1). This has never happened. In places where rents are increasing, the developers build high-end apartments and condos.
It doesn't matter. The supply of housing is still going up. Wealthier people will move to these nice new apartments and vacate where they are living now, freeing up housing for lower income people.
There is limited demand for "luxury" apartments. Builders will focus on them exclusively only where there are such severe restrictions on construction, that not even the demand for high end housing is being met.
To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages
Wages are unlikely to go up just because they "fight". Who exactly would they be fighting?
Better suggestion: They should spend, say, 5 minutes, learning about economics. Prices are high because of mismatched supply and demand. So either decrease the demand (unlikely), or increase the supply (easy: just issue some building permits, and relax height restrictions).
In the long term only 1/20 companies really make it.
Success of a technology is rarely correlated with the success of particular companies. Silicon Valley is littered with plaques marking the graves of semiconductor pioneering companies. Few of them survived. Yet semiconductors have been the greatest technological success since fire was tamed.
For another example, look at aviation. It took 66 years to go from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility. Yet how many airlines made money during those years? Almost none.
I chose not to pursue AI as a career and haven't suffered for that.
Learning Lisp would not have helped you. Modern AI uses mostly Python based libraries such as Tensorflow and PyTorch. C++ is used for performance critical stuff. Nobody uses Lisp for AI anymore. It was a dead end.
But even so, I hear these horror stories about how software developers are treated and I just have not seen it.
Me neither. I have worked for companies that had catered meals, free soda, laundry service, sky diving bonding trips, etc. I have had plenty of opportunities to travel. I have worked some late nights, and done a few death marches, but those only lasted a few weeks, out of a career lasting decades.
Software developers are likely the most spoiled employees in the history of the world.
Gee, I could have sworn we already HAD the AI craze back in the late 80s. Or was it early 90s?
It was the 1980s. It had faded long before 1990.
But there was an earlier AI craze in the 1960s, based on perceptrons. That faded by 1970.
The 1980 AI hype cycle was driven by "expert systems" and "Lisp machines".
The latest cycle started in 2006 with the publication of the seminal paper on deep learning, and has so far lasted far longer than any previous AI hype cycle.
Excessive hype is always followed by a trough of disillusionment. But as the TOD fades, plenty of mature, practical applications are likely to emerge. The technological naysayers are usually even more wrong than the hypesters.
I'm pretty pissed off that Meuller is investigating Trump and not Equifax.
In no way whatsoever are these alternative actions. Mueller would not be the right person to investigate Equifax anyway, since he doesn't grok technology.
The Equifax fiasco is not hard to understand. Unqualified people were placed in positions of authority, they made stupid decisions, and there were no mechanisms for underlings with better understanding to raise alarms.
But there are deeper systemic problems. Only in America do we rely on critical information being both secret and widely known. Mere knowledge of someone's SSN, DOB, and address should not be enough to clean out their bank account nor establish credit in their name. No other country has this problem. Until we fix our financial system, data breaches and identity theft will continue to be major problems.
So only greed and narcissism exists in Western Society?
Yes. That is why the 3rd world is so much more prosperous, and why so many Europeans and Americans are trying to illegally immigrate to Nigeria and El Salvador.
She should have moving wealth into secret accounts and portable property
She was a billionaire on paper, but her "wealth" was almost entirely in Theranos stock. Theranos was a private company so the stock was restricted, and she had no way to liquidate.
Indeed. Objecting to nukes because of safety is silly.
Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.
She knew she didn't have a viable product, and willingly defrauded investors.
It isn't that simple. The basic idea of using modern tech to lower the price and speed of blood tests was a good one. Her initial intention was almost certainly benign. Then the schedules slipped, and the tech wasn't quite working right. So she fibbed a little to buy some time to fix the kinks... but the kinks weren't so easy to fix... so she fibbed a little more, and faked a little more. But more problems came up, the schedule was falling further and further behind, and it became clear that the tech just wasn't working.
At this point she faced two choices:
1. Come clean. Admit she committed fraud. Lose everything. Get sued. Give up her life as a billionaire wonder woman, unicorn role model, and business magazine cover-girl.
There were a lot of people whose blood work went through this scam and may have had all sorts of false negatives that caused them harm or death.
Mostly they were doing conventional blood tests, and then passing on the results as if they had done the test themselves. It is not clear if there were any actually falsified results, nor that there were any patients harmed.
By faking the tests this way, they were losing money on every test, and eventually couldn't hide the loses anymore, so the fraud was exposed. Charles Ponzi ran into the same problem.
If I want to use my phone--guess what--I pull out my phone.
But then you still need to carry your phone with you everywhere you go.
That may be ok for you, but there are people out there that don't automatically think that something big and clunky is obviously better than something small and light that can do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
1). This has never happened. In places where rents are increasing, the developers build high-end apartments and condos.
It doesn't matter. The supply of housing is still going up. Wealthier people will move to these nice new apartments and vacate where they are living now, freeing up housing for lower income people.
There is limited demand for "luxury" apartments. Builders will focus on them exclusively only where there are such severe restrictions on construction, that not even the demand for high end housing is being met.
To me they're fighting the wrong battle - they should be fighting for higher wages
Wages are unlikely to go up just because they "fight". Who exactly would they be fighting?
Better suggestion: They should spend, say, 5 minutes, learning about economics. Prices are high because of mismatched supply and demand. So either decrease the demand (unlikely), or increase the supply (easy: just issue some building permits, and relax height restrictions).
In the long term only 1/20 companies really make it.
Success of a technology is rarely correlated with the success of particular companies. Silicon Valley is littered with plaques marking the graves of semiconductor pioneering companies. Few of them survived. Yet semiconductors have been the greatest technological success since fire was tamed.
For another example, look at aviation. It took 66 years to go from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility. Yet how many airlines made money during those years? Almost none.
You only count as a "true" naysayer if you are negative about an overhyped trend with groupies and fanbois, not about an obviously stupid idea.
The naysayers were right about the Segway, but that was an easy target, since it reached peak hype before it had even been shown to the public.
Other tech failures were Iridium, Zune, Pebble, Juicero. But none of these were hyped as world changing technology.
I chose not to pursue AI as a career and haven't suffered for that.
Learning Lisp would not have helped you. Modern AI uses mostly Python based libraries such as Tensorflow and PyTorch. C++ is used for performance critical stuff. Nobody uses Lisp for AI anymore. It was a dead end.
... see the working conditions and career options and go somewhere else.
Where do they go?
Doctors, lawyers and investment bankers work longer hours than programmers. Nearly everyone else makes less money.
Maybe they become underwater welders?
I mean, you would think they could just choose to turn off their devices
They don't want to just stop using Facebook, they want their NEIGHBORS to stop using it too.
This isn't about self-control. It is about controlling others, which is a near universal human desire.
But even so, I hear these horror stories about how software developers are treated and I just have not seen it.
Me neither. I have worked for companies that had catered meals, free soda, laundry service, sky diving bonding trips, etc. I have had plenty of opportunities to travel. I have worked some late nights, and done a few death marches, but those only lasted a few weeks, out of a career lasting decades.
Software developers are likely the most spoiled employees in the history of the world.
People will alway whine.
In the 90s it was all "knowledge-based systems" and in the noughties it was all "intelligent agents".
Yes, but those generated far less hype than what happened in the 60s, 80s, and teenies.
The big things in the 90s and noughties were the web and e-commerce.
Gee, I could have sworn we already HAD the AI craze back in the late 80s. Or was it early 90s?
It was the 1980s. It had faded long before 1990.
But there was an earlier AI craze in the 1960s, based on perceptrons. That faded by 1970.
The 1980 AI hype cycle was driven by "expert systems" and "Lisp machines".
The latest cycle started in 2006 with the publication of the seminal paper on deep learning, and has so far lasted far longer than any previous AI hype cycle.
Excessive hype is always followed by a trough of disillusionment. But as the TOD fades, plenty of mature, practical applications are likely to emerge. The technological naysayers are usually even more wrong than the hypesters.
Hype cycle
Well one 'solution' would have been to take some big loans collateralizing them with her Theranos position
She was almost certainly restricted from doing that by her agreement with the VCs. That is a standard clause of nearly all VC investment contracts.
Also, a bank would not accept private illiquid securities as collateral.
I'm pretty pissed off that Meuller is investigating Trump and not Equifax.
In no way whatsoever are these alternative actions. Mueller would not be the right person to investigate Equifax anyway, since he doesn't grok technology.
The Equifax fiasco is not hard to understand. Unqualified people were placed in positions of authority, they made stupid decisions, and there were no mechanisms for underlings with better understanding to raise alarms.
But there are deeper systemic problems. Only in America do we rely on critical information being both secret and widely known. Mere knowledge of someone's SSN, DOB, and address should not be enough to clean out their bank account nor establish credit in their name. No other country has this problem. Until we fix our financial system, data breaches and identity theft will continue to be major problems.
So only greed and narcissism exists in Western Society?
Yes. That is why the 3rd world is so much more prosperous, and why so many Europeans and Americans are trying to illegally immigrate to Nigeria and El Salvador.
The weak minded will always attach themselves to things, be it their phones or anything else.
Another sign of a weak mind is someone who need to validate his self worth by pointing out that everyone else has a weak mind.
https://xkcd.com/610/
She should have moving wealth into secret accounts and portable property
She was a billionaire on paper, but her "wealth" was almost entirely in Theranos stock. Theranos was a private company so the stock was restricted, and she had no way to liquidate.
help me God. Sigh. What's wrong with you guys?
If there is a god, perhaps He will help.
If there is no god, it can't hurt to ask.
Working for an employer you constantly seek to undermine is straight up bullshit.
The employer is the US government, not the president. Federal employees take an oath to support and defend the constitution.
Indeed. Objecting to nukes because of safety is silly.
Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.
No official lying when you run a publicly traded company
Theranos was not a public company.
You don't cross that line, ever.
You are too ethically constrained for the C-suite. I hope you enjoy your life in a cubicle.
She knew she didn't have a viable product, and willingly defrauded investors.
It isn't that simple. The basic idea of using modern tech to lower the price and speed of blood tests was a good one. Her initial intention was almost certainly benign. Then the schedules slipped, and the tech wasn't quite working right. So she fibbed a little to buy some time to fix the kinks ... but the kinks weren't so easy to fix ... so she fibbed a little more, and faked a little more. But more problems came up, the schedule was falling further and further behind, and it became clear that the tech just wasn't working.
At this point she faced two choices:
1. Come clean. Admit she committed fraud. Lose everything. Get sued. Give up her life as a billionaire wonder woman, unicorn role model, and business magazine cover-girl.
2. Double down on the lies.
What would you do?
There were a lot of people whose blood work went through this scam and may have had all sorts of false negatives that caused them harm or death.
Mostly they were doing conventional blood tests, and then passing on the results as if they had done the test themselves. It is not clear if there were any actually falsified results, nor that there were any patients harmed.
By faking the tests this way, they were losing money on every test, and eventually couldn't hide the loses anymore, so the fraud was exposed. Charles Ponzi ran into the same problem.
What I would like to see is star ratings on match.com.
THAT would be useful.
Do average Chinese people care about every move that Jeff Bezos makes?
Slashdot is not a site for "average" people.
If I want to use my phone--guess what--I pull out my phone.
But then you still need to carry your phone with you everywhere you go.
That may be ok for you, but there are people out there that don't automatically think that something big and clunky is obviously better than something small and light that can do the same thing.