for another person to do it (even if that were remotely possible, which it isn't). So if I'm dicking around in the middle of the day, and I'm at the office just to maintain office hours, it should be assumed that I'm simply not on company time right now.
I was thinking that I won't be able to retire the way things are.
Nor I. But when I was 25 I thought I would retire at 55 (and actually all things remaining equal, my plan and habits would have enabled it). But all things do not remain equal. Unexpected, previously undesirable and sometimes unforeseeable things happen in life: wives, children, crashing economies, jobs constantly being shifted overseas, etc.
I guess this aspect of millennial thinking isn't new or scary. As with all of us, life will grind away hopes and dreams, no action is required from us.
Many people charge their cell phones in their bedroom. They have both a camera (usually pretty good too) and a mic. What we really need is laws which require that any device with a camera or a microphone have a physical disable that cannot be overridden by software.
However, what has actually happened is that most fraudsters, who are as technically capable as your average script kiddie, have just found other ways of defrauding you rather than try to solve a hard technical problem. The most popular method now, and which I personally know many people have been facing, is opening a credit card in your name and using your potentially great credit score against you. This is ALSO because credit card companies are dropping the ball.
This is why we should not let idiots with MBA degrees use statistics to make decisions. "If I make this one change, I will fix 60% of the problem! I'm done!", and a month later the mole pops up another hole. So no doubt they will try to close this new hole, and the criminal element will look elsewhere, perhaps back at cracking EMV and it's known weaknesses, one of which has been identified:
When you're working 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, what do you do? If you can't trust the coworker to do the work, he needs to go and be replaced with someone who is going to share the workload with you. This is your job, it's the means by which you feed yourself and your family, it's not yearbook club. Deadbeats can't just hang out, they're soaking up resources that someone else may better utilize.
Or, if you are asking a peer who you do not manage and has his own tasks, to do something you ask, you CC the boss who will resolve priorities. Or, if you talked to the boss and he asked you to ask peer to do said thing, you CC the boss. Generally I expect the boss to be controlling resources and managing priorities, he really ought to be copied on a lot of mails. If that peer is doing exceptional work that he doesn't even have to do, CC'ing the boss is also the way of making sure the boss knows said person is doing really well, I also CC the boss on that sort of thing. I want good people to be incentivized to stay every bit as much as I want to help identify bad people who can be incentivized to leave.
I was nervous about people CCing the boss when I was fresh out of college, but I got over it the hard way. The consequence of NOT CC'ing the boss, in my experience, is people not delivering and the boss blaming ME, and asking why he wasn't CC'd. So now any time I am making a request that involves real work, and asking someone to stop doing what they're doing, I CC the boss.
Honestly the only person with a legitimate reason to complain about CC'ing the boss, is the boss. That has never happened.
How do you make that assessment? On any given system I can tell without looking when I'm on intel graphics. If I can tell without looking, it's inadequate. I could not distinguish AMD from nVidia without looking or a game workload. Those are adequate.
if you're running a newer laptop and can't handle multiple spreadsheets, the problem isn't the hardware
I don't entirely disagree that a lot of problem is bloat in SW, it's out of control. However, many, many employers buy new laptops that are cheap but have lousy processors, inadequate memory, horrible video chips (i.e. Intel default) low res displays and small hard disks. That really is a HW problem.
The first thing I do is drop the engineer card, and find the process for getting a top of the line laptop (or best: desktop). So far I've never been rejected. However most employees cannot do that, and I can imagine their fustration since engineering in the corporate world is still 90% bullshit spreadsheets and word docs, 9% cleaning up management induced technical mess, and 1% actual design. I survive that 90% by having multiple spreadsheets, documents and browser tabs open at once, along with email that is always on (and using insane memory due to the 1000s of emails that come to me a week). I also use multiple displays, so that I can have many of these up at the same time, making cut'n'paste work a whole lot faster.
I do not know how the marketing dolts get by, but I always assumed someone handed them a basket and some wicker and told them quitting time is 5pm sharp.
TED remains breathlessly naïve, and seems to want to relegate itself to those facebook posts by people who quote never heard of poets making meaningful comments about the feels.
Ideas are worth precisely shit. Ideas+execution shape the future. Execution is frequently heavily influenced by politicians who make the rules that govern the corporate and legal landscape in which your execution may take place, if it isn't strictly forbidden, construed as patent infringing (esp. by trolls), defunded by competitive interests or otherwise squashed, stolen or prevented.
Politicians are not the only problem, to be sure, access to capital required to execute is also a major issue, but one in which politicians are paid to play in less.
One reason I avoid working from home is that I trust my coworkers in the office to let me work more than I trust my wife and my kids to let me work.
Unfortunately, I trust them far LESS than my young children to leave me the hell alone. Instead it's either bug me at my cube, or if I find a place to hide, call a meeting and bug me there. I produce substantial documentation to ensure they don't need to bug me, but they don't read it, and bug me.
No we're not, we're just ignorant. The charismatic narcissists tell a good story, they tell us they can fix it, they tell us they understand what's wrong, they relate well to us to the point we think they also see what we see and they can fix it. That's politics, but these same people succeed in business to for the same reason, except they merely need to swindle a considerably smaller group of people.
The guy who tells the truth, that we have bad problems and they may not be entirely fixable, or that the middle class must necessarily bear the lions share of the tax burden, or that many of our perceived problems are more about not making the huge profits from WWII reparations that our parents benefitted from, and instead having huge debt from various police actions since then which we shouldered the costs for, that while there is a better way to live our country is largely ruled by a small group of wealthy self-interested pricks that we cannot effectively stop all at once, but must work collectively, both nationally and internationally to ensure they such people do not have a place on earth in the future.
Do you want to vote for that guy? He's probably right, but his story is depressing and he's telling us uncomfortable things.
Slashdot Mirror
he chose an act that homosexuals do every day
He chose an act that was compatible with what Vladamir Putin has on offer, where Putin in particular being a raging homophobe allows him to kill two birds with one stone.
There was nothing homophobic about his comment, however extreme it may have been.
I'm aware of all this, my wife is Chinese (native speaker). I don't think I'm talking about adults learning anything, I'm talking about what our kids and their kids will learn in school alongside their native tongue, and use in business. I will probably never speak another language well. However tonality is not an impediment, much as I can with English speakers, I can understand both her emotional state, and the relationship of the person she is speaking to on the phone when she speaks her native language, just by listening (i.e. no body language clues). Tonality is part of their diction, but it exists in all languages to some degree or another. I can change the meaning of a sentence just by pitching my voice, I cannot do it in writing, but I can do it while speaking. They also can use that same tonality to imply sarcasm, or whatever they want, all while speaking the phonemes required to be understood. I've always thought of it as amplitude modulation: sending music or meaning on a carrier wave, except that the carrier wave changes too to modify the speech.
There are numerous different ways of using phonetic Chinese, I'm not an expert on any of them. They already learn them in school in China, and I am under the impression that it's part of how they type Chinese characters since their keyboards do not have tens of thousands of characters either. They simply do not use the phonetic language as their written medium. And it's possible that changes over time too, I predict some bastardization if indeed the language becomes dominant. Already native Chinese speakers use english words for certain things, even when Chinese words exist to express that identical idea, much as English took in a number of French words.
My money is on a billion native speakers, and, if they can get rid of their oppressive and evil government, a tremendous business and manufacturing powerhouse that will fuel and even more significant R&D. The US will never be able to compete with that, particularly as we're on the road to stagnation (while assiduously stating that our policies are to prevent it!). That sort of power could drive change, but they are held back by a huge boat-anchor. I suspect their business leaders will eventually realize this and divest themselves of it, one way or another, and our grandkids will learn Chinese in school alongside whatever their native language is.
Yes, I know it's a difficult language to learn, but I don't imagine any of us will start speaking it suddenly or even in our lifetimes. English didn't become widely spoken overnight, it took a long time to replace French, and neither will it's successor.
Spanish would be my second pick, it has a huge speaker base and relatively logical (if not simple) grammar. But it has the problem that most countries that speak it are poor and mostly irrelevant on the world stage, with no evidence of that changing any time soon. Without that, it's like the various dialects in India - a lot of speakers, but they tend to speak only to each other casually, but speak other languages professionally. German has wealth and power behind it, but even if you sum up all the similar languages spoken in northern europe, doesn't really have much of a speaker base, and it's not clear that they can prop up the rest of Europe forever.
english is waning...you go right ahead and believe that
This may be true one day. But my money would be on Chinese, not French, as the successor.
With reddit full of auto-correct errors ranging from lewd to obscene, I cannot imagine the already stressful process of interviewing will be enhanced with the frustration of texting.
OS X is the software desired, with xcode and some stuff from homebrew. That's what I want.
Linux is not quite there, it has the right applications but the window system is still buggy and doesn't always do what I want, but it will do if nothing else exists. Last...there's windows, which I consider to be unusable with any amount of effort. It's a glorified game console now.
Yes, but the headline asks "should", and I answered based on the case of how things are now and as far as I'm concerned if a company doesn't at least do 'a' AND they do not pay their employee for all hours worked (none do in my experience), they have no leg to stand on and should be thrown out the door without any further comment. In other words, employee is innocent until proven guilty. In reality it won't go down that way, but often does.
My actual opinion is that my option 'a' should be illegal and unenforceable (i.e. the employer only owns what they pay me to do), and as a matter of law investors should be aware that employees are not fully invested (fwiw, we're not anyway). In every place I have ever worked, 'a' is how it is done. Of course, I have never known people to actually adhere to it, they just hide is plausibly well.
This leaves employers with the option of hiring the necessary labor and/or paying for the work they need done and having strictly defined hours during which they own that employees time. This is the best, cleanest option, and the one most in keeping with the concept of employment. It's expensive, and it may be inconvenient, in urban areas it creates significant problems, but some can be mitigated.
The other alternative is being left with a court battle to prove that employee moonlight project was created as a direct consequence of work he was paid to do and therefore not his work. This would require specifically stating what work the employee is being paid to do. Proving this is not totally straightforward in all cases. But, and this is the best part, it does leave both the employee and employer in a state where they cannot be certain of the outcome and should prepare for any possible consequences. Employers would need to decide whether it is worth pursuing, which is basically the probability of winning/settling profitably. Cracking down on open source type projects would be unprofitable, for example. Employees would have to decide if their idea really is competitive or too work-relevant, and weigh potential consequences if they intend to become super rich entrepreneurs from the effort.
I have often considered writing some open source tools to replace the highly expensive, bloated crap I get from certain EDA manufacturers. I have resisted it since it really is too close to home (although strictly speaking, my employers are not in the EDA business) and my employer also owns everything I do. However if I did so, it would be open source and would probably be destructive to these companies whose existence is largely through parasitic and harmful maintenance contracts. On the other hand, it would absolutely lower the investment barrier to entering the market I am in where burn rates are measured in the 10s to 100s of millions a year (about half of which is in tool licenses and maintenance contracts), and enable more competition and product variation. Given a) the EDA companies in question tend to be large shareholders of my employers and b) my employers never want more competition, option 'a' above enables a perfectly anti-competitive setup and is actively harmful, even if the employee has no particular interest in greed, he just wants tools that work and obey 20 year old standards, dammit. But, I have little doubt that if I did this I would be squished like a bug, even if I went out of my way to conceal it.
This is just one way corporate ownership of employees lives is objectively harmful, even if one rejects the notion that employees should not be bound to their employer by anything other than delivering what they are paid to deliver.
If you have signed something in writing to that affect. If no such contract exists, and it is found that the employee is spending significant uncompensated after-hours time working for the employer, then the courts should tell everyone involved to get lost.
I think this will drive the best possible behaviors: either
a) employers will formalize all arrangements and employees can take it or leave it (or as is usually done, conceal it well), or
b) investors can be warned that employees are not fully harnessed and are contributing their time in exchange for money, and unpaid time is not owned by them (this should be the law, as far as I'm concerned), or
c) employers hire sufficient labor and/or pay sufficient overtime to ensure that employees are being compensated for every hour the work, or there is someone to cover outside work hours, such that the employee never has an excuse to be off task on company time.
Most of the issue I think is around "b". In most cases I've been made aware of, the investors don't actually care about the side project interfering with the employer of the person in question and their investment in that employer, it's that the side project is disruptive or "destroys value" in some unrelated area where they have investments and they want to kill the competition, or the side project becomes valuable and the investor wants to believe he should own the new cheeseburger product when his investment was in a company that makes lugnuts. Personally I think the law should always side with the employee in that case, and tell the investor to go fuck himself. Unfortunately in technology it's not always that clear cut, particularly if your degree is in law.
Different people have different arrangements, I'm sure a lot of people here are strictly 8-5. But in my world I'm expected to be available and on call around the clock based on the specific function I perform (it's a lot of hurry up and wait). So I may be working at 11PM, but at 2PM I may be free. I do not get paid any extra for overtime. So who is to say that I'm on company time?
While the simple answer might be that I should always be on task during work hours, I strongly doubt my bosses would like me to just abdicate when a job finishes at 11PM and needs my attention but doesn't get it until the next morning, nor do they want to pay for another person to do it (even if that were remotely possible, which it isn't). So if I'm dicking around in the middle of the day, and I'm at the office just to maintain office hours, it should be assumed that I'm simply not on company time right now.
GitHubs mother put subversion repos in her CVS! She was mercurial by nature! She so ugly, she used RCS.
Maybe he means the ones that only provide 6Mbps down, 768k up?
I was thinking that I won't be able to retire the way things are.
Nor I. But when I was 25 I thought I would retire at 55 (and actually all things remaining equal, my plan and habits would have enabled it). But all things do not remain equal. Unexpected, previously undesirable and sometimes unforeseeable things happen in life: wives, children, crashing economies, jobs constantly being shifted overseas, etc.
I guess this aspect of millennial thinking isn't new or scary. As with all of us, life will grind away hopes and dreams, no action is required from us.
The problem was his wife, it turns out he likes chasing pointers.
Many people charge their cell phones in their bedroom. They have both a camera (usually pretty good too) and a mic. What we really need is laws which require that any device with a camera or a microphone have a physical disable that cannot be overridden by software.
Yes, it was a pipe dream.
It's not clear, but speculated that with chip and sign, it is entirely possible:
https://www.wired.com/2015/09/...
However, what has actually happened is that most fraudsters, who are as technically capable as your average script kiddie, have just found other ways of defrauding you rather than try to solve a hard technical problem. The most popular method now, and which I personally know many people have been facing, is opening a credit card in your name and using your potentially great credit score against you. This is ALSO because credit card companies are dropping the ball.
This is why we should not let idiots with MBA degrees use statistics to make decisions. "If I make this one change, I will fix 60% of the problem! I'm done!", and a month later the mole pops up another hole. So no doubt they will try to close this new hole, and the criminal element will look elsewhere, perhaps back at cracking EMV and it's known weaknesses, one of which has been identified:
http://blog.unibulmerchantserv...
(TL;DR: It's not guaranteed and work for some uses, but it's a crack in the wall)
It's also 420...duuuude... Coincidence? Totally!
When you're working 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, what do you do? If you can't trust the coworker to do the work, he needs to go and be replaced with someone who is going to share the workload with you. This is your job, it's the means by which you feed yourself and your family, it's not yearbook club. Deadbeats can't just hang out, they're soaking up resources that someone else may better utilize.
Or, if you are asking a peer who you do not manage and has his own tasks, to do something you ask, you CC the boss who will resolve priorities. Or, if you talked to the boss and he asked you to ask peer to do said thing, you CC the boss. Generally I expect the boss to be controlling resources and managing priorities, he really ought to be copied on a lot of mails. If that peer is doing exceptional work that he doesn't even have to do, CC'ing the boss is also the way of making sure the boss knows said person is doing really well, I also CC the boss on that sort of thing. I want good people to be incentivized to stay every bit as much as I want to help identify bad people who can be incentivized to leave.
I was nervous about people CCing the boss when I was fresh out of college, but I got over it the hard way. The consequence of NOT CC'ing the boss, in my experience, is people not delivering and the boss blaming ME, and asking why he wasn't CC'd. So now any time I am making a request that involves real work, and asking someone to stop doing what they're doing, I CC the boss.
Honestly the only person with a legitimate reason to complain about CC'ing the boss, is the boss. That has never happened.
How do you make that assessment? On any given system I can tell without looking when I'm on intel graphics. If I can tell without looking, it's inadequate. I could not distinguish AMD from nVidia without looking or a game workload. Those are adequate.
if you're running a newer laptop and can't handle multiple spreadsheets, the problem isn't the hardware
I don't entirely disagree that a lot of problem is bloat in SW, it's out of control. However, many, many employers buy new laptops that are cheap but have lousy processors, inadequate memory, horrible video chips (i.e. Intel default) low res displays and small hard disks. That really is a HW problem.
The first thing I do is drop the engineer card, and find the process for getting a top of the line laptop (or best: desktop). So far I've never been rejected. However most employees cannot do that, and I can imagine their fustration since engineering in the corporate world is still 90% bullshit spreadsheets and word docs, 9% cleaning up management induced technical mess, and 1% actual design. I survive that 90% by having multiple spreadsheets, documents and browser tabs open at once, along with email that is always on (and using insane memory due to the 1000s of emails that come to me a week). I also use multiple displays, so that I can have many of these up at the same time, making cut'n'paste work a whole lot faster.
I do not know how the marketing dolts get by, but I always assumed someone handed them a basket and some wicker and told them quitting time is 5pm sharp.
TED remains breathlessly naïve, and seems to want to relegate itself to those facebook posts by people who quote never heard of poets making meaningful comments about the feels.
Ideas are worth precisely shit. Ideas+execution shape the future. Execution is frequently heavily influenced by politicians who make the rules that govern the corporate and legal landscape in which your execution may take place, if it isn't strictly forbidden, construed as patent infringing (esp. by trolls), defunded by competitive interests or otherwise squashed, stolen or prevented.
Politicians are not the only problem, to be sure, access to capital required to execute is also a major issue, but one in which politicians are paid to play in less.
I don't know about slashdot users, but the main people I hear being afraid of AI are CEOs.
One reason I avoid working from home is that I trust my coworkers in the office to let me work more than I trust my wife and my kids to let me work.
Unfortunately, I trust them far LESS than my young children to leave me the hell alone. Instead it's either bug me at my cube, or if I find a place to hide, call a meeting and bug me there. I produce substantial documentation to ensure they don't need to bug me, but they don't read it, and bug me.
If I could work from home, I definitely would.
Because we're idiots.
No we're not, we're just ignorant. The charismatic narcissists tell a good story, they tell us they can fix it, they tell us they understand what's wrong, they relate well to us to the point we think they also see what we see and they can fix it. That's politics, but these same people succeed in business to for the same reason, except they merely need to swindle a considerably smaller group of people.
The guy who tells the truth, that we have bad problems and they may not be entirely fixable, or that the middle class must necessarily bear the lions share of the tax burden, or that many of our perceived problems are more about not making the huge profits from WWII reparations that our parents benefitted from, and instead having huge debt from various police actions since then which we shouldered the costs for, that while there is a better way to live our country is largely ruled by a small group of wealthy self-interested pricks that we cannot effectively stop all at once, but must work collectively, both nationally and internationally to ensure they such people do not have a place on earth in the future.
Do you want to vote for that guy? He's probably right, but his story is depressing and he's telling us uncomfortable things.