1. Mirrors don't cost $0.50. A side mirror assembly can cost over $100. 2. Mirrors have blind spots. Cameras don't. 3. Side mirrors create drag, increasing fuel consumption. 4. Side mirrors limit car-to-car parking distance for self-parking cars. 5. Rear view cameras and displays are already mandatory on all new cars, so the mirrors are redundant.
I am not the GPP, but I, and many people I know, stopped contributing to Wikipedia when content that we had invested hundreds of hours into creating was summarily deleted by some teenage editor with a Napoleon Complex.
In my case, the articles were either technical or refered to locations or recurring events. None were political, biased, or offensive. The rationale give was that they were "not notable". Yet they were clearly notable to the hundreds of people that read them monthly, and were invisible to the people that didn't read them.
Today, years later, most of the pages are back, written by other people, but are less accurate, more poorly written, and are missing much of the previous detail.
If we allow cosmologists to be unlicensed, the entire universe could collapse into a black hole. There is some evidence that this is already happening. That is far worse than a bad haircut.
I'm not proposing training subsidies, just some form of UBI.
Before proposing a solution, you need to establish that the problem exists. Are people actually losing jobs to automation?
Countries that have extensively automated include America, Western Europe, and Japan. Countries that have not include Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Haiti. Are the 2nd group better off because they avoided the "productivity catastrophe"?
In the past, automation has caused some dislocation, but has resulted in higher living standards, and greater demand for labor. This is an example of Jevon's paradox, but it really isn't a paradox at all. If you are a factory owner, and you are installing machinery that can double the production of each worker, and double your profits from each worker, would you fire half of them, or hire more?
Some people claim that "this time is different" because the change is happening faster. The evidence says otherwise. Productivity growth is slowing down. The easy-to-automate manufacturing jobs are already automated, and service jobs, which are now 80% of the economy, are proving much harder to automate.
First, we don't necessarily know what jobs to train them for
A common policy is to offer tax incentives or other subsidies to employers to hire less skilled workers and train them for real jobs. The obvious employer response is to take the subsidies and apply them to people that they would have hired anyway, or to even fire existing workers to replace them with effectively cheaper "trainees".
There is little evidence that government programs to encourage training are actually effective... but there is also little evidence that automation is actually causing job losses, so training subsidies are a bad solution to a problem that may not even exist.
Here's what would happen: 1. Employment would go up as lots of jobs are created for bankruptcy lawyers. 2. Millions of students will engage in "intentional bankruptcy", shedding assets and accumulating unpayable debt just before graduation. 3. As default rates soar, a trillion dollar hole will be added to the national debt. 4. To cover the cost, middle class taxes will be raised, including many people that didn't go to college and who earn less than the graduates they are subsidizing, exacerbating income inequality. 5. Since student loans no longer have to be repaid, students will take on far more. 6. Debt and regressive taxes will go even higher. 7. In the face of a voter revolt, the student loan program will be abolished.
Hiring good people is a critical competency. It is what separates great companies from mediocre companies. It is amazing how many companies assign tech resume screening to a 22 year old HR intern with a liberal arts degree and a nose ring.
"Starting salary $50,000 for no experience or qualifications. Salary range is extremely flexible based on qualifications and experience. If you have the experience and/or qualifications, do not hesitate to apply."
Such a vague and broad statement is absolutely useless to anyone.
We're all nerds here, so if technology isn't solving the problem the answer is MORE TECH. In this case the obvious solution is user reviews, which are conspicuously missing from dating sites. I am a solid four-star guy, and I realize that five-star chicks are out of my league, but I also don't want to waste time on two-star and three-star women. It would be great if I could downvote women whose photoshopped pictures don't match reality.
The converse of that is people who would qualify for your high-end would end up having to troll though a bunch of low-paying positions
My "high end" is $1M or more. Do you really think I should say that in the hope that Jeff Dean is reading Craigslist ads? That would waste the time of far, far more people, since I would not offer a salary like that to the other 99.9999%.
Of course I could state a range, but that isn't really helpful either, since an applicant would have little idea where in that range they will be.
Some candidates put an "expected salary" on their resume, and that is helpful, especially if it is reasonable and consistent with their experience.
I also try to talk to people on the phone before inviting them for a F2F interview, and I always discuss ballpark salary expectations during the call, so we don't waste each other's time.
Control what you eat (salt, beverage size, etc), Take away your guns, Indoctrinate your children in meaningless head-start programs as soon as they're potty-trained, Regulate waterways that only exist after heavy rains, Force everyone to buy healthcare coverage as dictated by government, Bans books from libraries because they deal factually with historic race relation,
What's your point? Libertarians don't want to do any of those things either. But self-described "conservatives" want to do plenty of authoritarian crap that is the antithesis of "classical liberalism".
I don't understand why a company does not publish salary as part of a job posting.
Because the salary offered depends on the candidate. My company is currently attempting to fill several developer positions. For the skill and experience we are seeking, we will likely pay about $150k in base salary. But if a bright but inexperienced youngling applies, we will offer significantly less. On the other hand, if Jeff Dean applies, we would be happy to go ten times higher. If we include the salary in the ad, the youngling shows up for the interview with unrealistic expectation, and Jeff Dean never applies. So we just say "competitive compensation" and leave it at that.
Most "conservatives" today aren't really conservative by the classical definition. They are classical liberals.
Libertarians are classical liberals. Conservatives are classical authoritarians. Classical liberals didn't build walls, start trade wars, vote for massive debt increases, and cozy up to foreign dictators.
They've worked really hard since then to push the worst of those associations onto the right.
Slashdot Mirror
All progress involves some failures. America used to accept failures. Today we avoid progress.
1. Mirrors don't cost $0.50. A side mirror assembly can cost over $100.
2. Mirrors have blind spots. Cameras don't.
3. Side mirrors create drag, increasing fuel consumption.
4. Side mirrors limit car-to-car parking distance for self-parking cars.
5. Rear view cameras and displays are already mandatory on all new cars, so the mirrors are redundant.
CoinHive defaults to using 40% or less of your CPU.
How is that possible? CoinHive is JavaScript. JavaScript runs in a sandbox, and does not have access to CPU usage info.
For those that don't like this policy, there are Coin-Hive blockers.
Soon, instead of complaining about your ad-blocker, media sites will complain about your mining-blocker.
Energy storage alone would eat up most of the bonus you get from zero-G.
Why would you need to store energy? The lack of atmosphere means the sun is twice as bright, and it doesn't set. There is no "night" in space.
It's already a junkyard in near earth orbit.
We can clean up LEO with a laser broom.
The number of jobs is finite.
Lump of Labor Fallacy
Care to justify yourself?
I am not the GPP, but I, and many people I know, stopped contributing to Wikipedia when content that we had invested hundreds of hours into creating was summarily deleted by some teenage editor with a Napoleon Complex.
In my case, the articles were either technical or refered to locations or recurring events. None were political, biased, or offensive. The rationale give was that they were "not notable". Yet they were clearly notable to the hundreds of people that read them monthly, and were invisible to the people that didn't read them.
Today, years later, most of the pages are back, written by other people, but are less accurate, more poorly written, and are missing much of the previous detail.
My time and donations now go elsewhere.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If we allow cosmologists to be unlicensed, the entire universe could collapse into a black hole. There is some evidence that this is already happening. That is far worse than a bad haircut.
I'm not proposing training subsidies, just some form of UBI.
Before proposing a solution, you need to establish that the problem exists. Are people actually losing jobs to automation?
Countries that have extensively automated include America, Western Europe, and Japan. Countries that have not include Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Haiti. Are the 2nd group better off because they avoided the "productivity catastrophe"?
In the past, automation has caused some dislocation, but has resulted in higher living standards, and greater demand for labor. This is an example of Jevon's paradox, but it really isn't a paradox at all. If you are a factory owner, and you are installing machinery that can double the production of each worker, and double your profits from each worker, would you fire half of them, or hire more?
Some people claim that "this time is different" because the change is happening faster. The evidence says otherwise. Productivity growth is slowing down. The easy-to-automate manufacturing jobs are already automated, and service jobs, which are now 80% of the economy, are proving much harder to automate.
First, we don't necessarily know what jobs to train them for
A common policy is to offer tax incentives or other subsidies to employers to hire less skilled workers and train them for real jobs. The obvious employer response is to take the subsidies and apply them to people that they would have hired anyway, or to even fire existing workers to replace them with effectively cheaper "trainees".
There is little evidence that government programs to encourage training are actually effective ... but there is also little evidence that automation is actually causing job losses, so training subsidies are a bad solution to a problem that may not even exist.
let student loans be dishcahnged in bankruptcy!
Here's what would happen:
1. Employment would go up as lots of jobs are created for bankruptcy lawyers.
2. Millions of students will engage in "intentional bankruptcy", shedding assets and accumulating unpayable debt just before graduation.
3. As default rates soar, a trillion dollar hole will be added to the national debt.
4. To cover the cost, middle class taxes will be raised, including many people that didn't go to college and who earn less than the graduates they are subsidizing, exacerbating income inequality.
5. Since student loans no longer have to be repaid, students will take on far more.
6. Debt and regressive taxes will go even higher.
7. In the face of a voter revolt, the student loan program will be abolished.
Security cameras need verifiable cryptographic signatures on both the timestamp and the frame contents right now.
Says who? My company has security cameras, and I can assure you that they do not encrypt anything. Are we breaking the law?
Amazon sells dozens of security cameras. None of the descriptions mention any encryption other than for the Wifi connection.
when it completely falls on its face I bet it will be even funnier than the way content-aware fill blows up.
Just put the failures into the training set, re-run backprop, and deploy the upgraded NN.
Stop forcing them to install backdoors and you solve half of all internet security problems.
Can you cite even a single breach that was enabled by a government mandated backdoor?
Hiring good people is a critical competency. It is what separates great companies from mediocre companies. It is amazing how many companies assign tech resume screening to a 22 year old HR intern with a liberal arts degree and a nose ring.
Doesn't american left look authoritarian to you?
Yes. What's your point? That doesn't mean conservatives are "classical liberals".
"Starting salary $50,000 for no experience or qualifications. Salary range is extremely flexible based on qualifications and experience. If you have the experience and/or qualifications, do not hesitate to apply."
Such a vague and broad statement is absolutely useless to anyone.
We're all nerds here, so if technology isn't solving the problem the answer is MORE TECH. In this case the obvious solution is user reviews, which are conspicuously missing from dating sites. I am a solid four-star guy, and I realize that five-star chicks are out of my league, but I also don't want to waste time on two-star and three-star women. It would be great if I could downvote women whose photoshopped pictures don't match reality.
The converse of that is people who would qualify for your high-end would end up having to troll though a bunch of low-paying positions
My "high end" is $1M or more. Do you really think I should say that in the hope that Jeff Dean is reading Craigslist ads? That would waste the time of far, far more people, since I would not offer a salary like that to the other 99.9999%.
Of course I could state a range, but that isn't really helpful either, since an applicant would have little idea where in that range they will be.
Some candidates put an "expected salary" on their resume, and that is helpful, especially if it is reasonable and consistent with their experience.
I also try to talk to people on the phone before inviting them for a F2F interview, and I always discuss ballpark salary expectations during the call, so we don't waste each other's time.
So it's conservatives that want to:
Control what you eat (salt, beverage size, etc),
Take away your guns,
Indoctrinate your children in meaningless head-start programs as soon as they're potty-trained,
Regulate waterways that only exist after heavy rains,
Force everyone to buy healthcare coverage as dictated by government,
Bans books from libraries because they deal factually with historic race relation,
What's your point? Libertarians don't want to do any of those things either. But self-described "conservatives" want to do plenty of authoritarian crap that is the antithesis of "classical liberalism".
Try to grow up a little and stop simply relying on the stereotypes
I am not relying on stereotypes. I am relying on the official actions and stated policies of the party and their national leaders:
A majority of the Republican party (74%) supports building the wall.
Congressional Republicans just voted for a budget that adds $1.5 trillion to the national debt.
Several Republicans have been indicted for colluding with Putin and Russian hackers.
Does any of this sound like "classical liberalism"?
Then you open the programming book that came with the computer.
How many 10 year olds could understand that manual?
How many 10 year olds can understand an animated tutorial for Scratch?
back in the 80's, kids could do it all with NO ASSISTANCE WHATSOEVER if they were interested.
For a very small percentage of intelligent self-motivated kids, I am sure that was true. But it is EVEN EASIER TODAY. Barriers have gone down.
I don't understand why a company does not publish salary as part of a job posting.
Because the salary offered depends on the candidate. My company is currently attempting to fill several developer positions. For the skill and experience we are seeking, we will likely pay about $150k in base salary. But if a bright but inexperienced youngling applies, we will offer significantly less. On the other hand, if Jeff Dean applies, we would be happy to go ten times higher. If we include the salary in the ad, the youngling shows up for the interview with unrealistic expectation, and Jeff Dean never applies. So we just say "competitive compensation" and leave it at that.
Most "conservatives" today aren't really conservative by the classical definition. They are classical liberals.
Libertarians are classical liberals. Conservatives are classical authoritarians. Classical liberals didn't build walls, start trade wars, vote for massive debt increases, and cozy up to foreign dictators.
They've worked really hard since then to push the worst of those associations onto the right.
They had a lot of help with that from the right.