I bought an iPad. Apple repeatedly broke it until I became unwilling even bother with it. That taught me I definitely didn't want an iPhone.
Watching my SO fight with hers merely confirmed my decision. Her next phone will be an Android-based model, because she's watched mine consistently work with very few problems, and no significant problems at all.
Bottom line, Android works well enough, and yes, just pre-ordered a new one (S9+.) It still has a headphone jack. And a memory card. And no "notch." I appreciate the cowardice it takes not to screw the customer in the name of absurd rationalizations.
There's no plus about it, unless you believe tomorrow isn't coming. Eventually, it'll all be automated. The only thing stopping this is the lack of capability today.
The job availability in fast food joints is beginning to close. If you can't see that, you're simply not paying attention.
I'd be surprised if anyone working fast-food ever worked an 11 hr day, that would be overtime in some places, more likely they'd work two shifts of 6 or 7hrs.
You failed to understand: SOME worker making x$/hour works 11 hours a day there, because they are open 11 hours a day. Might be one, two, or four workers. Doesn't matter. The point is, the business pays for such a worker for all 11 hours. Or, they don't pay a robot per hour, just initial acquisition + maintenance. So that's the cost to the business for that position. Which is what you would reasonably compare to the cost of having a robot in that position.
A rule of thumb is a worker costs twice their salary, so your $9.00/hr worker is going to cost about $72K
That's not applicable here. A burger flipper adds a few k, no more, to costs, mostly via taxes, because they typically receive no benefits and they have few other costs. Even so, to whatever extent the cost is higher than the $/hour wage, it simply makes the point further.
Let's say a Caliburger grill cook - a burger flipper - makes $9/hr. This is what Caliburger pays for a "prep" position. It may be more than that; Caliburger pays up to $11/hr for a lead cashier, but we'll go with the lowball.
Caliburger is open from 11am to 10 pm, or a total of 11 hours a day. The fry cook position has to be paid all those hours - not to the same employee in order to avoid overtime, but still, all the hours are worked in that position, so this is a fair way to look at the costs.
That's $9 x 11 hours x 365 days, which is $36,135.00 gross salary costs. Now add the per-employee tax overhead, and you're pretty near $40,000.00 / year, not counting any other costs such as uniforms, cleaning uniforms, liability insurance, employee benefits if any, etc. But you know what? We won't even count the tax costs. So:
The robot costs $60,000.00 (minimum... I presume there are added-cost options, but for $60k you get your burger flipper replaced, so we'll just focus on that.)
Let's look at a 5-year cost comparison, which I am presuming is the lifespan of the robot. That's very conservative in terms of hardware, but let's assume that a much better model will be made available and purchased within 5 years.
o The robot costs $60k x 1... which is $60,000.00 o The employee costs $36,135.00 x 5, which is $180,675.00
This means that in 5 years, Caliburger saves somewhere in the range of $120,000.00 by moving this job from an employee to the robot.
This is at $9 per hour. Not $15 per hour.
Which I've shown here is that the assumption that a raise to $15 / hour is what will create the motivation for a business like Caliburger to utilize a robot like this is nonsense.
The motivation already exists at the lowest income levels Caliburger is already providing. Sure, there's an even better case to be made for a $15 / hour wage, but the point is, the case was already made.
So no, the $15 minimum wage has nothing to do with this at all.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on this article shows something like 100 million modern processors (adjusted for modern speed increases) are currently required to simulate the human brain in real time. That can be significantly reduced with specially designed hardware, but it shows that we've got a ways to go before we reach that threshold in any practical manner.
Here's the thing. There's no assurance that the only way to achieve intelligence is the way the human brain does. So it may be premature to link the rise of AI with a complete-ish replication of the human brain's structure and/or capacity.
There are many things a microprocessor can do better than we can. Some of those things may be leveraged, eventually, into a non-human intelligence. Some of this is obvious: We can do image recog, voice recog, etc with (relatively) simple ML engines. Every sense that can be built without committing a ton of brain to it - or IOW, the way we do it - reduces the amount of 'ware that has to be put into play to get the rest of the way towards the various goal lines. Not to mention senses we don't even have - radar, sonar, thermal, radiation, telescopes of radio, light, x-ray etc., data loads, you name it, it could be a sense. And we can do a lot of that very easily.
The day may not be all that far away when it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, and we'll just go, hey, look... a duck.
Having said that, yes, we know the brain works, and so we know it can be done that way. And I am absolutely sure (barring super volcanos, asteroids, comets, or someone pushing The Button) that we'll get there. I'm just not all that sure that copying the human brain will be the first to that particular finish line.
This sort of authoritarian thinking scares me a hell of a lot more than their supposed "AI threats".
No need to worry. Anyone with the skills - which are hardly difficult to acquire - can cook up ML in their basement, garage, warehouse, dorm, wherever. When actual AI comes along, same thing. It's just a matter of the right code. Even if people have relatively low-end hardware, that just means they will have relatively slow ML/AI; after all, if you pass a problem requiring intelligence to solve it and it's handed back a minute later, or two days later, with the same, correct answer - you still have the same AI. Just slower. At which point it can be distributed and better hardware applied.
There is simply no way, as in absolutely none, to stop this kind of technology within the bounds of people still owning general-purpose computers. And we already have them, so the cat is well and truly out of the bag.
As the technical level advances, so will ML, and as ML advances, AI will certainly pop up at one point or another. There's no doubt about it, unless you think brains are magic rather than [chemistry/electricity/topology] (and if you do, you're going to be very surprised at some point, although you'll have a period of illusion during which you can be calm, just like the one when people thought airplanes were impossible.)
In any case, don't worry about politicos and academics bloviating about "restricting" ML/AI. Can't be done. That ship has sailed.
So resurrecting abandoned servers -- which means that people can't play those games -- would hurt their business?
No, it means that people can play those games. They don't want that.
Their new games suck so badly that players would instantly drop them for the older versions.
Not quite, but it will mean some people play the older games without the revenue from that going into their pockets. This (a) could reduce new-game purchases and/or play, and (b) means that abandoning software (something they all do) implies that they are abandoning the rights to that software, an idea that scares them silly, because their entire business model is based upon providing a temporary product that they have complete control over so they can make you buy again, and again, and again until your patience finally runs out.
I am 100% in favor of the idea that if the software developer stops supporting the software, they lose ALL rights to controlling its use by the people who purchased it. If they want the benefits from providing a thing, then they have to support that thing. Support gone? Benefits gone.
Apple wants to hide the absolute path from users so they force me to do contortions to see what directory I am in.
I just checked, and in all four view modes, clicking on a file or folder in Finder shows the full path to the file and the filename at the bottom of the finder window. This is in OS X 10.12.6.
There's some truth to that, but the real question is which party will MAGA?
Neither one. They're both engaged in screwing it up for most people. Not for themselves, of course.
There are definitely differences, though. The Democrats (at present) aren't as utterly corrupt as the Republicans. I suspect that'll turn around with the next pendulum swing. Because American voters just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that putting the rich in power will not result in a generally favorable outcome for everyone else.
The parent comment wins the thread as far as I'm concerned.
Watching entertainment as entertainment is entirely pendant upon your ability to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ideas. Kids tend to have fewer disbeliefs to need to suspend, so they're good at taking a movie as entertainment.
If your idea of consuming these things is to analyze and pick them apart wherever possible, then you're going to be a lot less entertained unless simply being a whiny bitch entertains you. I have to say that listening to someone take apart a movie doesn't make me think less of the movie...
As a developer I am wary of closed platforms... but I build apps there anyway because, as Willie Sutton once said, "Thats where the money is."
and...
This is why we can't have nice things
Along these lines, I think it's also worth discussing "the cloud" and "subscriptions", because both are mechanisms where control is deferred to the owner/operator of those things - software / functionality will fail when (not it, but when) the cloud / subscription goes away or changes according to the whim of the operator.
These are all trends, along with centralization, that are strongly anti-user. I was initially surprised to see any of them gain traction, but then I thought about how many other things people support directly or indirectly that are obviously counter to their longer-term interests... this is more of the same.
The only people who can protect users from this kind of garbage are the developers. We don't have to jump on every new thing, and personally, I think we owe it to the users to look more carefully at the downsides before we adopt The New Shiny, regardless from whence it comes.
You missed the part where mindless outrage was the only signal the GP was on about.:)
I don't mind paying for content this way. It's a form of micropayment that does not involve ads. Yeah, it actually hits the wallet - at least if you're paying for your own electricity it does. But if the site has decent content (Salon... dubious, but perhaps I'd read there sometimes) and if the mining only occurs when I'm actually on the site, I'd be okay with it. It sure as heck beats being pummeled by ads. I have plenty of CPU power available. Especially if it's not being consumed animating some bullshit ad.
People in the public sector spend the majority of their time coming up with useless ways to justify their existence.
The thing you didn't mention explicitly is that coming up with these things is not useless to them.
Unless a way can be found to make it so, they'll keep doing it, and their power extends strongly downward, while ours extends upwards in a very weak and diffused manner. Even that may be an illusion; the number of non-establishment legislators who are willing to reform the various agencies with regulatory power are few indeed: we can't seem to get out of the two-party imposed oligarchy at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought an iPad. Apple repeatedly broke it until I became unwilling even bother with it. That taught me I definitely didn't want an iPhone.
Watching my SO fight with hers merely confirmed my decision. Her next phone will be an Android-based model, because she's watched mine consistently work with very few problems, and no significant problems at all.
Bottom line, Android works well enough, and yes, just pre-ordered a new one (S9+.) It still has a headphone jack. And a memory card. And no "notch." I appreciate the cowardice it takes not to screw the customer in the name of absurd rationalizations.
Well, 12.5%, counting everyone (probably shouldn't do that either, so at least somewhat nearer 14%.)
But only if you assume that no one has ever bought more than one iPhone.
Do you think that's a valid assumption?
There's no plus about it, unless you believe tomorrow isn't coming. Eventually, it'll all be automated. The only thing stopping this is the lack of capability today.
The job availability in fast food joints is beginning to close. If you can't see that, you're simply not paying attention.
Wages aren't stopping robots. Capability is stopping robots. When that wall falls, the worker goes. It's not even a contest.
You failed to understand: SOME worker making x$/hour works 11 hours a day there, because they are open 11 hours a day. Might be one, two, or four workers. Doesn't matter. The point is, the business pays for such a worker for all 11 hours. Or, they don't pay a robot per hour, just initial acquisition + maintenance. So that's the cost to the business for that position. Which is what you would reasonably compare to the cost of having a robot in that position.
That's not applicable here. A burger flipper adds a few k, no more, to costs, mostly via taxes, because they typically receive no benefits and they have few other costs. Even so, to whatever extent the cost is higher than the $/hour wage, it simply makes the point further.
Let me show you how this works out:
Let's say a Caliburger grill cook - a burger flipper - makes $9/hr. This is what Caliburger pays for a "prep" position. It may be more than that; Caliburger pays up to $11/hr for a lead cashier, but we'll go with the lowball.
Caliburger is open from 11am to 10 pm, or a total of 11 hours a day. The fry cook position has to be paid all those hours - not to the same employee in order to avoid overtime, but still, all the hours are worked in that position, so this is a fair way to look at the costs.
That's $9 x 11 hours x 365 days, which is $36,135.00 gross salary costs. Now add the per-employee tax overhead, and you're pretty near $40,000.00 / year, not counting any other costs such as uniforms, cleaning uniforms, liability insurance, employee benefits if any, etc. But you know what? We won't even count the tax costs. So:
The robot costs $60,000.00 (minimum... I presume there are added-cost options, but for $60k you get your burger flipper replaced, so we'll just focus on that.)
Let's look at a 5-year cost comparison, which I am presuming is the lifespan of the robot. That's very conservative in terms of hardware, but let's assume that a much better model will be made available and purchased within 5 years.
o The robot costs $60k x 1 ... which is $60,000.00
o The employee costs $36,135.00 x 5, which is $180,675.00
This means that in 5 years, Caliburger saves somewhere in the range of $120,000.00 by moving this job from an employee to the robot.
This is at $9 per hour. Not $15 per hour.
Which I've shown here is that the assumption that a raise to $15 / hour is what will create the motivation for a business like Caliburger to utilize a robot like this is nonsense.
The motivation already exists at the lowest income levels Caliburger is already providing. Sure, there's an even better case to be made for a $15 / hour wage, but the point is, the case was already made.
So no, the $15 minimum wage has nothing to do with this at all.
1) Caliburger Salary Reference
2) Caliburger Hours Reference
It won't make sense then, either.
Yes. Absolutely do it. Although "list of who voted how" would be even better.
While you're at it, please lose the "can't post in same story" malfeature.
Here's the thing. There's no assurance that the only way to achieve intelligence is the way the human brain does. So it may be premature to link the rise of AI with a complete-ish replication of the human brain's structure and/or capacity.
There are many things a microprocessor can do better than we can. Some of those things may be leveraged, eventually, into a non-human intelligence. Some of this is obvious: We can do image recog, voice recog, etc with (relatively) simple ML engines. Every sense that can be built without committing a ton of brain to it - or IOW, the way we do it - reduces the amount of 'ware that has to be put into play to get the rest of the way towards the various goal lines. Not to mention senses we don't even have - radar, sonar, thermal, radiation, telescopes of radio, light, x-ray etc., data loads, you name it, it could be a sense. And we can do a lot of that very easily.
The day may not be all that far away when it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, and we'll just go, hey, look... a duck.
Having said that, yes, we know the brain works, and so we know it can be done that way. And I am absolutely sure (barring super volcanos, asteroids, comets, or someone pushing The Button) that we'll get there. I'm just not all that sure that copying the human brain will be the first to that particular finish line.
No need to worry. Anyone with the skills - which are hardly difficult to acquire - can cook up ML in their basement, garage, warehouse, dorm, wherever. When actual AI comes along, same thing. It's just a matter of the right code. Even if people have relatively low-end hardware, that just means they will have relatively slow ML/AI; after all, if you pass a problem requiring intelligence to solve it and it's handed back a minute later, or two days later, with the same, correct answer - you still have the same AI. Just slower. At which point it can be distributed and better hardware applied.
There is simply no way, as in absolutely none, to stop this kind of technology within the bounds of people still owning general-purpose computers. And we already have them, so the cat is well and truly out of the bag.
As the technical level advances, so will ML, and as ML advances, AI will certainly pop up at one point or another. There's no doubt about it, unless you think brains are magic rather than [chemistry/electricity/topology] (and if you do, you're going to be very surprised at some point, although you'll have a period of illusion during which you can be calm, just like the one when people thought airplanes were impossible.)
In any case, don't worry about politicos and academics bloviating about "restricting" ML/AI. Can't be done. That ship has sailed.
No, it means that people can play those games. They don't want that.
Not quite, but it will mean some people play the older games without the revenue from that going into their pockets. This (a) could reduce new-game purchases and/or play, and (b) means that abandoning software (something they all do) implies that they are abandoning the rights to that software, an idea that scares them silly, because their entire business model is based upon providing a temporary product that they have complete control over so they can make you buy again, and again, and again until your patience finally runs out.
I am 100% in favor of the idea that if the software developer stops supporting the software, they lose ALL rights to controlling its use by the people who purchased it. If they want the benefits from providing a thing, then they have to support that thing. Support gone? Benefits gone.
Ah. Sorry, didn't remember having selected such an option or I would have pointed it out.
Well, problem solved anyway, so there you go. :)
I just checked, and in all four view modes, clicking on a file or folder in Finder shows the full path to the file and the filename at the bottom of the finder window. This is in OS X 10.12.6.
Does that count as a contortion?
What, are you people blind? It's right between the audio jack and the quick-release tab for the replaceable battery. I swear, what a bunch of trolls.
Okay, but we're not talking about Putin here.
...citation?
Neither one. They're both engaged in screwing it up for most people. Not for themselves, of course.
There are definitely differences, though. The Democrats (at present) aren't as utterly corrupt as the Republicans. I suspect that'll turn around with the next pendulum swing. Because American voters just can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that putting the rich in power will not result in a generally favorable outcome for everyone else.
Oh crap. There go my moderations. Thanks for nothing, Slashdot.
Orwell was an optimist
--fyngyrz*
* Anon due to mod points, because Slashdot moderation rules are stupid. Soylent News does it better. A lot better.
I prefer to get my overpriced phone from Samsung anyway. Assuming the S9 still has an audio jack, of course. Otherwise, elsewhere, or done.
The parent comment wins the thread as far as I'm concerned.
Watching entertainment as entertainment is entirely pendant upon your ability to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ideas. Kids tend to have fewer disbeliefs to need to suspend, so they're good at taking a movie as entertainment.
If your idea of consuming these things is to analyze and pick them apart wherever possible, then you're going to be a lot less entertained unless simply being a whiny bitch entertains you. I have to say that listening to someone take apart a movie doesn't make me think less of the movie...
and...
Along these lines, I think it's also worth discussing "the cloud" and "subscriptions", because both are mechanisms where control is deferred to the owner/operator of those things - software / functionality will fail when (not it, but when) the cloud / subscription goes away or changes according to the whim of the operator.
These are all trends, along with centralization, that are strongly anti-user. I was initially surprised to see any of them gain traction, but then I thought about how many other things people support directly or indirectly that are obviously counter to their longer-term interests... this is more of the same.
The only people who can protect users from this kind of garbage are the developers. We don't have to jump on every new thing, and personally, I think we owe it to the users to look more carefully at the downsides before we adopt The New Shiny, regardless from whence it comes.
You missed the part where mindless outrage was the only signal the GP was on about. :)
I don't mind paying for content this way. It's a form of micropayment that does not involve ads. Yeah, it actually hits the wallet - at least if you're paying for your own electricity it does. But if the site has decent content (Salon... dubious, but perhaps I'd read there sometimes) and if the mining only occurs when I'm actually on the site, I'd be okay with it. It sure as heck beats being pummeled by ads. I have plenty of CPU power available. Especially if it's not being consumed animating some bullshit ad.
Ditto
The thing you didn't mention explicitly is that coming up with these things is not useless to them.
Unless a way can be found to make it so, they'll keep doing it, and their power extends strongly downward, while ours extends upwards in a very weak and diffused manner. Even that may be an illusion; the number of non-establishment legislators who are willing to reform the various agencies with regulatory power are few indeed: we can't seem to get out of the two-party imposed oligarchy at all.