No worries. We'll employ them writing articles about how robots are going to take all our jobs away.
Half can do that, and the other half can write about economic fallacies.
If automation really caused job losses and impoverishment, Western Civilization would have collapsed in the 1800s, and countries like Ethiopia and Afghanistan that wisely avoided the "productivity catastrophe" would dominate the world.
Digging out a basement isn't the issue. The issue is what do the basement diggers do for a paycheck when they're no longer needed.
Since the industrial revolution started three centuries ago, nearly all jobs have been eliminated by automation, starting with weaving and agriculture. Yet incomes have gone up 20-fold and we have a full employment economy.
PHP has more than a dozen different ways to connect to a database. PHP has a long history of glomming on new APIs, but never deprecating the old, even when shockingly insecure. This is especially bad for PHP because most of PHP's user base are low IQ Wordpress extension hackers who are not qualified to be making security decisions on their own.
You just slap on a post-processor. If the AI engine recommends that blacks should be denied bail at twice the rate of whites, the post-processor just makes a race-aware adjustment to the recommendation to give the result society is comfortable with. Problem solved.
The important thing is that you adjust the outputs, not the inputs.
We knew about Gennifer Flowers before the 1992 election. It was not disclosed by an investigation. Gennifer came forward on her own.
It was a consensual affair, so most voters didn't care. Americans tend to be selectively prudish, tolerating indiscretions in their allies while finding fault with their adversaries.
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
That is the point. Our government runs on sleaze, and HRC is a "normal" example of that sleaze.
So the choice was between a slimy politician and a slimy businessman. I don't know what the solution is, but our system is clearly broken if the only options were HRC and DJT.
One solution is instant-runoff voting, which was done in Maine and seems to work well. There were predictions that the voters would be too stupid to understand it, but that didn't happen in Maine.
Another (or additional) solution is open primaries. California has gone to open primaries for state, but not federal, elections. It seems to be working to elect more moderates, and weaken the power of political parties.
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour.
The whole point of the foundation was to provide an entity to collect donations. Public officials should not be creating or running foundations or any other donation-collecting organizations. HRC's foundation was an inherent and intentional conflict of interest.
But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser?.
Absolutely. Political donations should go through normal channels, with standard rules and oversight. There should have been no backdoor.
relying on attrition, early retirements or at least providing a reasonable heads-up to those affected.
Attrition means the best people leave, because they have the greatest opportunities elsewhere.
Offering early retirement is similar, good people leave, and they are stuck with the dregs.
Giving people a "heads-up" means you have people on payroll for weeks or months that know they are being cut, are not doing much useful work, and are dragging down morale.
Oracle made the cuts in the best way they could. If a product line is being ended, it is silly to keep people around with no useful work to do. It is bad for them, it is bad for Oracle, and it is bad for the wider economy.
If your only argument is "people will do it anyway", there's pretty much no point in having laws.
Many people will "do it anyway", and I occasionally do so myself if the road is straight and empty. But I do it much less, and when I return a missed call and say "Sorry, I couldn't take your call because I was driving", even my boss accepts that answer, because it is the law.
Am I the only person here who has no idea what OTT means?
Neither the summary nor TFA defines the what OTT means. According to Google it means "Over The Top", and refers to a box that sits on top of a TV set-top box to give additional services and content. But since services like YouTube Premium don't actually involve any physical device, the term has become disconnected from its origin.
Then you end up with a non-representative sample. People that actually understand business, economics, or technology, would have the highest opportunity costs, and thus the greatest incentive to weasel out with an exemption. So you end up with the country being run by bored housewives, the jobless, and liberal-arts majors.
Also, you are assuming randomly chosen people would be less corruptible. Speaking only for myself, with no need to run for reelection or to satisfy a constituency, I would be happy to sell my vote, and go on "fact finding trips" to Maui.
A sample size of 34 is more than enough to establish statistical significance for the effect they measured. It is a common fallacy among non-statisticians to believe that a large sample size is needed for statistical significance, or that a larger sample size is needed for a larger population.
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol, and there are scientific studies connecting e-cig availability to higher nicotine addiction among young people. No such connection has been shown between addiction and candy flavored booze. So they are not comparable.
Why does the US need to risk its own intelligence to provide evidence to nations that are been given US intelligence?
If the US could demonstrate a Huawei router collecting and transmitting data, or show how the firmware is compromised, how would that "risk" US intelligence? It would be disclosing facts that China would presumably already know.
They haven't demonstrated anything because they have no evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
No worries. We'll employ them writing articles about how robots are going to take all our jobs away.
Half can do that, and the other half can write about economic fallacies.
If automation really caused job losses and impoverishment, Western Civilization would have collapsed in the 1800s, and countries like Ethiopia and Afghanistan that wisely avoided the "productivity catastrophe" would dominate the world.
Digging out a basement isn't the issue. The issue is what do the basement diggers do for a paycheck when they're no longer needed.
Since the industrial revolution started three centuries ago, nearly all jobs have been eliminated by automation, starting with weaving and agriculture. Yet incomes have gone up 20-fold and we have a full employment economy.
So why isn't it used on a wide scale ?
Because mining new uranium is way cheaper than reprocessing highly radioactive waste.
PHP has more than a dozen different ways to connect to a database. PHP has a long history of glomming on new APIs, but never deprecating the old, even when shockingly insecure. This is especially bad for PHP because most of PHP's user base are low IQ Wordpress extension hackers who are not qualified to be making security decisions on their own.
You just slap on a post-processor. If the AI engine recommends that blacks should be denied bail at twice the rate of whites, the post-processor just makes a race-aware adjustment to the recommendation to give the result society is comfortable with. Problem solved.
The important thing is that you adjust the outputs, not the inputs.
True, but a square going "BIP! Boop!" doesn't present much moral dilemma.
It is very easy to dehumanize a rectangular paddle, but it is a slippery slope from there to blasting spaceships.
It took a bit over a decade and a half before video games presented anything like realistic imagery.
Once pixels depict realistic images, we need laws to protect them.
The modern gaming era is almost 50 years old.
... and the first moral panic about games corrupting the youth came a few months later.
We knew about Gennifer Flowers before the 1992 election. It was not disclosed by an investigation. Gennifer came forward on her own.
It was a consensual affair, so most voters didn't care. Americans tend to be selectively prudish, tolerating indiscretions in their allies while finding fault with their adversaries.
Seriously, these crazies think their precious free speech protects them from consequences of their stupid actions at endangering their kids' life.
Not as crazy as the people who think the solution to stupidity is to get rid of free speech.
On the other hand, offering some severance and help finding the next job ...
Oracle is offering severance, and anyone who can't find a new job in today's economy has no pulse.
Who would you have chosen instead?
For the 2016 presidential election:
Republican: John Kasich
Democrat: Tim Kaine
Or two candidates with similar ethics, executive experience, temperament, and political realism.
In a 3-way instant run-off, either of these guys would have easily beat HRC and DJT.
It's highly problematic, but it's how the system works, Clinton was entirely normal in that regard.
That is the point. Our government runs on sleaze, and HRC is a "normal" example of that sleaze.
So the choice was between a slimy politician and a slimy businessman. I don't know what the solution is, but our system is clearly broken if the only options were HRC and DJT.
One solution is instant-runoff voting, which was done in Maine and seems to work well. There were predictions that the voters would be too stupid to understand it, but that didn't happen in Maine.
Another (or additional) solution is open primaries. California has gone to open primaries for state, but not federal, elections. It seems to be working to elect more moderates, and weaken the power of political parties.
She wasn't corrupt, sure people donated to her charitable foundation with the hopes of gaining some favour.
The whole point of the foundation was to provide an entity to collect donations. Public officials should not be creating or running foundations or any other donation-collecting organizations. HRC's foundation was an inherent and intentional conflict of interest.
But would you prefer they donated to her campaign or PAC instead? Or hosted a fundraiser?.
Absolutely. Political donations should go through normal channels, with standard rules and oversight. There should have been no backdoor.
relying on attrition, early retirements or at least providing a reasonable heads-up to those affected.
Attrition means the best people leave, because they have the greatest opportunities elsewhere.
Offering early retirement is similar, good people leave, and they are stuck with the dregs.
Giving people a "heads-up" means you have people on payroll for weeks or months that know they are being cut, are not doing much useful work, and are dragging down morale.
Oracle made the cuts in the best way they could. If a product line is being ended, it is silly to keep people around with no useful work to do. It is bad for them, it is bad for Oracle, and it is bad for the wider economy.
If your only argument is "people will do it anyway", there's pretty much no point in having laws.
Many people will "do it anyway", and I occasionally do so myself if the road is straight and empty. But I do it much less, and when I return a missed call and say "Sorry, I couldn't take your call because I was driving", even my boss accepts that answer, because it is the law.
Am I the only person here who has no idea what OTT means?
Neither the summary nor TFA defines the what OTT means. According to Google it means "Over The Top", and refers to a box that sits on top of a TV set-top box to give additional services and content. But since services like YouTube Premium don't actually involve any physical device, the term has become disconnected from its origin.
Um, no. Viruses use RNA, not DNA.
Retroviruses use RNA. Most viruses use DNA.
Since RNA is less stable, retroviruses have a higher mutation rate. Influenza is a retrovirus.
Virus classification
The sample size for California was only 8717 people out of over 40 million.
That sample size is plenty big enough. The sample size needed for statistical significance is independent of the population size.
Worse than that, if you only publish one out of 20 studies, you are reporting noise.
All publicly funded research should be published.
Often the failed experiments are more important than the successes.
Where would we be today if Michelson and Morley hadn't published their failure to measure the ether?
Um, exemption?
Then you end up with a non-representative sample. People that actually understand business, economics, or technology, would have the highest opportunity costs, and thus the greatest incentive to weasel out with an exemption. So you end up with the country being run by bored housewives, the jobless, and liberal-arts majors.
Also, you are assuming randomly chosen people would be less corruptible. Speaking only for myself, with no need to run for reelection or to satisfy a constituency, I would be happy to sell my vote, and go on "fact finding trips" to Maui.
California already has the 2nd lowest rate of tobacco smoking, behind only Utah.
Colorado and Washington are well below average.
West Virginia and Kentucky are the worst.
Cigarette smoking by state
A sample size of 34 is more than enough to establish statistical significance for the effect they measured. It is a common fallacy among non-statisticians to believe that a large sample size is needed for statistical significance, or that a larger sample size is needed for a larger population.
Here is the original paper.
There may be problems with this research, but "sample size" is not one of them.
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol, and there are scientific studies connecting e-cig availability to higher nicotine addiction among young people. No such connection has been shown between addiction and candy flavored booze. So they are not comparable.
Why does the US need to risk its own intelligence to provide evidence to nations that are been given US intelligence?
If the US could demonstrate a Huawei router collecting and transmitting data, or show how the firmware is compromised, how would that "risk" US intelligence? It would be disclosing facts that China would presumably already know.
They haven't demonstrated anything because they have no evidence.
I wouldn't let Huawei build my phone infrastructure any more than I'd voluntarily feed my private phone conversations to the NSA.
I would let Huawei build my phone infrastructure to protect my private phone conversations from the NSA.