Is that the fertility rate argument again? "We're below fertility rate, so population is no longer expanding, even though the number of people actually does continue to grow"?
United states population, 2010: 310,000,000. Labor force: 153,484,000.
United states population, 2011: 312,000,000. Labor force: 153,263,000.
United states population, 2012: 315,000,000. Labor force: 154,351,000.
United states population, 2013: 317,000,000. Labor force: 155,666,000.
United states population, 2014: 319,000,000. Labor force: 155,285,000.
United states population, 2015: 322,000,000. Labor force: 157,025,000.
United states population, 2016: 324,000,000. Labor force: 158,335,000.
So yes, population is growing in the United States. You linked to the Fertility Rate statistic to show that the United States Fertility Rate is below population replacement and, thus, the population is not growing; yet, in the real world, the population *is* growing. A 3.1% labor force growth and 4.5% population growth in 6 years.
That may be a little unfair: 2010 was coming off 10% unemployment, a peak in an unemployment spike thanks to the 2008 recession; if you go back as far as 2000, the labor force is 142,267,000 of a 283,000,000 population; it continues to grow until around 2008-2010, where it briefly dips *just slightly*. The 16 year read is 14.5% population growth and 11.3% labor force growth, and that's coming off the absolute peak of an enormous labor participation rate bubble.
So, let's see, United States population... is growing, yep.
It's consistently the poorest countries that have the most explosive population growth, because we've given them just enough food and medicines to make their kids grow up but not so much that two kids is enough
So as scarcity of food and medicine drop (due to outside influence instead of technology in this case), population grows? Without that sudden abundance, the population is held back by scarcity, as I have said?
You just argued that the poorer countries's population starts growing when they gain greater access to a historically-scarce resource. In this case, their scarcity is increased by a donation from someone who can produce in excess due to the advanced state of their technology.
What you're not making sense of is this: if poor people breed like rats, we need more food to feed them. At a point, we run out of nice, fertile land; instead of just *farming*, we also have to pour on more fertilizer and more irrigation. That means going and finding more people to make the chemicals and to produce energy--more money. Less food comes out of that land, so you need to do this over more land, with more farmers. So instead of 2,000 human labor-hours to produce food for some 180 people, it's now 5,000 human labor-hours, and that means 2.5 times as much wages paid--cost of food goes up.
Responding to scarcity by slowing breeding is a basic biological process. It's visible in predator-prey population cycles as well as in human population cycles.
population continues growing by moving off planet, and the entire connected economy thing falls apart as transport costs become significant again.
Population moving off-planet will spur population growth. This will occur when both off-planet transportation and off-planet food access (production in space, production on mars, or shipping from earth to space colonies) become cheap, not the other way around.
Economics: Population growth is tied to scarcity. New technology reduces scarcity--when you scale up, you eventually stop adding 10% more human labor time (wages!) for 10% more e.g. food, and start adding 20% for 10% growth, and stuff gets expensive, and we lose the capacity to produce everything to scale with population--and that means population can grow without experiencing downward pressure. Freezing population growth would play all kinds of hell on the monetary system, and isn't a viable option for *many* reasons; it's also an economic behavior tied to technology.
Energy argument: Solar energy in space still would require massive collectors; the cost and scale of labor to put them up there, assemble them, maintain them, and operate them would be huge, incurring immense costs. It's really easy to pipe billions of barrels of oil into a building and burn them; it's really hard to collect that much sunlight. This argument holds true mostly for large-scale, high-consumption factories: a steel mill in space won't have any notable output capacity unless it's stationed on a dyson sphere with power cables run to it.
This guy doesn't realize he's talking about hundreds of megawatts here, entire power stations for single factories.
I considered writing a fantasy novel including a society in which it is considered un-manly for men to lie, as women lie so fucking much; but I couldn't figure out how people in such a society would realistically react to an honest woman.
In most societies, the cross-over gains a lot of negative attention; even in fantasy, you have societies where men eat piquant food and are seen as performing a social taboo if they eat sweet fruits and jams because that is womanly. The opposite is true as well, with strong-minded women, tomboys, and other such social constructs ranging from readily-accepted deviation to scandal; in Elantris, for example, fencing was considered a woman's sport in Teod, while it caused a huge spectacle when a Teoish girl introduced the sport to women in Arelon, mainly because she was bored of needlepoint and other girly bullshit.
Defining something as distinctly un-manly because it's a thing that defines how women act tends to draw more attention when someone breaks from the norm. I still don't know how to portray that, because the thing I defined is so alien to any society.
Modern common stock doesn't even have voting rights, and common stock has always had such diluted rights as to effectively have zero. It's also defined as being canceled if the company files bankruptcy; the only real rights you get with common stock are profit sharing, and that is elective (most companies don't pay dividends; the ones that do will cancel their dividend when finances are bad--a wise move, as they need the money for restructuring). Common stock is only worth what you can sell it for on a perceptive secondary security market, where people buy things because they think other people will buy those things from them for more money later.
This woman's net worth is entirely in common stock in her company; she'll get none of it when her company folds. The company is worth apparently $900 million; when it goes under, less than $900 million will be generated by liquidation; the investors will get all of that; she'll get $0.
True. My point was mostly that the general theme of security news is "OOOOOOOOOOOOOH SCARY HACKERS WILL HIJACK YOUR PRECIOUS DELICATE LITTLE PC ACROSS THE INTERNET!" and people imagine sitting at home, unwrapping a new desktop, turning it on, and getting hacked 4,000 times. That doesn't happen.
Hacking home routers is actually really hard from outside. Most routers don't expose any open ports to the WAN side, so you can't just route around their broken Web apps. There's this continuing myth that you can get someone's Comcast IP address, punch it into your Web browser, and hack their router like some kind of wizard from the 90s; it's trivial to demonstrate this doesn't work, but also trivial to fool someone into thinking it's real by punching in their public IP from inside their own network--the routers often block the port *on the WAN link* by firewall policy, so if it comes from LAN link and goes to WAN IP it works, which looks an awful lot like your router's configuration being open to the world.
The entire attack surface of a modern home router is the Linux TCP/IP and netfilter stack.
If your attacker can either A) hack into the Internet back-end routers; or B) physically colocate on your private network, he can hack your PC during an update check.
If we assume update checks are sufficiently frequent, then your most likely attack is from a PC on your network--a neighbor or white van that's connected to your wifi, assuming it's not encrypted with a non-trivial password ("lemonade_ghost_riders" would keep the NSA out if they had to brute-force your WPA2--don't use that password; it's public knowledge now).
The only reasonable scenario is a targeted attack by an infected machine on coffee-shop wifi. Such an attack would need to connect to the local wifi, spoof ARP packets of the router at your particular device, spoof ARP packets of your device at the router, and interpose itself. Not impossible, but very much not reasonable if two competing devices are attempting to do it.
Considering how fantastic both Roku and AndroidTV are, why don't they just partner instead of pushing their shitty in-house software? A SmartTV with built-in Roku would be great.
If it were me, my SmartTV firmware would be a thin mid-boot loader, like Cyanogenmod Recovery. I would partner with Roku and Google and deliver a system which can barely connect to the Internet (or media such as a USB drive or SD card), show a list of available SmartTV packages, and allow the user to install them. I'd expose IP settings through a universal interface as well, so you configure once and Android or Roku can just use whatever. Thus the user would buy my TV, turn it on, and have a voucher for Roku or Google or whatnot; they could buy additional, which would send license purchases up to the supplier.
No external box, and no selling the user on my shitty in-house software or an ass-old version of Roku that will need upgrading by purchasing a new TV.
Cryptographic hash function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wikipedia
Hash functions based on block ciphers. There are several methods to use a block cipher to build a cryptographic hash function, specifically a one-way compression function. The methods resemble the block cipher modes of operation usually used for encryption.
You're the one who tried to imply hashes were symmetric.
As to digital signatures, hashes are completely optional there and _only_ serve to improve efficiently, they do not serve a security function at all in that usage.
Digital signatures are *defined* as using hashes; otherwise the message would only be *encrypted*--with a key everyone has, but without the ability to alter it. The key is called the certificate; the message is called... the message. It's a signature *because* it uses a hash.
Your argument is consistently "You're a clueless idiot," and my response is consistently to point to standard first-week concepts in cryptography. I'm not sure where you studied cryptography, but I suggest you go get your money back.
you just demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about
I suggest you put on a cup.
you confused symmetric and asymmetric crypto. Here is a hint: Verifying a hash means to verify a shared, known good value, that is known-good by a different mechanism.
A hash is usually called "one-way encryption." Hashes are MD5, SHA1, SHA256, and so forth. Checksums are a form of hash, thus CRC32 and the simple overflow checksum.
Hashes are not symmetric. Symmetric encryption uses a single key to encrypt and decrypt. Such algorithms include RC4, AES, DES, Twofish, Blowfish, and others.
Verifying a signature means an asymmetric verification, no shared value involved.
Except the signature is shared.
I refer you to this friendly diagram of digital signing. As you can see, signing a message involves first computing the hash value, and then encrypting it with the private key; verification of the signature involves decrypting the hash with the public key and comparing it to the hash of the message. A PGP signed message starts as follows:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Now let's re-read what I said:
A digital signature is a hash that's been encrypted using a private key such that the public can verify its authenticity. Regardless of all attacks, if you have the public key, you can validate that the published hash is indeed published by a holder of the private key.
Verifying the digital signature of a download is done by computing the hash, verifying that hash, and verifying that the provided hash was encrypted with a public key matching a particular private key.
As I have demonstrated, a digital signature is indeed an encrypted hash. That hash can be replaced by a man-in-the-middle attack, but there is no way for an attacker without the private key to digitally encrypt the hash in such a way that it will verify correctly using the expected public key. Thus the hash is verifiable, and an adulterated hash is non-verifiable.
If your hash is a published MD5 or SHA256 with no encryption (not a signature), a man-in-the-middle can replace the original program *and* the hash with the non-cryptographically-verifiable values. The integrity check will succeed so long as the file isn't damaged, and the authenticity cannot be checked.
Thus a digital signature *is* a hash, performs all the functions of a hash, and additionally performs authentication.
Not even that. The machines come with features--some of which go back as far as Windows 2000--that people are now freaking out about.
Debugging data for program crashes goes to Microsoft. That's happened since forever; Watson always pinged Microsoft to ask about Program X and what it should log about it, then asked the user what to do. If you tell Windows 10 to look for a fix, it'll send data to Microsoft, same as if you report the issue on Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7.... These days, it also might say, "Hey, Firefox is fucking up, what do?" and Watson says, "At a guess, tell the user to enable Windows 7 Compatibility Mode," and the user can say "Send data to Microsoft" and it'll send the whole dump.
The start menu has a search feature that SEARCHES THE WEB. We freaked out about this with Ubuntu once; we ignore it when Chrome and Firefox do it. Likewise, Windows since XP has asked Microsoft Windows Update how to view arbitrary filetypes when opening unknown files.
Microsoft Windows Defender now comes built-in. The default setting since XP has always sent minimal data about specific files to Microsoft; an advanced setting sends a *shitload* of debugging data, but it's off by default. People are panicking because it's in Windows 10 and Windows 10 is spyware.
Cortana. I don't fucking use it. My Android phone talks to Google a lot; so does Siri.
Updates, constantly pinging Microsoft to ask about updating software. People are like, "Well Linux doesn't tell Debian what software you have installed! Windows 10 tells Microsoft EXACTLY what you have installed!" That works until you actually run apt-get upgrade and a series of HTTP GET requests hit the servers to get specific package names and versions.
Uh dude, Windows 8.1 was trying to make me log into microsoft; it took me 20 minutes to realize there was a skip button, and then the next screen tried to pitch me onto creating a microsoft account AGAIN.
Corporations are minimizing *cost*; profits are not directly under corporate control. When you reduce cost, you can reduce price to take a stronger market position--and that works until your competitor does the same, at which point you need to reduce cost further and get in line with whatever your profit margin was in the first place.
That's usually a maximizing strategy. Spending excess for something (e.g. security) means something else is not made, because that consumes labor; likewise, the uptick in a product's cost means the price goes up, and thus consumers can't buy as many other things with their income (which, happily, aligns with the "the people who were making other things are now busy making this thing instead" problem). Couple that with technical progress and you get phenomena such as food getting cheaper (30% of the median family's income in 1950, 14% of their income in 2000, 11% today) and people having better access to medical care, smart phones, or ALL THE OTHER SHIT THAT MAKES US ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT COMPUTER SECURITY.
I said *usually* a maximizing strategy. Even with computer security as today, these types of breaches carry a cost and, notably, they carry risk: that $30,000 cost isn't just a $30,000 cost, but the *potential* for lost customers and UNCONTROLLED COSTS. Those uncontrolled costs could be immeasurable: they could be millions, they could be a percentage of your business, or they could be a blunt disruption to operations resulting in either immediate failure *or* a temporary loss of operating ability shifting business toward a competitor and leading to a downward spiral of your business's market position until it ceases to be a business.
"We don't know how much we need to charge for our product to stay in business" tends to turn into "we need to charge more than our competitors, and are losing business because their products are cheaper", which tends to motivate businesses to deploy better security to control those risks. As we've seen, this isn't *always* true; it's typically *reasonably* true, and even the best security gets breached (something you're unfairly ignoring)--just much less often.
It's also true that, as you suggest, businesses will under-spend for security when that spending doesn't provide them a direct return due to the consequences being borne by the market. That is: security breaches generally cost a business unknown money, thus are addressed naturally as a risk; and security breaches *can* cost the consumer in ways which aren't covered by actions which protect the business, thus creating a gap in which a certain action would provide an economic benefit, but not be a natural action for a business to take.
That gap is filled by GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Use sparingly, but use where required.
So, business cost-minimizing and cost-controlling actions: Good. Government regulations: Good. These two things cover for each other. Without business behavior as such, we need some kind of command economy (Marxism, Communism); without government regulation as such, capitalism outright fails (we get anarchocapitalism and then corporatism, leading to fascism--corporate dictatorship by controlling market interest such that "voting with your dollars" creates widespread poverty and worse immediate problems than accepting the rule of the elite).
Yes, and government is meant to regulate and facilitate capitalism. Faced with a need, hundreds of frauds will try to sell you a useless product or service, and others will attempt to manufacture a need by such methods as causing you harm and selling you the means to repair said harm. Governments place regulations and laws providing standards and punishment for such actions so that such exchanges are voluntary and beneficial.
A digital signature is a hash that's been encrypted using a private key such that the public can verify its authenticity. Regardless of all attacks, if you have the public key, you can validate that the published hash is indeed published by a holder of the private key.
Verifying the digital signature of a download is done by computing the hash, verifying that hash, and verifying that the provided hash was encrypted with a public key matching a particular private key.
Tor basically said they're doing meaningless shit.
In this case, it's clear and well-understood that "Download" is used as a lay term to mean "save locally as a file". People don't consider downloading to memory as downloading in a general sense.
The same reasoning is also what makes the ridiculous ass dance TubeNinja is pulling a complete failure in court--and possible grounds for liability. If TubeNinja seriously tries to argue that their material, despite being clearly designed to market the downloading of YouTube content, is not liable because, while that would be illegal and a liability, they plainly state that you should check the TOS of the service you're accessing, the court might call bullshit on them and lay all kinds of penalties for trying to bullshit the court. It's like if a Tobacco company used children's shows to market cigarettes, but had the person Barney is smoking up in front of and passing a Camel to be an adult: the courts would call bullshit on claims that they're not targeting children in their advertisements, and the argument that Barney is an adult and is sharing his smokes with an adult would be wrapped round the end of a golf club and driven back into that lawyer's skull.
This is different with BitTorrent providers. The client legitimately allows you to access large, free downloads such as Linux DVD images, free music (mostly independent albums released for free by the artists), Gutenberg collections, and other such things. It's a major use case, and the clients aren't branded to allow you to download illegal content--unlike Kazaa and LimeWire advertising infinite free music from every band on the planet.
Not really. Without going into details, I've worked in projects (energy sector) where it was imperative to adopt new technology to immediately break into an emerging market (and we did it successfully). This was nothing like a pilot, but a massive, winner-takes-all overhaul.
I was speaking in the more-general sense. There are definitely cases in which an emerging market appears and you need to *move* to get in on it. In general, we are discussing existing markets (e.g. McDonalds serving hamburgers), and efforts which streamline our efficiency to reduce costs.
What you describe is similar to American Express in the 80s. AmEx was only able to handle several thousand customers at a fairly low load. As AmEx grew, the transactions per customer grew, the amount of data required for fraud analysis grew, and so the number of fraud analysts per 1,000 customers increased. That means AmEx could initially hire 1 analyst per 10,000 accounts, then it was 1 per 5,000, 1 per 1,000, 1 per 500, 1 per 50, and so forth. At 1 per 50, the cost of American Express's service is 200 TIMES HIGHER; and at a point, you'd have to hire multiple analysts per new account.
To handle this, American Express commissioned and had built the Authorizor's Assistant. American Express AA is an expert system which retrieves and assesses all data related to a financial transaction, determines the likelihood that the transaction is fraudulent, and then presents its decision, the data, its interpretation of the data (how and why each data point factored into the decision), and even a highlight of data it knows about but doesn't know how to analyze (things which are relevant but not understood by AA). The Authorizor's Assistant is over 70% more accurate and can handle a *much* higher volume of traffic than a lone Analyst, and so an Analyst using AA can process several hundred times as many transactions in the same time and with a much lower failure rate.
This is different than McDonalds being faced with possibly shaving 3 cents off the price of a hamburger today *or* trying to compete in a market where Wendy's and Burger King might have a slight price advantage in the hopes of shaving 30 cents off a hamburger in 3 years.
There is "should", and there is "is". I know for a fact that training used to be a business priority. Not anymore, not for the last 25 years.
Not disputed. Businesses can get anywhere from a dozen to several thousand applications for a single job posting, and now hire entire HR departments to sift through CVs and forward on the best potential candidates they can identify. Why would you take on the risk of bringing in an entrant early in the 18-month hiring cycle; shifting high-time, low-skill, easily-verified work from the expensive engineer to the rookie; and training the rookie OTJ and via tuition outlay? Sure you can pay the rookie less, plus tuition; and you pay that for at least a year relative to putting in the budget 18 months ahead of time, starting the hiring process after 12 months, and grabbing some well-experienced transient worker or someone who already came out of college and is desperate for a job and willing to take the low end of industry-standard salary (and cheap benefits!).
What happens when the government stops funding colleges? What happens when you can't just get an unsecured loan, when the state doesn't cut tuition back by 70% for in-state students, when tuition isn't covered by tax money? What happens when 90% of the population has no viable way to send themselves through intensive 4-year full-time college at the cost of lost earning potential (not working while schooling) and hellish tuition bills?
Suddenly the businesses have a choice: You can hire entrants and train them when the market doesn't have enough free-floating skilled labor to accomplish your business strategy; or you can whine about it while your competitor hires and trains entrants and stomps you into a bloody crater.
The topic is about "ERMAGEHRD WE SHOULD HAVE ALL 3RD GRADE GIRLS BECOME PROGRAMMARS!!!" Pointing out that software engineering and computer operation are different things and that one of these things is useful in general while the other one is not (as) useful to teach 100% of everyone as baseline knowledge is not pedantry; it's highlighting wrongwise thinking.
You do realize that you've just argued that if "U.S. fast food industry" was "forced" to pay minimum wage of $15 - they would have to let go 1.3 million of their 1.6 million employees?
False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?
And that's NOT including increased purchasing power OR higher growth due to positive publicity.
All growth comes from consumer purchasing power, as consumers pay wages. You're concentrating the total income into fewer hands by paying some hands more income on purchases; that means there is necessarily LESS PURCHASING POWER.
The biggest defect in thinking is people going, "Oh, but the wage worker receives that money, so he has more buying power, and thus there's *more* buying power and *more* money moving around!" That doesn't work because the wage worker receives that money in the same time frame.
In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.
The next year around, the minimum wage employees have more buying power due to their more income... but the total buying power of all the wage income is less. It's reduced by the products which were output by the lost jobs. The poorest get richer, others of the poorest get poorer, the middle-class gets poorer.
I was more pointing at the "We just tax the company an additional 2080 hours at $8 per x the number of full-time equivalents(~20) that are now sitting at home" argument. That will lead to an increase in unemployment and a decrease in societal wealth, spreading poverty and harming the American worker.
Jobs aren't going away forever. We can mishandle the automation revolution and get 80% unemployment for 100 years, or we can cover ourselves by adjusting the tax structures and welfare systems to spread the job loss and increase the rate of job replacement so that unemployment only nudges up by a portion of a percent at any given time. If we do the latter, we'll hit maybe 5.2%-5.5% UE3, grit our teeth a little, and then roll back out of it into a world that looks... well, like today's world looks to the 1990s.
Let's think about that for a second.
In 1990, we didn't have air bags, traction control, bluetooth or satellite radio, and the like; antilock brakes weren't even standard on all cars. Cell phones were the subject of movies and children's toys--enormous, boxy things that somehow functioned as a car phone without the car, if you had thousands of dollars to spend. Late-90s cell phones were little plastic bricks with buttons and an LCD screen; caller ID was a nifty feature; and we had some kind of plastic magnetic tape to answer the phone and record messages if we weren't home. PCs cost $2,000 (about $3,600 today), had a multi-hundred-megabyte hard drive, and a 66mhz CPU; in 1997, the Intel Pentium 2 broke the Pentium Pro's 200MHz speed limit, coming to market at rates of 233MHz to 300MHz.
In 1990, the average family spent 15% of their income on food, and 6% on clothing.
Today, we spend 11% of our income on food, and 3.5% on clothing. New cars still sell for 56% of the buyer's income based on median statistics across income demographics; they now come with traction control, multi-CD changers, USB, bluetooth connectivity, sun roofs, independent suspension, disc brakes, and all manner of upgraded engine systems such as EFI and electric power steering. $800 (the equivalent of $437 in 1990) buys me a PC with high-speed graphics, 3GHz 4-core CPU, 16GB of RAM, and a 250GB SSD or a 6,000GB hard drive--60 thousand times the storage of what we had in 1990! I'm carrying around this ridiculously powerful smart phone in my pocket, 4 cores, 1.9GHz ARM, 2GB RAM, and a display resolution several times the dimensions and with 26 times the pixels as the monitor I used on my 486.
That's happened because we've found more efficient ways to do things. That's not only globalization, although that's a big part of it. In 1790, 90% of Americans were farm workers; in 1900, it was 38%; in 1950, 18%; and today, it's under 2%. In 1900, we spent 43% of our income on food; 1950, 30%; today, 11%. We're paying fewer workers for less labor hours because we've replaced farm workers with *fewer* farm workers driving diesel machines and using fertilizers and pesticides and intensive farming methods. Some of the jobs have been displaced to machinery, energy, and chemistry (hence 2% farmers, but 11% of money--we have to pay the chemists and machinists, too); others have been displaced to business, medicine (lots of healthcare...), and bagging my groceries.
All of that because
They've been chasing profits while the rest of us suffer.
...They've been producing new technology and increasing efficiency while the rest of us benefit. Someone loses their job and you cry a whole lot, while you ignore the whole economic effect of more production, more purchasing power, and the eventual creation of new jobs.
Please enlighten me how I should instead interpret this
Well, let's see what I actually said.
Our current producer market doesn't target that consumer market because it doesn't currently exist.
Gee, Larry, we could try to sell homes to this demographic of transient, unstable, minimum-wage workers! But wait... if we did that, they would frequently default on their leases, and not have money to cover damages they might cause. We would go swiftly out of business unless we raised their rents... but they wouldn't be able to afford that! There's no way for us to profit from this--or even break even. Let's just ignore them and do something else!
That consumer market DOESN'T EXIST. Businesses can't supply it because it can't purchase the service with sufficient reliability to keep businesses running. In other word:
it's not profitable to target him as a consumer from which to derive income through the business pursuit of providing food and shelter to individuals of that income level.
Compare that to the proposal, which is *less* income but...
The market adjustment is a 100% guarantee that every individual adult has that income as an absolute minimum; all current-market retail prices for the basic needs goods and services can profit off that consumer market.
... you know the money's coming in, you know that person isn't going to lose his income because it's not a limited-term unemployment payment or an unstable job that could cut his hours. You know the margin of risk is *much* lower, and so lower rents will make you a profit, and keep your business running.
Maybe if you were interested in actually looking for solutions instead of looking for people to attack, you'd see what was pasted right in front of your face. Instead, you're busy arguing that businesses should just magically provide unprofitable services and act as charities, and somehow keep operating when they have no capability to supply the service they're supposed to supply. Here's a hint: We can't actually take five loaves of bread and two fishes and feed 18,000,000 people, no matter how much you want to cry about how much humanity we should have about the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the fertility rate argument again? "We're below fertility rate, so population is no longer expanding, even though the number of people actually does continue to grow"?
United states population, 2010: 310,000,000. Labor force: 153,484,000.
United states population, 2011: 312,000,000. Labor force: 153,263,000.
United states population, 2012: 315,000,000. Labor force: 154,351,000.
United states population, 2013: 317,000,000. Labor force: 155,666,000.
United states population, 2014: 319,000,000. Labor force: 155,285,000.
United states population, 2015: 322,000,000. Labor force: 157,025,000.
United states population, 2016: 324,000,000. Labor force: 158,335,000.
So yes, population is growing in the United States. You linked to the Fertility Rate statistic to show that the United States Fertility Rate is below population replacement and, thus, the population is not growing; yet, in the real world, the population *is* growing. A 3.1% labor force growth and 4.5% population growth in 6 years.
That may be a little unfair: 2010 was coming off 10% unemployment, a peak in an unemployment spike thanks to the 2008 recession; if you go back as far as 2000, the labor force is 142,267,000 of a 283,000,000 population; it continues to grow until around 2008-2010, where it briefly dips *just slightly*. The 16 year read is 14.5% population growth and 11.3% labor force growth, and that's coming off the absolute peak of an enormous labor participation rate bubble.
So, let's see, United States population ... is growing, yep.
It's consistently the poorest countries that have the most explosive population growth, because we've given them just enough food and medicines to make their kids grow up but not so much that two kids is enough
So as scarcity of food and medicine drop (due to outside influence instead of technology in this case), population grows? Without that sudden abundance, the population is held back by scarcity, as I have said?
You just argued that the poorer countries's population starts growing when they gain greater access to a historically-scarce resource. In this case, their scarcity is increased by a donation from someone who can produce in excess due to the advanced state of their technology.
First paragraph.
Population growth is negatively tied to prosperity: the more prosperous people are, the fewer children they have.
Look at population versus technology.
What you're not making sense of is this: if poor people breed like rats, we need more food to feed them. At a point, we run out of nice, fertile land; instead of just *farming*, we also have to pour on more fertilizer and more irrigation. That means going and finding more people to make the chemicals and to produce energy--more money. Less food comes out of that land, so you need to do this over more land, with more farmers. So instead of 2,000 human labor-hours to produce food for some 180 people, it's now 5,000 human labor-hours, and that means 2.5 times as much wages paid--cost of food goes up.
Responding to scarcity by slowing breeding is a basic biological process. It's visible in predator-prey population cycles as well as in human population cycles.
population continues growing by moving off planet, and the entire connected economy thing falls apart as transport costs become significant again.
Population moving off-planet will spur population growth. This will occur when both off-planet transportation and off-planet food access (production in space, production on mars, or shipping from earth to space colonies) become cheap, not the other way around.
Economics: Population growth is tied to scarcity. New technology reduces scarcity--when you scale up, you eventually stop adding 10% more human labor time (wages!) for 10% more e.g. food, and start adding 20% for 10% growth, and stuff gets expensive, and we lose the capacity to produce everything to scale with population--and that means population can grow without experiencing downward pressure. Freezing population growth would play all kinds of hell on the monetary system, and isn't a viable option for *many* reasons; it's also an economic behavior tied to technology.
Energy argument: Solar energy in space still would require massive collectors; the cost and scale of labor to put them up there, assemble them, maintain them, and operate them would be huge, incurring immense costs. It's really easy to pipe billions of barrels of oil into a building and burn them; it's really hard to collect that much sunlight. This argument holds true mostly for large-scale, high-consumption factories: a steel mill in space won't have any notable output capacity unless it's stationed on a dyson sphere with power cables run to it.
This guy doesn't realize he's talking about hundreds of megawatts here, entire power stations for single factories.
I considered writing a fantasy novel including a society in which it is considered un-manly for men to lie, as women lie so fucking much; but I couldn't figure out how people in such a society would realistically react to an honest woman.
In most societies, the cross-over gains a lot of negative attention; even in fantasy, you have societies where men eat piquant food and are seen as performing a social taboo if they eat sweet fruits and jams because that is womanly. The opposite is true as well, with strong-minded women, tomboys, and other such social constructs ranging from readily-accepted deviation to scandal; in Elantris, for example, fencing was considered a woman's sport in Teod, while it caused a huge spectacle when a Teoish girl introduced the sport to women in Arelon, mainly because she was bored of needlepoint and other girly bullshit.
Defining something as distinctly un-manly because it's a thing that defines how women act tends to draw more attention when someone breaks from the norm. I still don't know how to portray that, because the thing I defined is so alien to any society.
Modern common stock doesn't even have voting rights, and common stock has always had such diluted rights as to effectively have zero. It's also defined as being canceled if the company files bankruptcy; the only real rights you get with common stock are profit sharing, and that is elective (most companies don't pay dividends; the ones that do will cancel their dividend when finances are bad--a wise move, as they need the money for restructuring). Common stock is only worth what you can sell it for on a perceptive secondary security market, where people buy things because they think other people will buy those things from them for more money later.
This woman's net worth is entirely in common stock in her company; she'll get none of it when her company folds. The company is worth apparently $900 million; when it goes under, less than $900 million will be generated by liquidation; the investors will get all of that; she'll get $0.
True. My point was mostly that the general theme of security news is "OOOOOOOOOOOOOH SCARY HACKERS WILL HIJACK YOUR PRECIOUS DELICATE LITTLE PC ACROSS THE INTERNET!" and people imagine sitting at home, unwrapping a new desktop, turning it on, and getting hacked 4,000 times. That doesn't happen.
Hacking home routers is actually really hard from outside. Most routers don't expose any open ports to the WAN side, so you can't just route around their broken Web apps. There's this continuing myth that you can get someone's Comcast IP address, punch it into your Web browser, and hack their router like some kind of wizard from the 90s; it's trivial to demonstrate this doesn't work, but also trivial to fool someone into thinking it's real by punching in their public IP from inside their own network--the routers often block the port *on the WAN link* by firewall policy, so if it comes from LAN link and goes to WAN IP it works, which looks an awful lot like your router's configuration being open to the world.
The entire attack surface of a modern home router is the Linux TCP/IP and netfilter stack.
Let's put this into perspective.
If your attacker can either A) hack into the Internet back-end routers; or B) physically colocate on your private network, he can hack your PC during an update check.
If we assume update checks are sufficiently frequent, then your most likely attack is from a PC on your network--a neighbor or white van that's connected to your wifi, assuming it's not encrypted with a non-trivial password ("lemonade_ghost_riders" would keep the NSA out if they had to brute-force your WPA2--don't use that password; it's public knowledge now).
The only reasonable scenario is a targeted attack by an infected machine on coffee-shop wifi. Such an attack would need to connect to the local wifi, spoof ARP packets of the router at your particular device, spoof ARP packets of your device at the router, and interpose itself. Not impossible, but very much not reasonable if two competing devices are attempting to do it.
Considering how fantastic both Roku and AndroidTV are, why don't they just partner instead of pushing their shitty in-house software? A SmartTV with built-in Roku would be great.
If it were me, my SmartTV firmware would be a thin mid-boot loader, like Cyanogenmod Recovery. I would partner with Roku and Google and deliver a system which can barely connect to the Internet (or media such as a USB drive or SD card), show a list of available SmartTV packages, and allow the user to install them. I'd expose IP settings through a universal interface as well, so you configure once and Android or Roku can just use whatever. Thus the user would buy my TV, turn it on, and have a voucher for Roku or Google or whatnot; they could buy additional, which would send license purchases up to the supplier.
No external box, and no selling the user on my shitty in-house software or an ass-old version of Roku that will need upgrading by purchasing a new TV.
First result for "one-way encryption":
Cryptographic hash function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wikipedia
Hash functions based on block ciphers. There are several methods to use a block cipher to build a cryptographic hash function, specifically a one-way compression function. The methods resemble the block cipher modes of operation usually used for encryption.
This is common domain language among cryptographers.
You're the one who tried to imply hashes were symmetric.
As to digital signatures, hashes are completely optional there and _only_ serve to improve efficiently, they do not serve a security function at all in that usage.
Digital signatures are *defined* as using hashes; otherwise the message would only be *encrypted*--with a key everyone has, but without the ability to alter it. The key is called the certificate; the message is called ... the message. It's a signature *because* it uses a hash.
Your argument is consistently "You're a clueless idiot," and my response is consistently to point to standard first-week concepts in cryptography. I'm not sure where you studied cryptography, but I suggest you go get your money back.
The point is one can trivially learn to do those additions and subtractions rapidly; it's not genetic.
you just demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about
I suggest you put on a cup.
you confused symmetric and asymmetric crypto. Here is a hint: Verifying a hash means to verify a shared, known good value, that is known-good by a different mechanism.
A hash is usually called "one-way encryption." Hashes are MD5, SHA1, SHA256, and so forth. Checksums are a form of hash, thus CRC32 and the simple overflow checksum.
Hashes are not symmetric. Symmetric encryption uses a single key to encrypt and decrypt. Such algorithms include RC4, AES, DES, Twofish, Blowfish, and others.
Verifying a signature means an asymmetric verification, no shared value involved.
Except the signature is shared.
I refer you to this friendly diagram of digital signing. As you can see, signing a message involves first computing the hash value, and then encrypting it with the private key; verification of the signature involves decrypting the hash with the public key and comparing it to the hash of the message. A PGP signed message starts as follows:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Now let's re-read what I said:
A digital signature is a hash that's been encrypted using a private key such that the public can verify its authenticity. Regardless of all attacks, if you have the public key, you can validate that the published hash is indeed published by a holder of the private key.
Verifying the digital signature of a download is done by computing the hash, verifying that hash, and verifying that the provided hash was encrypted with a public key matching a particular private key.
As I have demonstrated, a digital signature is indeed an encrypted hash. That hash can be replaced by a man-in-the-middle attack, but there is no way for an attacker without the private key to digitally encrypt the hash in such a way that it will verify correctly using the expected public key. Thus the hash is verifiable, and an adulterated hash is non-verifiable.
If your hash is a published MD5 or SHA256 with no encryption (not a signature), a man-in-the-middle can replace the original program *and* the hash with the non-cryptographically-verifiable values. The integrity check will succeed so long as the file isn't damaged, and the authenticity cannot be checked.
Thus a digital signature *is* a hash, performs all the functions of a hash, and additionally performs authentication.
None of that shit happened to me. I bought a digital download version off Microsoft's own store, fresh install.
Where is Windows 10 advertising at you? Mine just annoys me with updates every few weeks.
Not even that. The machines come with features--some of which go back as far as Windows 2000--that people are now freaking out about.
Debugging data for program crashes goes to Microsoft. That's happened since forever; Watson always pinged Microsoft to ask about Program X and what it should log about it, then asked the user what to do. If you tell Windows 10 to look for a fix, it'll send data to Microsoft, same as if you report the issue on Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7.... These days, it also might say, "Hey, Firefox is fucking up, what do?" and Watson says, "At a guess, tell the user to enable Windows 7 Compatibility Mode," and the user can say "Send data to Microsoft" and it'll send the whole dump.
The start menu has a search feature that SEARCHES THE WEB. We freaked out about this with Ubuntu once; we ignore it when Chrome and Firefox do it. Likewise, Windows since XP has asked Microsoft Windows Update how to view arbitrary filetypes when opening unknown files.
Microsoft Windows Defender now comes built-in. The default setting since XP has always sent minimal data about specific files to Microsoft; an advanced setting sends a *shitload* of debugging data, but it's off by default. People are panicking because it's in Windows 10 and Windows 10 is spyware.
Cortana. I don't fucking use it. My Android phone talks to Google a lot; so does Siri.
Updates, constantly pinging Microsoft to ask about updating software. People are like, "Well Linux doesn't tell Debian what software you have installed! Windows 10 tells Microsoft EXACTLY what you have installed!" That works until you actually run apt-get upgrade and a series of HTTP GET requests hit the servers to get specific package names and versions.
Come on, people.
Uh dude, Windows 8.1 was trying to make me log into microsoft; it took me 20 minutes to realize there was a skip button, and then the next screen tried to pitch me onto creating a microsoft account AGAIN.
Corporations are minimizing *cost*; profits are not directly under corporate control. When you reduce cost, you can reduce price to take a stronger market position--and that works until your competitor does the same, at which point you need to reduce cost further and get in line with whatever your profit margin was in the first place.
That's usually a maximizing strategy. Spending excess for something (e.g. security) means something else is not made, because that consumes labor; likewise, the uptick in a product's cost means the price goes up, and thus consumers can't buy as many other things with their income (which, happily, aligns with the "the people who were making other things are now busy making this thing instead" problem). Couple that with technical progress and you get phenomena such as food getting cheaper (30% of the median family's income in 1950, 14% of their income in 2000, 11% today) and people having better access to medical care, smart phones, or ALL THE OTHER SHIT THAT MAKES US ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT COMPUTER SECURITY.
I said *usually* a maximizing strategy. Even with computer security as today, these types of breaches carry a cost and, notably, they carry risk: that $30,000 cost isn't just a $30,000 cost, but the *potential* for lost customers and UNCONTROLLED COSTS. Those uncontrolled costs could be immeasurable: they could be millions, they could be a percentage of your business, or they could be a blunt disruption to operations resulting in either immediate failure *or* a temporary loss of operating ability shifting business toward a competitor and leading to a downward spiral of your business's market position until it ceases to be a business.
"We don't know how much we need to charge for our product to stay in business" tends to turn into "we need to charge more than our competitors, and are losing business because their products are cheaper", which tends to motivate businesses to deploy better security to control those risks. As we've seen, this isn't *always* true; it's typically *reasonably* true, and even the best security gets breached (something you're unfairly ignoring)--just much less often.
It's also true that, as you suggest, businesses will under-spend for security when that spending doesn't provide them a direct return due to the consequences being borne by the market. That is: security breaches generally cost a business unknown money, thus are addressed naturally as a risk; and security breaches *can* cost the consumer in ways which aren't covered by actions which protect the business, thus creating a gap in which a certain action would provide an economic benefit, but not be a natural action for a business to take.
That gap is filled by GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Use sparingly, but use where required.
So, business cost-minimizing and cost-controlling actions: Good. Government regulations: Good. These two things cover for each other. Without business behavior as such, we need some kind of command economy (Marxism, Communism); without government regulation as such, capitalism outright fails (we get anarchocapitalism and then corporatism, leading to fascism--corporate dictatorship by controlling market interest such that "voting with your dollars" creates widespread poverty and worse immediate problems than accepting the rule of the elite).
Yes, and government is meant to regulate and facilitate capitalism. Faced with a need, hundreds of frauds will try to sell you a useless product or service, and others will attempt to manufacture a need by such methods as causing you harm and selling you the means to repair said harm. Governments place regulations and laws providing standards and punishment for such actions so that such exchanges are voluntary and beneficial.
A digital signature is a hash that's been encrypted using a private key such that the public can verify its authenticity. Regardless of all attacks, if you have the public key, you can validate that the published hash is indeed published by a holder of the private key.
Verifying the digital signature of a download is done by computing the hash, verifying that hash, and verifying that the provided hash was encrypted with a public key matching a particular private key.
Tor basically said they're doing meaningless shit.
In this case, it's clear and well-understood that "Download" is used as a lay term to mean "save locally as a file". People don't consider downloading to memory as downloading in a general sense.
The same reasoning is also what makes the ridiculous ass dance TubeNinja is pulling a complete failure in court--and possible grounds for liability. If TubeNinja seriously tries to argue that their material, despite being clearly designed to market the downloading of YouTube content, is not liable because, while that would be illegal and a liability, they plainly state that you should check the TOS of the service you're accessing, the court might call bullshit on them and lay all kinds of penalties for trying to bullshit the court. It's like if a Tobacco company used children's shows to market cigarettes, but had the person Barney is smoking up in front of and passing a Camel to be an adult: the courts would call bullshit on claims that they're not targeting children in their advertisements, and the argument that Barney is an adult and is sharing his smokes with an adult would be wrapped round the end of a golf club and driven back into that lawyer's skull.
This is different with BitTorrent providers. The client legitimately allows you to access large, free downloads such as Linux DVD images, free music (mostly independent albums released for free by the artists), Gutenberg collections, and other such things. It's a major use case, and the clients aren't branded to allow you to download illegal content--unlike Kazaa and LimeWire advertising infinite free music from every band on the planet.
Not really. Without going into details, I've worked in projects (energy sector) where it was imperative to adopt new technology to immediately break into an emerging market (and we did it successfully). This was nothing like a pilot, but a massive, winner-takes-all overhaul.
I was speaking in the more-general sense. There are definitely cases in which an emerging market appears and you need to *move* to get in on it. In general, we are discussing existing markets (e.g. McDonalds serving hamburgers), and efforts which streamline our efficiency to reduce costs.
What you describe is similar to American Express in the 80s. AmEx was only able to handle several thousand customers at a fairly low load. As AmEx grew, the transactions per customer grew, the amount of data required for fraud analysis grew, and so the number of fraud analysts per 1,000 customers increased. That means AmEx could initially hire 1 analyst per 10,000 accounts, then it was 1 per 5,000, 1 per 1,000, 1 per 500, 1 per 50, and so forth. At 1 per 50, the cost of American Express's service is 200 TIMES HIGHER; and at a point, you'd have to hire multiple analysts per new account.
To handle this, American Express commissioned and had built the Authorizor's Assistant. American Express AA is an expert system which retrieves and assesses all data related to a financial transaction, determines the likelihood that the transaction is fraudulent, and then presents its decision, the data, its interpretation of the data (how and why each data point factored into the decision), and even a highlight of data it knows about but doesn't know how to analyze (things which are relevant but not understood by AA). The Authorizor's Assistant is over 70% more accurate and can handle a *much* higher volume of traffic than a lone Analyst, and so an Analyst using AA can process several hundred times as many transactions in the same time and with a much lower failure rate.
This is different than McDonalds being faced with possibly shaving 3 cents off the price of a hamburger today *or* trying to compete in a market where Wendy's and Burger King might have a slight price advantage in the hopes of shaving 30 cents off a hamburger in 3 years.
There is "should", and there is "is". I know for a fact that training used to be a business priority. Not anymore, not for the last 25 years.
Not disputed. Businesses can get anywhere from a dozen to several thousand applications for a single job posting, and now hire entire HR departments to sift through CVs and forward on the best potential candidates they can identify. Why would you take on the risk of bringing in an entrant early in the 18-month hiring cycle; shifting high-time, low-skill, easily-verified work from the expensive engineer to the rookie; and training the rookie OTJ and via tuition outlay? Sure you can pay the rookie less, plus tuition; and you pay that for at least a year relative to putting in the budget 18 months ahead of time, starting the hiring process after 12 months, and grabbing some well-experienced transient worker or someone who already came out of college and is desperate for a job and willing to take the low end of industry-standard salary (and cheap benefits!).
What happens when the government stops funding colleges? What happens when you can't just get an unsecured loan, when the state doesn't cut tuition back by 70% for in-state students, when tuition isn't covered by tax money? What happens when 90% of the population has no viable way to send themselves through intensive 4-year full-time college at the cost of lost earning potential (not working while schooling) and hellish tuition bills?
Suddenly the businesses have a choice: You can hire entrants and train them when the market doesn't have enough free-floating skilled labor to accomplish your business strategy; or you can whine about it while your competitor hires and trains entrants and stomps you into a bloody crater.
They
The topic is about "ERMAGEHRD WE SHOULD HAVE ALL 3RD GRADE GIRLS BECOME PROGRAMMARS!!!" Pointing out that software engineering and computer operation are different things and that one of these things is useful in general while the other one is not (as) useful to teach 100% of everyone as baseline knowledge is not pedantry; it's highlighting wrongwise thinking.
You do realize that you've just argued that if "U.S. fast food industry" was "forced" to pay minimum wage of $15 - they would have to let go 1.3 million of their 1.6 million employees?
False. Fast food workers aren't the only people with jobs. Did you really just argue that all U.S. jobs are fast food?
And that's NOT including increased purchasing power OR higher growth due to positive publicity.
All growth comes from consumer purchasing power, as consumers pay wages. You're concentrating the total income into fewer hands by paying some hands more income on purchases; that means there is necessarily LESS PURCHASING POWER.
The biggest defect in thinking is people going, "Oh, but the wage worker receives that money, so he has more buying power, and thus there's *more* buying power and *more* money moving around!" That doesn't work because the wage worker receives that money in the same time frame.
In other words: this year, $12 trillion are spent; if we raise minimum wage, $12 trillion are *still* spent, but somebody is receiving a bigger chunk of that--and somebody else is getting a smaller chunk. The cost of products has to adjust to factor that increased wage cost in, so those products which are supported by people whose wages increased are now more expensive, and the purchase of those precludes the purchase of some other product. Whoever's job supported those lost purchases is now no longer supportable, and that person becomes the "somebody else getting a smaller chunk"--as in UNEMPLOYED.
The next year around, the minimum wage employees have more buying power due to their more income... but the total buying power of all the wage income is less. It's reduced by the products which were output by the lost jobs. The poorest get richer, others of the poorest get poorer, the middle-class gets poorer.
I was more pointing at the "We just tax the company an additional 2080 hours at $8 per x the number of full-time equivalents(~20) that are now sitting at home" argument. That will lead to an increase in unemployment and a decrease in societal wealth, spreading poverty and harming the American worker.
Jobs aren't going away forever. We can mishandle the automation revolution and get 80% unemployment for 100 years, or we can cover ourselves by adjusting the tax structures and welfare systems to spread the job loss and increase the rate of job replacement so that unemployment only nudges up by a portion of a percent at any given time. If we do the latter, we'll hit maybe 5.2%-5.5% UE3, grit our teeth a little, and then roll back out of it into a world that looks ... well, like today's world looks to the 1990s.
Let's think about that for a second.
In 1990, we didn't have air bags, traction control, bluetooth or satellite radio, and the like; antilock brakes weren't even standard on all cars. Cell phones were the subject of movies and children's toys--enormous, boxy things that somehow functioned as a car phone without the car, if you had thousands of dollars to spend. Late-90s cell phones were little plastic bricks with buttons and an LCD screen; caller ID was a nifty feature; and we had some kind of plastic magnetic tape to answer the phone and record messages if we weren't home. PCs cost $2,000 (about $3,600 today), had a multi-hundred-megabyte hard drive, and a 66mhz CPU; in 1997, the Intel Pentium 2 broke the Pentium Pro's 200MHz speed limit, coming to market at rates of 233MHz to 300MHz.
In 1990, the average family spent 15% of their income on food, and 6% on clothing.
Today, we spend 11% of our income on food, and 3.5% on clothing. New cars still sell for 56% of the buyer's income based on median statistics across income demographics; they now come with traction control, multi-CD changers, USB, bluetooth connectivity, sun roofs, independent suspension, disc brakes, and all manner of upgraded engine systems such as EFI and electric power steering. $800 (the equivalent of $437 in 1990) buys me a PC with high-speed graphics, 3GHz 4-core CPU, 16GB of RAM, and a 250GB SSD or a 6,000GB hard drive--60 thousand times the storage of what we had in 1990! I'm carrying around this ridiculously powerful smart phone in my pocket, 4 cores, 1.9GHz ARM, 2GB RAM, and a display resolution several times the dimensions and with 26 times the pixels as the monitor I used on my 486.
We spend a little more on healthcare now, and we get more and better healthcare. It is newly possible to eliminate all homelessness and hunger in America. All manner of things have become cheaper, all manner of new things have come about.
That's happened because we've found more efficient ways to do things. That's not only globalization, although that's a big part of it. In 1790, 90% of Americans were farm workers; in 1900, it was 38%; in 1950, 18%; and today, it's under 2%. In 1900, we spent 43% of our income on food; 1950, 30%; today, 11%. We're paying fewer workers for less labor hours because we've replaced farm workers with *fewer* farm workers driving diesel machines and using fertilizers and pesticides and intensive farming methods. Some of the jobs have been displaced to machinery, energy, and chemistry (hence 2% farmers, but 11% of money--we have to pay the chemists and machinists, too); others have been displaced to business, medicine (lots of healthcare...), and bagging my groceries.
All of that because
They've been chasing profits while the rest of us suffer.
Please enlighten me how I should instead interpret this
Well, let's see what I actually said.
Our current producer market doesn't target that consumer market because it doesn't currently exist.
Gee, Larry, we could try to sell homes to this demographic of transient, unstable, minimum-wage workers! But wait... if we did that, they would frequently default on their leases, and not have money to cover damages they might cause. We would go swiftly out of business unless we raised their rents... but they wouldn't be able to afford that! There's no way for us to profit from this--or even break even. Let's just ignore them and do something else!
That consumer market DOESN'T EXIST. Businesses can't supply it because it can't purchase the service with sufficient reliability to keep businesses running. In other word:
it's not profitable to target him as a consumer from which to derive income through the business pursuit of providing food and shelter to individuals of that income level.
Compare that to the proposal, which is *less* income but...
The market adjustment is a 100% guarantee that every individual adult has that income as an absolute minimum; all current-market retail prices for the basic needs goods and services can profit off that consumer market.
Maybe if you were interested in actually looking for solutions instead of looking for people to attack, you'd see what was pasted right in front of your face. Instead, you're busy arguing that businesses should just magically provide unprofitable services and act as charities, and somehow keep operating when they have no capability to supply the service they're supposed to supply. Here's a hint: We can't actually take five loaves of bread and two fishes and feed 18,000,000 people, no matter how much you want to cry about how much humanity we should have about the whole thing.