"In some cases this means more work for human employees. Quartz points out that McDonalds doesn't plan to reduce its workforce after installing kiosks, and Panera Bread "has said that at some locations where it has ordering kiosks, it has actually increased human hours to help the kitchen keep up with the higher number of orders that come in through the more efficient ordering system."
Um, no, that is not what it means. Doing more orders with the same people is exactly the same thing as reducing human employees to service the same number of orders. I have no idea what the point of this is. If in theory there are x people interested in a short order meal, then servicing more at your shop with robots does not affect x, it only shifts it. Over time, the price of short order meals may fall as everyone has robots replacing humans, which would increase x. Decreasing x will be the % of the low wage population employed.
To pretend this is anything other than an effort to avoid the growing direct and indirect costs, as well as increasing risks associated with employing humans is silly. This shift will happen no matter what we do. The question is the pace. Rather than working to slow the pace -- or, hell, just keep it as-is -- many are doing everything they can to accelerate it as much as possible.
Somewhere out there, there was a skeptical franchisee who feels like she has the process all figured out with humans and really doesn't want to mess with new tech she doesn't understand and needs to have a maintenance contract to cover, and she isn't sure how her customers will like the new tech anyway. So she was going to stick to humans. Then, Obamacare and Fight for 15 (which includes not only wage increases but unionization!)... you better believe that salesperson gave her a call back and explained how this tech is the only way she can protect her business from dying; plus all her competitors who were in the fence are all-in now, so she needs to get on board.
Etc.
The pace matters. Change is disruptive to people's lives. They need time to retrain and the economy needs time to figure out what to do with this labor supply that wasn't there yesterday. This should happen slowly, and it would if let be; but we are all too dumb for that.
Fake news is the last straw? Third party IM clients will still be able to access AIM service. The only people impacted are those using clients that are dead projects. AOL notified third party clients about this change months ago. This is a non story with a ridiculous headline.
Did they use only dysfunctional large orgs for their research? Many ideas "die on my desk" because they don't make sense. And it's not the idea generator's fault; he or she has a more narrow viewport into the business's operations and strategy. It's important to shoot bad ideas down in the right way, though, because 1 in 20 will be brilliant, and another 5 might cause you to think about something related that could work. So you don't want to discourage innovative people, which is naturally what you would end up doing if you're shooting down 19 out of 20 ideas.
The other thing I think is weird about this article is that the biggest problem with ideas is change management, and the biggest problem with change management is rallying the rank and file behind it. It's great to have this cool new flavor of agile that everyone should use, and I might agree with you, but how do we roll that out and get everyone to buy in? And how many such things can we roll out until people get tired of change? It's great to beat up management for "ignoring" ideas, but I think it let's the largest % of the company off the hook for being perennially resistant to change.
$160k in SV is like making $83k in Columbus, OH. This is approaching 3x the median individual income ($30k in 2015).
But if you don't like the cost of living adjusted wage at your job, find a new job. In many cases, this might (gasp) mean leaving SV and taking a job at another tech hub where a 10'x10' closet isn't $2000/mo.
Except Austin. Don't move here. It's terrible. Horrible traffic. Rattlesnakes everywhere. Gun duels daily over who's to blame for broken builds. And some Republicans roaming. Plenty of good spots elsewhere, but not here. No need to even verify for yourselves.
Well, this has become quite boring. I will hold off judgement about this story, just as I do with many that conveniently fit a narrative. In the meantime, best wishes to you.
This is surreal. I don't know how to help you get your brain out of the imaginary war you think you're engaged in with me. You're not on the opposite side of me, and I'm not on the side you apparently think I am, despite me saying nothing to suggest I am.
I'll try once more, against my better judgment. I had two points. First, broad media reporting of a single witness's statement makes it more likely the witness made the statement (so long as the articles are independently reporting or verifying, and aren't all sourcing one story), but it does not increase the veracity of the witness's statement. Second, the media and public will hold as truth things that are untrue for significant periods of time and are far less capable than the justice system of discovering the truth.
We are conditioned to suspect hoaxes? That is exactly wrong. We are biased to believe stories that confirm what we already think is true. This story fits that bill. Suspicious is warranted.
As for "look at all these stories", they all report the same quote from 1 witness so they all have the same single point of failure. This was the problem with the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative in Ferguson. Easy to forget how everyone assumed it was fact, including every single article (and there were gazillions of them). It took, you know, actual due process to figure out it was 100% fabricated.
Pardon me, but I wasn't born yesterday. When an entire motive is determined by the statement of one unnamed witness, and it just so happens to be a rare validation of a major unsubstantiated trend narrative, I am suspicious. I'll be waiting a few weeks to let this story play out before I believe it.
You are very confused. Net migration from Mexico is very positive. Net migration OF MEXICANS is break even, slightly negative, or slightly positive.
This isn't just a semantic point, since you basically suggest the solution to illegal immigration is to make source countries richer. Not a completely insane suggestion if you're just talking about Mexico. Quite insane when you realize you're talking about most of Central and South America.
The conspiracy you suggest simply cannot happen in a free market. If it were possible to do this in the US, it would have to involve artificial market limiters like the FDA. But then what about other countries? Not to mention that your worldview would predict no or almost no cures on the market, yet there they are. Even Martin Shkreli's drug Daraprim is a cure, and for an extremely rare disease with only 2000 or so patients per year. How can such a drug exist if what you say is true?
I don't really understand your point. Is it that govts can intervene and tell you to sell at a different price? Well, sure. We have all kinds of examples of govt all along a spectrum of interventionalism in markets. Parent was mostly saying that's a load of horseshit and you have every right to sell the fruits of your labor for whatever you want. Your reply really isn't s counter to that, if I'm understanding it correctly.
The patent issue is a tough one and I'm not saying it is set up correctly. But the purpose is not, as you say, to allow people to rely on them to create artificial monopolies. The purpose is to prevent unauthorized use by others of the fruits of your labor.
> Those zoning decisions are anything but stupid. They're carefully thought out to achieve a certain goal.
There is a pretty strong consensus that poor zoning in SF, NYC, etc. is a major cause of housing unaffordability. e.g. https://www.nber.org/papers/w8...
> The question that's being asked in TFS is: is that goal forcing families and lower income people out of San Fransisco?
Where do you get that from? TFS blamed long hours and public school quality.
> Remember, the young rich people there need poor and lower middle class people to cook food, clean, fix toilets, etc, etc. They're gonna get those people one way or the other. Abusing them (in the form of 4 hour commutes or tent cities) is one option.
4 hour commutes... I don't see how you'd ever get there. If these abused lower middle class people are necessary, then prices would increase until those people could continue to live within commute distance. This is the kind of comment people make by projecting a line from current state onward without any concern for counteracting market forces.
Regarding tent cities, well that is pretty much what I said in my comment. If you impede efficient sprawl, your only option is density.
If you are interested in this, I would suggest digging into the housing affordability debate. It is pretty rigorous and does not break on party/ideology lines as closely as you might expect. It is one of those rare topics where nuance is appreciated and you have some "civil wars" within party, especially in local elections. For example, here in Austin, there is a heavy debate between the people who want to use zoning to protect NIMBYs in their district while pushing high density housing into specific locations, and the people who want to encourage SFH growth everywhere, and people who just want to remove a lot of zoning restriction and let the market fix it (yes, these people are on the left). Another interesting source: http://marketurbanism.com/
No, you're not getting it. Let's try to improve my analogy so you can. Let's say that the dam is concrete and the concrete continues into an adjacent parking lot as one contiguous pour. Now let's assume there is a crack in the parking lot immediately next to the foot of the dam. Nobody gives a shit about the crack in the parking lot, except that if you don't fix it, it will spread to the dam.
The point is, if you think throwaway accounts at gaming sites, etc. are not valuable to hackers, you have not followed any security news in the last decade. When bullshit websites are hacked and user databases dumped with md5 hashed passwords, what happened? The hackers didn't jump for joy for their ability to steal cat memes. No, they took the passwords, cracked them, and tried to use the credentials at the major bank websites. Most people use the same damn password for everything and chances are a good % of the users in the hacked site will have a bank account at one of those majors.
There are hundreds more examples of this sort of thing. If identity were siloed, your logic would be sound. But your siloed view of identity is incredibly naive.
I ignored your injection of the sexual assault example. I thought it was dumb for you to include that as an example, suggesting it was somehow akin to leaving your door unlocked.
No, sorry, something about your reading comprehension is broken. Maybe you are more familiar with the law and the word "negligence" triggered the more narrow meaning in civil law. But nothing in my comment suggested I meant that, and quite the opposite. I think I was pretty clearly talking about home burglary, which would apply when the door is open, whereas a separate crime over and above that would apply (e.g., breaking & entering) if the door were locked.
Regarding the insurance policy, you're not countering my point. I'm explaining WHY the insurer generally excludes covering items stolen from unlocked homes or cars. NEGLIGENCE.
This post is two stories linked together without justification. Families aren't in SF... because young people work long hours? And the public school system sucks? The public school system sucks in nearly every urban area, so pretty sure that is not it. How about SF is one of the most expensive cities for housing per sqft and land per acre? How about housing costs as a % of income leads to people sharing housing with (paying!) roommates?
SF has geographic barriers preventing it from engaging in that evil thing called urban sprawl. And hen idiot voters and politicians overlay further anti-sprawl policies and stupid zoning decisions. Well, sprawl is a major housing price regulator. Without sprawl, your only option to address increasing demand is increasing density, and you can only squeeze more units per sq mi so much.
Im not saying housing costs explain this phenomenon completely. But it's pretty strange that it's completely omitted!
Slashdot Mirror
"In some cases this means more work for human employees. Quartz points out that McDonalds doesn't plan to reduce its workforce after installing kiosks, and Panera Bread "has said that at some locations where it has ordering kiosks, it has actually increased human hours to help the kitchen keep up with the higher number of orders that come in through the more efficient ordering system."
Um, no, that is not what it means. Doing more orders with the same people is exactly the same thing as reducing human employees to service the same number of orders. I have no idea what the point of this is. If in theory there are x people interested in a short order meal, then servicing more at your shop with robots does not affect x, it only shifts it. Over time, the price of short order meals may fall as everyone has robots replacing humans, which would increase x. Decreasing x will be the % of the low wage population employed.
To pretend this is anything other than an effort to avoid the growing direct and indirect costs, as well as increasing risks associated with employing humans is silly. This shift will happen no matter what we do. The question is the pace. Rather than working to slow the pace -- or, hell, just keep it as-is -- many are doing everything they can to accelerate it as much as possible.
Somewhere out there, there was a skeptical franchisee who feels like she has the process all figured out with humans and really doesn't want to mess with new tech she doesn't understand and needs to have a maintenance contract to cover, and she isn't sure how her customers will like the new tech anyway. So she was going to stick to humans. Then, Obamacare and Fight for 15 (which includes not only wage increases but unionization!)... you better believe that salesperson gave her a call back and explained how this tech is the only way she can protect her business from dying; plus all her competitors who were in the fence are all-in now, so she needs to get on board.
Etc.
The pace matters. Change is disruptive to people's lives. They need time to retrain and the economy needs time to figure out what to do with this labor supply that wasn't there yesterday. This should happen slowly, and it would if let be; but we are all too dumb for that.
Fake news is the last straw? Third party IM clients will still be able to access AIM service. The only people impacted are those using clients that are dead projects. AOL notified third party clients about this change months ago. This is a non story with a ridiculous headline.
Did they use only dysfunctional large orgs for their research? Many ideas "die on my desk" because they don't make sense. And it's not the idea generator's fault; he or she has a more narrow viewport into the business's operations and strategy. It's important to shoot bad ideas down in the right way, though, because 1 in 20 will be brilliant, and another 5 might cause you to think about something related that could work. So you don't want to discourage innovative people, which is naturally what you would end up doing if you're shooting down 19 out of 20 ideas.
The other thing I think is weird about this article is that the biggest problem with ideas is change management, and the biggest problem with change management is rallying the rank and file behind it. It's great to have this cool new flavor of agile that everyone should use, and I might agree with you, but how do we roll that out and get everyone to buy in? And how many such things can we roll out until people get tired of change? It's great to beat up management for "ignoring" ideas, but I think it let's the largest % of the company off the hook for being perennially resistant to change.
$160k in SV is like making $83k in Columbus, OH. This is approaching 3x the median individual income ($30k in 2015).
But if you don't like the cost of living adjusted wage at your job, find a new job. In many cases, this might (gasp) mean leaving SV and taking a job at another tech hub where a 10'x10' closet isn't $2000/mo.
Except Austin. Don't move here. It's terrible. Horrible traffic. Rattlesnakes everywhere. Gun duels daily over who's to blame for broken builds. And some Republicans roaming. Plenty of good spots elsewhere, but not here. No need to even verify for yourselves.
Well, this has become quite boring. I will hold off judgement about this story, just as I do with many that conveniently fit a narrative. In the meantime, best wishes to you.
This is surreal. I don't know how to help you get your brain out of the imaginary war you think you're engaged in with me. You're not on the opposite side of me, and I'm not on the side you apparently think I am, despite me saying nothing to suggest I am.
I'll try once more, against my better judgment. I had two points. First, broad media reporting of a single witness's statement makes it more likely the witness made the statement (so long as the articles are independently reporting or verifying, and aren't all sourcing one story), but it does not increase the veracity of the witness's statement. Second, the media and public will hold as truth things that are untrue for significant periods of time and are far less capable than the justice system of discovering the truth.
This bolsters my point. But you're too busy playing knee jerk reactionary games to the mention of "one side's" (in your mind) false story to notice.
We are conditioned to suspect hoaxes? That is exactly wrong. We are biased to believe stories that confirm what we already think is true. This story fits that bill. Suspicious is warranted.
As for "look at all these stories", they all report the same quote from 1 witness so they all have the same single point of failure. This was the problem with the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative in Ferguson. Easy to forget how everyone assumed it was fact, including every single article (and there were gazillions of them). It took, you know, actual due process to figure out it was 100% fabricated.
"Hands up, don't shoot" was well covered. Took months and an actual trial to learn it never happened.
Pardon me, but I wasn't born yesterday. When an entire motive is determined by the statement of one unnamed witness, and it just so happens to be a rare validation of a major unsubstantiated trend narrative, I am suspicious. I'll be waiting a few weeks to let this story play out before I believe it.
"Hands up, don't shoot" anyone?
Well if you don't hear about them, that settles it! No need to google for 5 seconds.
You are very confused. Net migration from Mexico is very positive. Net migration OF MEXICANS is break even, slightly negative, or slightly positive.
This isn't just a semantic point, since you basically suggest the solution to illegal immigration is to make source countries richer. Not a completely insane suggestion if you're just talking about Mexico. Quite insane when you realize you're talking about most of Central and South America.
We're going to need more tinfoil
The conspiracy you suggest simply cannot happen in a free market. If it were possible to do this in the US, it would have to involve artificial market limiters like the FDA. But then what about other countries? Not to mention that your worldview would predict no or almost no cures on the market, yet there they are. Even Martin Shkreli's drug Daraprim is a cure, and for an extremely rare disease with only 2000 or so patients per year. How can such a drug exist if what you say is true?
I never mentioned browser history, and I already walked you through it higher up in the thread.
I don't really understand your point. Is it that govts can intervene and tell you to sell at a different price? Well, sure. We have all kinds of examples of govt all along a spectrum of interventionalism in markets. Parent was mostly saying that's a load of horseshit and you have every right to sell the fruits of your labor for whatever you want. Your reply really isn't s counter to that, if I'm understanding it correctly.
The patent issue is a tough one and I'm not saying it is set up correctly. But the purpose is not, as you say, to allow people to rely on them to create artificial monopolies. The purpose is to prevent unauthorized use by others of the fruits of your labor.
This is a different issue. That price change is due to the GBPUSD exchange rate.
> This presupposes the continuing existence of closed-source software businesses
Slashdot: declaring the imminent doom of proprietary software for 20 years
No. That is one example of how you can leverage information on a low value account to obtain higher value items.
What others say on slashdot has no relevance to what I say on slashdot.
> Those zoning decisions are anything but stupid. They're carefully thought out to achieve a certain goal.
There is a pretty strong consensus that poor zoning in SF, NYC, etc. is a major cause of housing unaffordability. e.g. https://www.nber.org/papers/w8...
> The question that's being asked in TFS is: is that goal forcing families and lower income people out of San Fransisco?
Where do you get that from? TFS blamed long hours and public school quality.
> Remember, the young rich people there need poor and lower middle class people to cook food, clean, fix toilets, etc, etc. They're gonna get those people one way or the other. Abusing them (in the form of 4 hour commutes or tent cities) is one option.
4 hour commutes... I don't see how you'd ever get there. If these abused lower middle class people are necessary, then prices would increase until those people could continue to live within commute distance. This is the kind of comment people make by projecting a line from current state onward without any concern for counteracting market forces.
Regarding tent cities, well that is pretty much what I said in my comment. If you impede efficient sprawl, your only option is density.
If you are interested in this, I would suggest digging into the housing affordability debate. It is pretty rigorous and does not break on party/ideology lines as closely as you might expect. It is one of those rare topics where nuance is appreciated and you have some "civil wars" within party, especially in local elections. For example, here in Austin, there is a heavy debate between the people who want to use zoning to protect NIMBYs in their district while pushing high density housing into specific locations, and the people who want to encourage SFH growth everywhere, and people who just want to remove a lot of zoning restriction and let the market fix it (yes, these people are on the left). Another interesting source: http://marketurbanism.com/
No, you're not getting it. Let's try to improve my analogy so you can. Let's say that the dam is concrete and the concrete continues into an adjacent parking lot as one contiguous pour. Now let's assume there is a crack in the parking lot immediately next to the foot of the dam. Nobody gives a shit about the crack in the parking lot, except that if you don't fix it, it will spread to the dam.
The point is, if you think throwaway accounts at gaming sites, etc. are not valuable to hackers, you have not followed any security news in the last decade. When bullshit websites are hacked and user databases dumped with md5 hashed passwords, what happened? The hackers didn't jump for joy for their ability to steal cat memes. No, they took the passwords, cracked them, and tried to use the credentials at the major bank websites. Most people use the same damn password for everything and chances are a good % of the users in the hacked site will have a bank account at one of those majors.
There are hundreds more examples of this sort of thing. If identity were siloed, your logic would be sound. But your siloed view of identity is incredibly naive.
I ignored your injection of the sexual assault example. I thought it was dumb for you to include that as an example, suggesting it was somehow akin to leaving your door unlocked.
No, sorry, something about your reading comprehension is broken. Maybe you are more familiar with the law and the word "negligence" triggered the more narrow meaning in civil law. But nothing in my comment suggested I meant that, and quite the opposite. I think I was pretty clearly talking about home burglary, which would apply when the door is open, whereas a separate crime over and above that would apply (e.g., breaking & entering) if the door were locked.
Regarding the insurance policy, you're not countering my point. I'm explaining WHY the insurer generally excludes covering items stolen from unlocked homes or cars. NEGLIGENCE.
Your response doesn't actually respond to any of my points.
And then you follow it with a pathetic implication that I said anything about sexual assault. I didn't. Fuck you.
This post is two stories linked together without justification. Families aren't in SF... because young people work long hours? And the public school system sucks? The public school system sucks in nearly every urban area, so pretty sure that is not it. How about SF is one of the most expensive cities for housing per sqft and land per acre? How about housing costs as a % of income leads to people sharing housing with (paying!) roommates?
SF has geographic barriers preventing it from engaging in that evil thing called urban sprawl. And hen idiot voters and politicians overlay further anti-sprawl policies and stupid zoning decisions. Well, sprawl is a major housing price regulator. Without sprawl, your only option to address increasing demand is increasing density, and you can only squeeze more units per sq mi so much.
Im not saying housing costs explain this phenomenon completely. But it's pretty strange that it's completely omitted!