I don't know that the employees of the various foxconn factories are required to live on site, but many of those factories are in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, and the people they hire are dirt poor even if they are not. The dorm environment solves those problems.
I'm not sure that can work in the USA, although we have plenty of rural areas that might make a good site, and plenty of poor people that need the work.
It's more likely that he was initially liked by less than half of the people for apparently condemning Bush. Then he also condemned Obama (or more specifically Clinton). At some point it became obvious he simply does not like the US, and particularly how the US operates, and now he has no friends on our right or our left. His agenda does seem very much like what a Putin or a Kim Jong Un or some other banana republic dictator might prefer.
The status quo he sought to upset (and quite possibly succeeded at) did a lot to keep the bad people down, even if it was meddling. It was not without problems that annoyed everyone, everywhere in situationally unique ways, but we did keep the bad guys down and under control. Now we're feeling more individual and national freedom, but the bad guys definitely seem to be winning.
A degree and experience isn't mutually exclusive. We require both for prospective employees.
The problem is how many skilled people might you be excluding based on your college degree requirement. A college degree should be a crutch, it helps you acquire new skills rapidly and should offer the foundational knowledge to give insight into why the various tools and processes behind those skills exist in the first place. Essentially it should be something the student elects to get on his own accord, not because someone requires it. Thus the cost/benefit analysis of a college degree can once again fall upon the person paying it, and he doesn't feel obligated to it (and perhaps universities can finally get around to reshaping themselves to fit the needs of the world, not existing to serve themselves).
Anyone who can learn a skill should have equal chance at the job, provided he can demonstrate competence with that skill in some fashion. Doctors have to pass their licensing exam, lawyers have the bar exam. It makes sense that to declare competence with a skill should require some meaningful demonstration of that skill.
A college degree has never offered that, and I spend a lot of time interviewing people and basically administering them a final exam, when I really should be talking to them about other things. However, if they can't pass my final, the rest is worthless anyway. They may have a great attitude and really want to contribute, but if they don't have the skills... I got nothin. HR makes sure I don't see anyone without at least a Master's degree, and precious few of them seem to have the skills. So I'm not sure the status quo is really working for anyone.
Personally I think the only solution to this problem is to forbid college degrees from being considered in employment. Obviously this is a huge grenade to throw in the field, but until we can come up with some better way, the system will continue to be broken.
This is the best reason why users don't upgrade. The upgrade is trash or breaks something of value. People are going to pick features > security every time.
I think Netflix probably came to the conclusion on their own that people streaming from illicit sites are actually more of a threat than Disney or whatever other rando company of the month decides to host their own streaming service. Nobody really wants Disney, but there's still high demand for truly useful streaming.
Your emotions should never take over control of your body. If this is an issue for you, please remand yourself to psychiatric care immediately, you are a danger to yourself and others.
Emotions have a place, their place is to inform, not to decide. They may be very powerful and very compelling, but higher reasoning should always be in charge. Are you an animal or human?
Maybe focus on actually making an AI first before worrying about chips in your head, also, no thanks. This is like him creating spacex but only just after the wright brother made their flight.
Honestly would prefer a dumb chip in my head that can instantly supply me with facts and do computations instantly that takes my bio-brain too long to do (and often makes mistakes with). Expert AI like that I'm all for, and exists today. I'm not looking to change my CPU, just add a peripheral.
It's when you throw in the "artificial consciousness" part of AI that I get nervous. There are already enough voices in my head, I don't need one more. Fortunately I don't think we're very close to that.
The flashing sensor is a great idea that cannot happen in the US. Our system of fair play, justice and taxation is normally about sticking the other guy with the bill. If we had a perfect system that fined people for misbehavior evenly and everywhere, and actually acted to slow people down, there'd be riots.
The cops-in-bushes system of speed control is mostly about hiding the cost of government on the unlucky. It's very similar to how our hospitals work: you get sick, you pay for yourself and a % of everyone else that used the hospital that couldn't pay. Health care for all... wow, no way, too expensive!
every bank can collapse and nothing of value will be lost.
Definitely not the case as the government cannot faithfully insure all deposits in all banks. At some point the governments will collapse and the deposits will no longer be insured, and/or the currency they are based upon will be less valuable than toilet paper. This is an end-of-world scenario that always seemed more likely than an asteroid or super-bug. That said, these clowns do not have sufficient money on deposit to make that happen. They might make a run on a few banks, but they can't do much more than be very annoying.
They should stick to breaking speed cameras, that is a definite benefit to society that also gets the attention of the government. As long as they stick to things like this, a good hunk of hte general public might even support them, that's a far better place to be than terrorism.
I would say your example is a job that can't be automated. This is an example that many of us face everyday. Technically, an apparatus can be constructed. But it will take more time and money to build than just doing the job. So it can't be profitably automated (for now). Now, continuing your example, perhaps Seashore Sells Syndicate examines its process, and it so happens to have a lot in common with a number of other businesses. And Al's Automation Association happens to sell a tool that each business could use. This is how MS Office polluted the planet.
Yes each company might have to tweak their process, and provided those tweaks are not viewed by management as essential, it gets automated. Your hope is to be a busyt worker bee in a very niche industry.
None of that matters. It will be done. In the name of capitalism, in the name of libertarianism, we will realize that some amount of socialism produces the most optimal end result. It is an unsellable position today, but we're going to make it happen by accident.
The alternative is to try to regulate this, attempting to define "acceptable automation" which is stupid and unlikely as corporations continue to skirt the law in order to one up each other, ultimately yielding the same result. Or you can try to get us all to behave unionlike, which won't ever happen. We can't even stop work from moving over very clearly defined geographical borders, attempting to draw any arbitrary law on abstract concepts like automation are lost.
Be less afraid of automation and be more focused on learning the tools, limitations and methodologies.
Cognitive decline does happen, but I think they're not being very objective here.
As adults in our prime, the world marches to our drum beat. We don't necessarily agree with all that happens, but we're pretty involved in it happening and see what is going on, allowing us to gauge the news fairly objectively. The older we get, the more the drumbeat of civilization begins to march to the beat of those younger than us, at some point our children. We don't understand anymore, and we often don't like the change, and we rely more on the news to inform us about what's going on. Not everyone has the best tools to weigh that news, but unlike our adult selves, we have no other sources to help us identify obvious lies.
Combine inaccurate, even blatantly fake news which is carefully tailored to our biases and dislikes... it's not a big surprise that the elderly are confused. Everyone tends to favor the news article that agrees with their opinion, even if it is wrong and ungrounded in fact. If someone blasts you with that from all sources, it reinforces your beliefs. This is exactly what is happening.
There is another time in life that all of us have already experienced where we were clueless and gullible and could be easily misled by carefully targeted news: youth. The difference is in that stage of our life, at best we were viewed as precocious, at worst we were viewed as rebellious. But we were exposed to things we didn't understand, we attempted to hold a point of view and simply got rolled when actual facts were presented by our elders (or sometimes, real life) that conflicted. This doesn't work on the elderly, to them we're just kids, and they've mastered real life to the point where only the grim reaper can change their point of view.
why do these even exist? Are there deep mysteries about gender and race that we struggle to understand? Or are we just trying to justify the need for useless paycheck collecting parasites at "academic institutions"?
Honestly yes, I think the subjects merit study. Gender maybe more than race.
What should be refrained from is the political editorial and social interference. Particularly wherein soft sciences are concerned, any knowledge gained should be taken with a grain of salt, and used to inform rather than prescribe.
You can't seriously argue that his behavior was ethical, he knowingly published false papers and deliberately misled people. That he did so to reveal a major problem in the industry is beneficial to us, but does not excuse his behavior.
Every assault on social science is a good one, once we debunk it as religion-as-pseudoscience, and quarantine it appropriately, the world can finally move on.
I see a little evil. If Apple is chasing down legit repair shops that are managing to repair devices successfully, without compromising features (particularly security features), and without damaging hardware in a way that makes their products look bad, they're definitely doing wrong. I cannot tell from the bias and obvious venom of TFS and cannot be fucked to search through the self referential links to determine that this is actually the case, but if it is they are wrong.
I don't think Apple, or anyone else, does wrong in designing devices that aren't serviceable, and I don't see a way of forcing them to do such a thing in a way that necessarily doesn't compromise the end product. I am a design engineer, I have designed products on this scale in this market. Serviceability didn't enter my mind at all, and was never a requirement. When i was designing telecomm switches though, that cost 100's of thousands of dollars: yes, it is essential or customers won't buy it.
My advice is to not buy the phones if they do not have the features you want.
But the fact that repair hurts Apple's bottom line came out in Cook's official communication with shareholders, who he is legally obligated to tell the truth to.
He's not allowed to lie. I don't think there is a legal obligation to tell the whole truth, in fact the obligation on that topic is almost to run the other way, there are things he is definitely allowed, and definitely should not share with shareholders.
If he's telling them this, it's because he wants some action taken.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that the employees of the various foxconn factories are required to live on site, but many of those factories are in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, and the people they hire are dirt poor even if they are not. The dorm environment solves those problems.
I'm not sure that can work in the USA, although we have plenty of rural areas that might make a good site, and plenty of poor people that need the work.
Certainly if I can get you to believe this disease is real and that I can cure it, you will pay me everything!
It's more likely that he was initially liked by less than half of the people for apparently condemning Bush. Then he also condemned Obama (or more specifically Clinton). At some point it became obvious he simply does not like the US, and particularly how the US operates, and now he has no friends on our right or our left. His agenda does seem very much like what a Putin or a Kim Jong Un or some other banana republic dictator might prefer.
The status quo he sought to upset (and quite possibly succeeded at) did a lot to keep the bad people down, even if it was meddling. It was not without problems that annoyed everyone, everywhere in situationally unique ways, but we did keep the bad guys down and under control. Now we're feeling more individual and national freedom, but the bad guys definitely seem to be winning.
Honestly you need to have a cassette deck on that phone or you're just an idiot. You can tape trade dick picks and metallica from one device.
A degree and experience isn't mutually exclusive. We require both for prospective employees.
The problem is how many skilled people might you be excluding based on your college degree requirement. A college degree should be a crutch, it helps you acquire new skills rapidly and should offer the foundational knowledge to give insight into why the various tools and processes behind those skills exist in the first place. Essentially it should be something the student elects to get on his own accord, not because someone requires it. Thus the cost/benefit analysis of a college degree can once again fall upon the person paying it, and he doesn't feel obligated to it (and perhaps universities can finally get around to reshaping themselves to fit the needs of the world, not existing to serve themselves).
Anyone who can learn a skill should have equal chance at the job, provided he can demonstrate competence with that skill in some fashion. Doctors have to pass their licensing exam, lawyers have the bar exam. It makes sense that to declare competence with a skill should require some meaningful demonstration of that skill.
A college degree has never offered that, and I spend a lot of time interviewing people and basically administering them a final exam, when I really should be talking to them about other things. However, if they can't pass my final, the rest is worthless anyway. They may have a great attitude and really want to contribute, but if they don't have the skills... I got nothin. HR makes sure I don't see anyone without at least a Master's degree, and precious few of them seem to have the skills. So I'm not sure the status quo is really working for anyone.
Personally I think the only solution to this problem is to forbid college degrees from being considered in employment. Obviously this is a huge grenade to throw in the field, but until we can come up with some better way, the system will continue to be broken.
This is the best reason why users don't upgrade. The upgrade is trash or breaks something of value. People are going to pick features > security every time.
I think Netflix probably came to the conclusion on their own that people streaming from illicit sites are actually more of a threat than Disney or whatever other rando company of the month decides to host their own streaming service. Nobody really wants Disney, but there's still high demand for truly useful streaming.
We need something to be outraged over. Won't someone think of the children?
I limit screen time if only to provide them ample knife juggling time.
Your emotions should never take over control of your body. If this is an issue for you, please remand yourself to psychiatric care immediately, you are a danger to yourself and others.
Emotions have a place, their place is to inform, not to decide. They may be very powerful and very compelling, but higher reasoning should always be in charge. Are you an animal or human?
Maybe focus on actually making an AI first before worrying about chips in your head, also, no thanks. This is like him creating spacex but only just after the wright brother made their flight.
Honestly would prefer a dumb chip in my head that can instantly supply me with facts and do computations instantly that takes my bio-brain too long to do (and often makes mistakes with). Expert AI like that I'm all for, and exists today. I'm not looking to change my CPU, just add a peripheral.
It's when you throw in the "artificial consciousness" part of AI that I get nervous. There are already enough voices in my head, I don't need one more. Fortunately I don't think we're very close to that.
Oh... not you?
Is it important to you that you want to automate?
The flashing sensor is a great idea that cannot happen in the US. Our system of fair play, justice and taxation is normally about sticking the other guy with the bill. If we had a perfect system that fined people for misbehavior evenly and everywhere, and actually acted to slow people down, there'd be riots.
The cops-in-bushes system of speed control is mostly about hiding the cost of government on the unlucky. It's very similar to how our hospitals work: you get sick, you pay for yourself and a % of everyone else that used the hospital that couldn't pay. Health care for all... wow, no way, too expensive!
every bank can collapse and nothing of value will be lost.
Definitely not the case as the government cannot faithfully insure all deposits in all banks. At some point the governments will collapse and the deposits will no longer be insured, and/or the currency they are based upon will be less valuable than toilet paper. This is an end-of-world scenario that always seemed more likely than an asteroid or super-bug. That said, these clowns do not have sufficient money on deposit to make that happen. They might make a run on a few banks, but they can't do much more than be very annoying.
They should stick to breaking speed cameras, that is a definite benefit to society that also gets the attention of the government. As long as they stick to things like this, a good hunk of hte general public might even support them, that's a far better place to be than terrorism.
I would say your example is a job that can't be automated. This is an example that many of us face everyday. Technically, an apparatus can be constructed. But it will take more time and money to build than just doing the job. So it can't be profitably automated (for now). Now, continuing your example, perhaps Seashore Sells Syndicate examines its process, and it so happens to have a lot in common with a number of other businesses. And Al's Automation Association happens to sell a tool that each business could use. This is how MS Office polluted the planet.
Yes each company might have to tweak their process, and provided those tweaks are not viewed by management as essential, it gets automated. Your hope is to be a busyt worker bee in a very niche industry.
None of that matters. It will be done. In the name of capitalism, in the name of libertarianism, we will realize that some amount of socialism produces the most optimal end result. It is an unsellable position today, but we're going to make it happen by accident.
The alternative is to try to regulate this, attempting to define "acceptable automation" which is stupid and unlikely as corporations continue to skirt the law in order to one up each other, ultimately yielding the same result. Or you can try to get us all to behave unionlike, which won't ever happen. We can't even stop work from moving over very clearly defined geographical borders, attempting to draw any arbitrary law on abstract concepts like automation are lost.
Be less afraid of automation and be more focused on learning the tools, limitations and methodologies.
Cognitive decline does happen, but I think they're not being very objective here.
As adults in our prime, the world marches to our drum beat. We don't necessarily agree with all that happens, but we're pretty involved in it happening and see what is going on, allowing us to gauge the news fairly objectively. The older we get, the more the drumbeat of civilization begins to march to the beat of those younger than us, at some point our children. We don't understand anymore, and we often don't like the change, and we rely more on the news to inform us about what's going on. Not everyone has the best tools to weigh that news, but unlike our adult selves, we have no other sources to help us identify obvious lies.
Combine inaccurate, even blatantly fake news which is carefully tailored to our biases and dislikes... it's not a big surprise that the elderly are confused. Everyone tends to favor the news article that agrees with their opinion, even if it is wrong and ungrounded in fact. If someone blasts you with that from all sources, it reinforces your beliefs. This is exactly what is happening.
There is another time in life that all of us have already experienced where we were clueless and gullible and could be easily misled by carefully targeted news: youth. The difference is in that stage of our life, at best we were viewed as precocious, at worst we were viewed as rebellious. But we were exposed to things we didn't understand, we attempted to hold a point of view and simply got rolled when actual facts were presented by our elders (or sometimes, real life) that conflicted. This doesn't work on the elderly, to them we're just kids, and they've mastered real life to the point where only the grim reaper can change their point of view.
Any job that can be automated will be . End of discussion.
Been doing this for years. Not sure what this article is about. Also can do it from a Mac, or my iPhone. And even play windows games.
Or maybe it can, but we do not understand these problems well enough to solve them, and that is the best reason to study them more.
why do these even exist? Are there deep mysteries about gender and race that we struggle to understand? Or are we just trying to justify the need for useless paycheck collecting parasites at "academic institutions"?
Honestly yes, I think the subjects merit study. Gender maybe more than race.
What should be refrained from is the political editorial and social interference. Particularly wherein soft sciences are concerned, any knowledge gained should be taken with a grain of salt, and used to inform rather than prescribe.
You can't seriously argue that his behavior was ethical, he knowingly published false papers and deliberately misled people. That he did so to reveal a major problem in the industry is beneficial to us, but does not excuse his behavior.
Every assault on social science is a good one, once we debunk it as religion-as-pseudoscience, and quarantine it appropriately, the world can finally move on.
I see a little evil. If Apple is chasing down legit repair shops that are managing to repair devices successfully, without compromising features (particularly security features), and without damaging hardware in a way that makes their products look bad, they're definitely doing wrong. I cannot tell from the bias and obvious venom of TFS and cannot be fucked to search through the self referential links to determine that this is actually the case, but if it is they are wrong.
I don't think Apple, or anyone else, does wrong in designing devices that aren't serviceable, and I don't see a way of forcing them to do such a thing in a way that necessarily doesn't compromise the end product. I am a design engineer, I have designed products on this scale in this market. Serviceability didn't enter my mind at all, and was never a requirement. When i was designing telecomm switches though, that cost 100's of thousands of dollars: yes, it is essential or customers won't buy it.
My advice is to not buy the phones if they do not have the features you want.
But the fact that repair hurts Apple's bottom line came out in Cook's official communication with shareholders, who he is legally obligated to tell the truth to.
He's not allowed to lie. I don't think there is a legal obligation to tell the whole truth, in fact the obligation on that topic is almost to run the other way, there are things he is definitely allowed, and definitely should not share with shareholders.
If he's telling them this, it's because he wants some action taken.