There is the question of temperament. Suppose, suddenly, there was no need for math, science or technology workers - that AI has taken care of all those positions, and the only thing left for which people are competitive are those which are unique to people, like emotional work (the service sector), entertainment, counseling.
Would you just be a few courses away to being competitive for those jobs? Or would the market have left you behind, forcing you to the lower ranks of the economy, at best?
The problem is that our fates are dictated by the whims of the job market, and temperament and inclination don't respond accordingly. There is a reason why the old communist dream was "from each according to their ability" - because it ultimately becomes rather unfair to reward people only because their skills of the hour happen to be marketable.
The result is what we see now: people crowding into fields for which they are ill-suited simply to get a job.
Nice in theory. And I think there are civil-liberties reasons to legalize drugs. But don't think it will defeat the Mexican drug cartels. They are a highly coordinated group of well-armed, funded and virtually sociopathic men. They will become something-else cartels pretty quickly: extortion, kidnapping, sexual slavery, etc.
It's a skill based on a temperament + practice. You should neither diminish the reality of the skill nor think of yourself as a genius simply for having it (and recognize, also, that others have skills that may be just as unrealistic for you to attain.)
It's good to realize that not everyone could do it. It makes you more compassionate when you consider the difficulties some people have when their skills are, at the moment, less needed in the labor market.
This is made complicated by the fact that "software engineering" is a widely understood and accepted practice, with an extensive discourse going back to the 1960s, and has as much to do with organizational issues, workflow etc. as it does with architecture, design and programming. I understand that this is causing some contestation over the term in Canada. In some sense, you can have a group of system architects, developers/programmers etc. all working together doing software engineering without a single "engineer" among them.
The difference - and it is entirely in perception, yes - is that a "programmer" is a kind of intellectual brute-worker, while a "software engineer" has a conceptual understanding of the specific problem that makes a long-term relationship with the business more important; that they "own" the projects in which they are involved. So while the "software engineer" may cost more, they are treated as part of the business, while the "programmer" is really hired help.
I agree that this is all perception, intuitions about the valences of different terms. It also reflects the fact that business culture in America has been about creating an "inside" and an "outside," between those with some kind of ownership (metaphorically speaking, partially, though equity is involved) in the business, and those who are kept at arm's length to be removed as quickly as possible. Part of the problem is that the first group is getting smaller and richer, and the second group getting bigger, less stable, and generally poorer.
That's not inconsistent with the idea that a programmer is expensive commodity labor, a cost that needs to be managed, rather than a member of the "inner circle" of those who are intended to have a long-term investment in the business.
Yes and no. If an unsubsidized phone still needs a voice and data plan, the cost of the phone is being offset by the value of the commitment. If the voice and data plans for subsidized phone is the same as that for unsubsidized phones, then every one who has a voice and data plan is really paying for the cost of the subsidized ones, even if their own phones are unsubsidized. Yes, the latter group can move plans, but since all the carriers sell subsidized phones, they'll be paying the subsidy cost (for other customers) there, too.
I don't think the point is that it won't be useful. I think, by definition, the article is simply saying that it will be half as useful.
It stands to reason: the older a technology is, the more people in the labor market know it (including the global labor market: India, etc.)
To be honest, I think the life of a permanent contract is an unstable one. I prefer the Japanese model (now also fading) of in-house training to fill strategic goals coupled with bi-lateral loyalty to the company. It's a much more sustainable approach which still supports a lot of skill-flexibility. Think your next wave of products will need a new technology? Train people you already trust in that technology; then they don't need to second-guess future developments.
When one defends the current economic system by comparing it to ones in which the infirm were left to die of exposure, you know they're running out of ideas.
If by "wealth" you mean only durable consumer goods like refrigerators, and not things like housing security or health care, you are right. Because of the trade imbalance, we have a back-stock of durable consumer goods that can be obtained cheaply on Craigslist. They do not easily convert to food, housing, health care, education, or basic utilities.
Not true. Between 1930 and 1970, the Soviet economy was one of the fastest growing economies ever. Only China has been more effective in eradicating poverty in such a short window of time. It just hit a ceiling and stagnated.
Siri is closer to what it was then than Android is. Android 1. wasn't open source when Google acquired it, 2. didn't have a Linux kernel.
Google is not a completely open source company. There are plenty of exceptions . But they are far more a research-oriented company than Apple is. And much friendlier to open source and open ecosystems - even to the detriment of a predictable user experience.
The ethics of these companies is a separate issue. All corporations are rotten to the core. Loyalty to a one over another is like preferring Fascism to Stalinism, or vice versa. I'll be far happier when they are superceded as a way of making and distributing things. For example, I admire Bill Gates for his philanthropy, recognize how much research Microsoft has sponsored, yet still think of Microsoft as a vicious organization. Corporate fandom is neurotic.
I don't think Google is being lauded as the genius behind Android. The narrative about Google is different, often involving its strength in creating platforms for open-source/community development, support for speculative research, etc. Apple is associated with a culture of design. In any case, the Android that Google bought, 3 major versions ago, is very different than the one that exists now.
The big correlate for academic success is time spent at home helping study. Kids with a stay-at-home parent do much better: even if the stay-at-home parent is a single parent. As the recession (excuse me, "recovery with extraordinarily high unemployment" continues and formerly two-income homes go back to being one- or zero-income homes, you may, oddly enough, see some benefits to children who have more access to a non-working parent. Unless, of course, the drop in income creates serious instability and stress in the family system...
Oddly enough, that phone integration was already well done in the Android Voice Search. Which may be why Iris will be able to duplicate Siri's functionality pretty easily.
Siri was already a personal assistant before Apple acquired it: it was already available on the AppStore. It was already a good product. By cutting of Android development, Apple turned it from a product into a mere feature.
The issue is that Apple killed Siri's Android development. Google, however, has kept Android in the commons: hence Cyanogenmod.
Siri is an interestingly integrated set of functions, but is by no means revolutionary. The real point is that it is not a story of Apple's brilliance and Google imitation: it was Apple being first with a checkbook.
The core technology is available for download from SRI's website. Siri had exclusive licensing within a domain, but that was with the understanding that it would be cross-platform in the smart-phone sector. If Apple doesn't restart development for Android etc., it may make an interesting case whether they can keep exclusivity on non-iOs platforms.
Siri is much more than voice recognition. However, it was not developed by Apple. It was a 3rd party application created out of a bigger AI product, and was originally going to target all the smartphone platforms. Apple simply bought the firm and the technology, and shut down development for other platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, just like it only takes one rape to make you a total rapist, it only takes one asshole post to make you a total asshole.
There is the question of temperament. Suppose, suddenly, there was no need for math, science or technology workers - that AI has taken care of all those positions, and the only thing left for which people are competitive are those which are unique to people, like emotional work (the service sector), entertainment, counseling.
Would you just be a few courses away to being competitive for those jobs? Or would the market have left you behind, forcing you to the lower ranks of the economy, at best?
The problem is that our fates are dictated by the whims of the job market, and temperament and inclination don't respond accordingly. There is a reason why the old communist dream was "from each according to their ability" - because it ultimately becomes rather unfair to reward people only because their skills of the hour happen to be marketable.
The result is what we see now: people crowding into fields for which they are ill-suited simply to get a job.
Look, just because you can't stop a chainsaw with your genitals...
Government contracts, government research grants and protectionism did.
Nice in theory. And I think there are civil-liberties reasons to legalize drugs. But don't think it will defeat the Mexican drug cartels. They are a highly coordinated group of well-armed, funded and virtually sociopathic men. They will become something-else cartels pretty quickly: extortion, kidnapping, sexual slavery, etc.
It's a skill based on a temperament + practice. You should neither diminish the reality of the skill nor think of yourself as a genius simply for having it (and recognize, also, that others have skills that may be just as unrealistic for you to attain.)
It's good to realize that not everyone could do it. It makes you more compassionate when you consider the difficulties some people have when their skills are, at the moment, less needed in the labor market.
This is made complicated by the fact that "software engineering" is a widely understood and accepted practice, with an extensive discourse going back to the 1960s, and has as much to do with organizational issues, workflow etc. as it does with architecture, design and programming. I understand that this is causing some contestation over the term in Canada. In some sense, you can have a group of system architects, developers/programmers etc. all working together doing software engineering without a single "engineer" among them.
The difference - and it is entirely in perception, yes - is that a "programmer" is a kind of intellectual brute-worker, while a "software engineer" has a conceptual understanding of the specific problem that makes a long-term relationship with the business more important; that they "own" the projects in which they are involved. So while the "software engineer" may cost more, they are treated as part of the business, while the "programmer" is really hired help.
I agree that this is all perception, intuitions about the valences of different terms. It also reflects the fact that business culture in America has been about creating an "inside" and an "outside," between those with some kind of ownership (metaphorically speaking, partially, though equity is involved) in the business, and those who are kept at arm's length to be removed as quickly as possible. Part of the problem is that the first group is getting smaller and richer, and the second group getting bigger, less stable, and generally poorer.
That's not inconsistent with the idea that a programmer is expensive commodity labor, a cost that needs to be managed, rather than a member of the "inner circle" of those who are intended to have a long-term investment in the business.
Are you saying you are the 1%?
Yes and no. If an unsubsidized phone still needs a voice and data plan, the cost of the phone is being offset by the value of the commitment. If the voice and data plans for subsidized phone is the same as that for unsubsidized phones, then every one who has a voice and data plan is really paying for the cost of the subsidized ones, even if their own phones are unsubsidized. Yes, the latter group can move plans, but since all the carriers sell subsidized phones, they'll be paying the subsidy cost (for other customers) there, too.
I don't think the point is that it won't be useful. I think, by definition, the article is simply saying that it will be half as useful.
It stands to reason: the older a technology is, the more people in the labor market know it (including the global labor market: India, etc.)
To be honest, I think the life of a permanent contract is an unstable one. I prefer the Japanese model (now also fading) of in-house training to fill strategic goals coupled with bi-lateral loyalty to the company. It's a much more sustainable approach which still supports a lot of skill-flexibility. Think your next wave of products will need a new technology? Train people you already trust in that technology; then they don't need to second-guess future developments.
When one defends the current economic system by comparing it to ones in which the infirm were left to die of exposure, you know they're running out of ideas.
If by "wealth" you mean only durable consumer goods like refrigerators, and not things like housing security or health care, you are right. Because of the trade imbalance, we have a back-stock of durable consumer goods that can be obtained cheaply on Craigslist. They do not easily convert to food, housing, health care, education, or basic utilities.
Not true. Between 1930 and 1970, the Soviet economy was one of the fastest growing economies ever. Only China has been more effective in eradicating poverty in such a short window of time. It just hit a ceiling and stagnated.
Siri is closer to what it was then than Android is. Android 1. wasn't open source when Google acquired it, 2. didn't have a Linux kernel.
Google is not a completely open source company. There are plenty of exceptions . But they are far more a research-oriented company than Apple is. And much friendlier to open source and open ecosystems - even to the detriment of a predictable user experience.
The ethics of these companies is a separate issue. All corporations are rotten to the core. Loyalty to a one over another is like preferring Fascism to Stalinism, or vice versa. I'll be far happier when they are superceded as a way of making and distributing things. For example, I admire Bill Gates for his philanthropy, recognize how much research Microsoft has sponsored, yet still think of Microsoft as a vicious organization. Corporate fandom is neurotic.
I don't think Google is being lauded as the genius behind Android. The narrative about Google is different, often involving its strength in creating platforms for open-source/community development, support for speculative research, etc. Apple is associated with a culture of design. In any case, the Android that Google bought, 3 major versions ago, is very different than the one that exists now.
The big correlate for academic success is time spent at home helping study. Kids with a stay-at-home parent do much better: even if the stay-at-home parent is a single parent. As the recession (excuse me, "recovery with extraordinarily high unemployment" continues and formerly two-income homes go back to being one- or zero-income homes, you may, oddly enough, see some benefits to children who have more access to a non-working parent. Unless, of course, the drop in income creates serious instability and stress in the family system...
Yes. Most college graduates - even with art history or literature degrees - could teach math up to junior high level without any problems at all.
It seems to me, most engineers start their serious drinking in the workplace. Especially civil engineers.
Oddly enough, that phone integration was already well done in the Android Voice Search. Which may be why Iris will be able to duplicate Siri's functionality pretty easily.
Siri was already a personal assistant before Apple acquired it: it was already available on the AppStore. It was already a good product. By cutting of Android development, Apple turned it from a product into a mere feature.
The issue is that Apple killed Siri's Android development. Google, however, has kept Android in the commons: hence Cyanogenmod.
Siri is an interestingly integrated set of functions, but is by no means revolutionary. The real point is that it is not a story of Apple's brilliance and Google imitation: it was Apple being first with a checkbook.
The core technology is available for download from SRI's website. Siri had exclusive licensing within a domain, but that was with the understanding that it would be cross-platform in the smart-phone sector. If Apple doesn't restart development for Android etc., it may make an interesting case whether they can keep exclusivity on non-iOs platforms.
Siri is much more than voice recognition. However, it was not developed by Apple. It was a 3rd party application created out of a bigger AI product, and was originally going to target all the smartphone platforms. Apple simply bought the firm and the technology, and shut down development for other platforms.