Rejecting trash is not "being inflexible". It is being flexible and reacting to the situation. Upgrading, no matter what utter trash the vendor puts out is inflexible and stupid.
... can you please stick to making public statements about things you actually have a clue about? I do not mind you having opinions about things you do not understand, like AI, but as soon as you make public statements about them, a bunch of morons misinterpret them as a statement by an expert and ridiculous stories like this one here are the result.
There is that percentage. However (and that is the whole point), there is no indication that these would be enough to cause problems. There are ample indications to the contrary and that the overall effect would be positive. Just because some people have no grip on their envy is not valid reason to not go the UBI way if its effects are positive.
Indeed. Foxconn does demonstrate where things are going. They tried by squeezing cheap people to the limit (and now have nets on the top of their buildings to reduce the suicides...), but that apparently does not cut it either. Robots will mean a few very highly qualified people and a small number of manual workers assisting those, where before there was a large number of workers. And the lost jobs will never be coming back.
Well, probably. Or rather maybe. I currently have a customer that has done something like this for some teams, and while it does not completely suck, it is still expensive as these people waste a lot of our (local, expensive) time.
Actually, they routinely were more expensive when cost are calculated fairly. One issue is that you often have to do a lot of quality control in addition. Another is that they often deliver quality so bad that much more expensive people have to work more to fix that.
Example: Coding outsourcing to India. Code quality universally sucks badly, the ones doing it have no clue and projects fail or products created become a permanent problem. Now, the people there are not more stupid than in the western world. But the good ones are either simply not there anymore because they left, or they are not working in coding outsourcing because it pays badly. As a result, you get "coders", that would not be allowed even near a compiler here. Add that it is really hard to create a spec that covers everything the implementation needs to do, and you usually lose money on these deals, often a lot.
The "cheap" workers in other countries did look like a solution for a while, but these days only stupid management that is far behind the times goes for them. They do represent some kind of intermediate step though, but as off-shoring universally does not deliver the quality needed, eventually everybody goes back to automation combined with a small, highly qualified domestic workforce.
Of course, automation cannot (and will probably never be able to) replace all jobs, but a majority of jobs _can_ be replaced at this time or in the near future. Whether it is 80% or 95% does not matter that much. Long-term, people that go through a long, demanding education and/or have special talents and then work jobs that cannot be automated will be a small but critical group. The question is what happens to all others. It is critical for the survival of civilization that at least most of them will share the available wealth and be able to live reasonably well. An UBI is just one way to get there, albeit for the moment the most plausible one.
While there are different UBI models, all serious ones assume that everybody that is still in demand will continue to work and have some real gain to show for it. That is why basically all claims of "nobody will continue to work" are just uninformed propaganda. Well, maybe those spewing this propaganda would indeed not continue to work and be the poorer for it, who knows. Therefore be told, egotistical jerks: Most people are not like you and we can do very well without your contribution. In fact, you stopping to work will likely make things better for the rest of us, as you mainly do significant damage to the whole for a moderate personal gain.
All studies show that most people would continue to work even with a generous UBI. An UBI really is no threat to the economy. Sure, it may be a threat to companies that threat their workers badly, but these companies are universally not very good for the economy either.
So if everybody thinks of themselves, everybody is taken care of? That is stupid, naive, egotistical and, and that is the kicker, does not work. In fact, this short-sighted narcissistic thinking destroys communities.
I think this issue _does_ belong here, as it is caused by technology. Reporting on technology critically includes the effects of technology.
The problem is undoubtedly there, and it will get worse, because over time many people will not be able to match the quality of the work of the automatics (to use an ancient word) and will not even be in the running anymore, no matter how cheaply they sell themselves. That a growing class of unemployables that live in poverty is extremely bad for a country in the long run should also not be in dispute. The question is what to do about it.
Incidentally, I think a lot of people here are anti-UBI because they think it could never happen to them. For most, that is naive to the extreme.
And that is just it. Possibly was a management decision that engineering advised against. That they are not trying to really find out what went wrong is pretty telling. Somebody in management screwed up pretty badly.
If that door is the door to a nuclear power plant, then the amount of responsibility on the party leaving it open is far bigger than on the party using that mistake. Seriously, missing safety features are gross negligence and should routinely be treated the same as intent. Of course, the same fraud is run by other, very powerful players, so this _is_ intent.
Actually, this is allowed by the trading system because it is used by the large players to defraud the smaller players. It is just not permissible to use it if you are a smaller player, but the possibility is there.
He committed the crime of embarrassing some pretty important people. The traditional penalty for that is death by torture. As that is obviously barbaric, death in an US prison has been substituted (which may not be that much of an improvement...).
Because if they do, they will find that they cannot get their cars legally on the roads or insured. But what they will to is lie to their customers to make them feel safe. As the incidents where this will be a concern are rare enough, nobody will notice for a long time. After that, a balanced solution that minimizes overall damage (the only really defensible approach in a society with equality of its citizens) will be generally accepted and they can admit that they did that all along.
Good point. Do you think these are enough to change the nature of the thing though? Or maybe this strongly affects some games and other not much. That would fit.
While brain-dead publishers act as if they are a necessity, and apparently make decisions as if they were, they clearly are not. Hence the only thing a degraded quality (in the form of DRM and a higher price) gets you is less profit. Economics 101, but it seems that is already too difficult for some people.
Nothing we have in working computers these days or even in theoretical models will ever go beyond syntax processing. It is unclear at this time whether physical machinery is able to do more than syntactic data processing, but we have about a century of failure in theory and practice that rather strongly indicates this may be a fundamental limit. Of course, fundamentalist physicalists (another pseudo-scientific modern religion surrogate) deny this, but there is no scientific basis for their fantasies either.
Slashdot Mirror
Rejecting trash is not "being inflexible". It is being flexible and reacting to the situation. Upgrading, no matter what utter trash the vendor puts out is inflexible and stupid.
Sounds entirely reasonable. By now, Windows users have to treat the OS vendor as a malicious adversary...
... can you please stick to making public statements about things you actually have a clue about? I do not mind you having opinions about things you do not understand, like AI, but as soon as you make public statements about them, a bunch of morons misinterpret them as a statement by an expert and ridiculous stories like this one here are the result.
Sounds like the war-cry of a dying society...
There is that percentage. However (and that is the whole point), there is no indication that these would be enough to cause problems. There are ample indications to the contrary and that the overall effect would be positive. Just because some people have no grip on their envy is not valid reason to not go the UBI way if its effects are positive.
Indeed. Foxconn does demonstrate where things are going. They tried by squeezing cheap people to the limit (and now have nets on the top of their buildings to reduce the suicides...), but that apparently does not cut it either. Robots will mean a few very highly qualified people and a small number of manual workers assisting those, where before there was a large number of workers. And the lost jobs will never be coming back.
Well, probably. Or rather maybe. I currently have a customer that has done something like this for some teams, and while it does not completely suck, it is still expensive as these people waste a lot of our (local, expensive) time.
Your ignorance and inability to understand the issue (as demonstrated by your flawed "example") is not my problem.
Excellent point.
Actually, they routinely were more expensive when cost are calculated fairly. One issue is that you often have to do a lot of quality control in addition. Another is that they often deliver quality so bad that much more expensive people have to work more to fix that.
Example: Coding outsourcing to India. Code quality universally sucks badly, the ones doing it have no clue and projects fail or products created become a permanent problem. Now, the people there are not more stupid than in the western world. But the good ones are either simply not there anymore because they left, or they are not working in coding outsourcing because it pays badly. As a result, you get "coders", that would not be allowed even near a compiler here. Add that it is really hard to create a spec that covers everything the implementation needs to do, and you usually lose money on these deals, often a lot.
The "cheap" workers in other countries did look like a solution for a while, but these days only stupid management that is far behind the times goes for them. They do represent some kind of intermediate step though, but as off-shoring universally does not deliver the quality needed, eventually everybody goes back to automation combined with a small, highly qualified domestic workforce.
Of course, automation cannot (and will probably never be able to) replace all jobs, but a majority of jobs _can_ be replaced at this time or in the near future. Whether it is 80% or 95% does not matter that much. Long-term, people that go through a long, demanding education and/or have special talents and then work jobs that cannot be automated will be a small but critical group. The question is what happens to all others. It is critical for the survival of civilization that at least most of them will share the available wealth and be able to live reasonably well. An UBI is just one way to get there, albeit for the moment the most plausible one.
While there are different UBI models, all serious ones assume that everybody that is still in demand will continue to work and have some real gain to show for it. That is why basically all claims of "nobody will continue to work" are just uninformed propaganda. Well, maybe those spewing this propaganda would indeed not continue to work and be the poorer for it, who knows. Therefore be told, egotistical jerks: Most people are not like you and we can do very well without your contribution. In fact, you stopping to work will likely make things better for the rest of us, as you mainly do significant damage to the whole for a moderate personal gain.
All studies show that most people would continue to work even with a generous UBI. An UBI really is no threat to the economy. Sure, it may be a threat to companies that threat their workers badly, but these companies are universally not very good for the economy either.
So if everybody thinks of themselves, everybody is taken care of? That is stupid, naive, egotistical and, and that is the kicker, does not work. In fact, this short-sighted narcissistic thinking destroys communities.
I think this issue _does_ belong here, as it is caused by technology. Reporting on technology critically includes the effects of technology.
The problem is undoubtedly there, and it will get worse, because over time many people will not be able to match the quality of the work of the automatics (to use an ancient word) and will not even be in the running anymore, no matter how cheaply they sell themselves. That a growing class of unemployables that live in poverty is extremely bad for a country in the long run should also not be in dispute. The question is what to do about it.
Incidentally, I think a lot of people here are anti-UBI because they think it could never happen to them. For most, that is naive to the extreme.
And that is just it. Possibly was a management decision that engineering advised against. That they are not trying to really find out what went wrong is pretty telling. Somebody in management screwed up pretty badly.
Big ego _and_ no clue. Nice.
If that door is the door to a nuclear power plant, then the amount of responsibility on the party leaving it open is far bigger than on the party using that mistake. Seriously, missing safety features are gross negligence and should routinely be treated the same as intent. Of course, the same fraud is run by other, very powerful players, so this _is_ intent.
Actually, this is allowed by the trading system because it is used by the large players to defraud the smaller players. It is just not permissible to use it if you are a smaller player, but the possibility is there.
The stock-market is one large organized scam.
He committed the crime of embarrassing some pretty important people. The traditional penalty for that is death by torture. As that is obviously barbaric, death in an US prison has been substituted (which may not be that much of an improvement...).
Because if they do, they will find that they cannot get their cars legally on the roads or insured. But what they will to is lie to their customers to make them feel safe. As the incidents where this will be a concern are rare enough, nobody will notice for a long time. After that, a balanced solution that minimizes overall damage (the only really defensible approach in a society with equality of its citizens) will be generally accepted and they can admit that they did that all along.
Good point. Do you think these are enough to change the nature of the thing though? Or maybe this strongly affects some games and other not much. That would fit.
Are they trying to add insult to injury to those affected? Or are they completely and utterly disconnected from reality?
While brain-dead publishers act as if they are a necessity, and apparently make decisions as if they were, they clearly are not. Hence the only thing a degraded quality (in the form of DRM and a higher price) gets you is less profit. Economics 101, but it seems that is already too difficult for some people.
Trump is an excellent con-man too!
Well said.
Nothing we have in working computers these days or even in theoretical models will ever go beyond syntax processing. It is unclear at this time whether physical machinery is able to do more than syntactic data processing, but we have about a century of failure in theory and practice that rather strongly indicates this may be a fundamental limit. Of course, fundamentalist physicalists (another pseudo-scientific modern religion surrogate) deny this, but there is no scientific basis for their fantasies either.