H didn't have the guts to outright spell out that old-style factory jobs are not coming back. That's a tough pill to swallow, and thus a risky political move.
Further, retraining has had mixed results: not everybody catches on. Not everybody can change and not everybody is retrain-able. A good percent fall through the cracks.
It seems they WANTED to be lied to, and T essentially promised a time machine back to the good ol' days.
He packaged multiple problems into a SINGLE simple cause: "outsiders". It's great conceptual "political factoring"; but happens to be wrong.
Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Why not compare apples to grapefruits instead, such as our bloated military? I suspect your fruit is fake news anyhow.
O did invest in solar R&D. Remember the Solyndra brew-ha-ha? (Solyndra was only one of many solar co's that received investment funds, by the way.)
Good, describe in sufficient detail and show where it's actually been tested. A lot of theories look great on paper, but things like human nature's reaction to something new are typically too hard to model accurately up-front.
Conservatives didn't seem concerned AT ALL when Rove, Mitt, Jeb, and Powell made really poor office IT-related decisions. Even T's own cabinet has been slow to migrate to "real" email. It only became a REALLY BAD THING when H made similar mistakes. GOP crocodile tears.
In theory it's great, in practice it will "hit" people in different ways unevenly, and is part of the reason the rich are getting richer while the rest stagnate.
We don't know how to organize an economy to take advantage of such. We only have theories that have yet to be tested. That means we are guinea-pigs. But if we do nothing, we are still guinea-pigs, because doing nothing means changes in jobs and automation will still impact us, but without any planning.
Such displacement is arguably why T won: he gave a voice to the displaced of the Rust Belt, which are swing states. His reasoning about solutions is all off kilter, but he at least gave the problem top billing.
It depends on your personality. If you want something that's easy to set up or install, I'd recommend learning with JavaScript: it's already built into browsers, and is something often used in the field. Two pluses.
The downside is that it's a screwy language with a screwy type system that doesn't give you very friendly feedback if you do something wrong.
If you like "visual" learning, then LOGO or a variation of may be the way to go. Installation effort and/or cost may be a factor. LOGO is designed for teaching, and so will be overall easier to digest.
If you want to dive into technical details quickly, then take up C.
I find most people fear China is going to far outstrip the west in science and economy in the not too distance future, most of the rest think it is a powder-keg about to self-destruct. Neither view is very close to the truth.
Violent revolutions in China are relatively common, roughly every 100 years. There have been uprisings even recently. After the global recession of the late 2000's there were many factory worker protests due to layoffs from the slumping economy due to slower overseas exports. China launched a big infrastructure stimulus package to address it, and it mostly worked.
They are not so tied to the philosophy of capitalism such that being thrown to the wolves during slumps is NOT acceptable to most there. In the US, there is some amount of social-darwinistic thinking that says "losers" SHOULD wither and die, in order to motivate the rest to work their tushes off so that the non-losers can have big houses with picket fences. (Some suggest this comes from protestant Calvinism that says God rewards the good people in this life and lets the bad die.)
And don't forget Tienanmen Square.
If a big recession hit and the government couldn't stimulate or find enough jobs for the masses, China could become a powder keg of unrest. Proverbial pitchforks are not just a western thing.
they don't have enough young people who want to work in factories, yet they have too many PhDs [paraphrased]
In Chinese culture, higher education is a big status symbol, much more so than the US.
In the US, a big-name degree is a relatively minor status symbol UNTIL it makes one wealthy. This is because we know that academic excellence often doesn't translate into earning power, and those with good grades often lack people skills (to be frank).
But in China, a big-name degree typically has gotten one into higher positions, partly out of cultural habit. A manager has bragging power by hiring a big-degree person, even if the employee is a dud (lazy, fastidious about the wrong things, bad people skills, etc.). Back in the days when the economy was mostly socialistic, dud employees didn't hurt that much.
I suspect this will gradually change over time as practical issues, fast change, and competition pressure overwrite custom; but for now, Chinese are education addicts.
// algorithm to generate a Web Patent h = openFile("ordinary_task.txt"); while (w = readNextWord(h)) {
if (random(0.0, 1.0) > 0.96) {
w = w + " using the Internet ";
}
print(w); }
Just plug in a replacement function found randomly on the Web. Russia and Nigeria often publish such if you search less-known areas of the wonderful Internet.
I'm crying all the tears for those rich wall street investors who will get outsourced. Really, I am.
But those investors probably have the lobbying power (i.e. bribery money) to stop bots/outsourcing, unlike the rest of us peons. Lawyers, doctors, and pharmaceuticals have invented barriers, such as country-specific practitioner licensing rules*.
Anyhow, the key to being an "investor" is talking customers into purchasing your advice, no? It's mostly a sales job, not a investment picking job in itself. The sales part probably cannot be robotized (barring some big breakthrough).
Plus, something tells me if everybody uses bots to invest, then bot-patterned investments will be saturated. It's a cat-and-mouse game where you try to outguess other investors. Bots will probably have "botty" patterns to them such that a human touch may be needed to work around the pattern.
It's not that humans are inherently better than bots, but that the cat-and-mouse game changes so fast that sometimes a different perspective will give you a short-term edge, until the bots adapt.
I imagine the best investment co's will use a combination of robo-analysis AND human intuition. For example, the human analyst can visit the company to get a feel for the people and culture there. If two investments have a similar statistical (bot) profile, then the on-site touchy-feely visit could help them pick the better option.
It's not that bots couldn't factor in touch-feely info, it's more that they don't have access to that info because nobody can realistically encode it in a way the bot can use. Those with the best intuition are usually not the best at articulating precise rules. And the rules probably change: a company culture that worked best a decade ago may not be the best for current times. Plus there is body language etc. of the executives that may hint to the investment analyzer that his/her leg is being pulled. You can't ask to put a camera on investors when asking them question.
It's kind of like poker; a large part of the strategy is "reading" people, and not just statistical analysis of card stacks.
But overall the number of analysts may be reduced as bots do more of the number crunching and statistical work. The remaining humans will end up doing more "face time".
* I understand that each country wants to control their medical and legal rules, but ideally there would be pressure for international standards and sharing agreements to make cross-border training and data processing simpler. Those who would lose earning power from such standardization have no incentive to standardize.
And I am sure Americans won't mind paying more for their goods.
It probably depends. If other Americans lose their job so they can have cheap widgets, then they'll probably accept it. But if their own job goes away so other Americans can have cheap widgets, then they'll have a problem with it.
Japan more or less decided to have jobs instead of cheap widgets, and seem happy with their choice since there is little political pressure to switch it back to widget-orientation.
As far as GoDaddy's claim, there may be legitimate reasons for H1B's, but too many co's use them for cheap abusable labor. I've seen it with my own eyes.
If you are supposed to use a hammer to drive in nails, but you use it to pick your nose half the time, then the hammer will be taken away by the owner even if you used it for its intended purpose the other half of the time. Agree to some oversight that reduces nose-picking if you want the hammer back.
Slashdot Mirror
Was that intended as a joke? Google already has such technology
As an entertainer, but he's not the kind of personality you want driving the ship.
Several dozens of modern nations test various ideas.
Singapore? Not even a democracy. And stimulus/socialism kicked in during some of their slumps.
Switzerland is subsidized by slimy bank dark money.
That's not a very up-to-date example.
H didn't have the guts to outright spell out that old-style factory jobs are not coming back. That's a tough pill to swallow, and thus a risky political move.
Further, retraining has had mixed results: not everybody catches on. Not everybody can change and not everybody is retrain-able. A good percent fall through the cracks.
It seems they WANTED to be lied to, and T essentially promised a time machine back to the good ol' days.
He packaged multiple problems into a SINGLE simple cause: "outsiders". It's great conceptual "political factoring"; but happens to be wrong.
Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Why not compare apples to grapefruits instead, such as our bloated military? I suspect your fruit is fake news anyhow.
O did invest in solar R&D. Remember the Solyndra brew-ha-ha? (Solyndra was only one of many solar co's that received investment funds, by the way.)
Microsoft will happily subsidize them if every button takes one first to Microsoft Store.
Patient: "I fell down and can't get up!"
MS-Bot: "I'll gladly help you up, but first please listen to our latest promotions on Microsoft Dentures..."
Good, describe in sufficient detail and show where it's actually been tested. A lot of theories look great on paper, but things like human nature's reaction to something new are typically too hard to model accurately up-front.
Conservatives didn't seem concerned AT ALL when Rove, Mitt, Jeb, and Powell made really poor office IT-related decisions. Even T's own cabinet has been slow to migrate to "real" email. It only became a REALLY BAD THING when H made similar mistakes. GOP crocodile tears.
Corporate-speak translation: "There are not enough highly-educated workers who are cheap, docile, and single so they have no family distractions."
In that sense, yes, there is a shortage.
In theory it's great, in practice it will "hit" people in different ways unevenly, and is part of the reason the rich are getting richer while the rest stagnate.
We don't know how to organize an economy to take advantage of such. We only have theories that have yet to be tested. That means we are guinea-pigs. But if we do nothing, we are still guinea-pigs, because doing nothing means changes in jobs and automation will still impact us, but without any planning.
Such displacement is arguably why T won: he gave a voice to the displaced of the Rust Belt, which are swing states. His reasoning about solutions is all off kilter, but he at least gave the problem top billing.
Managing change is politically tricky.
Our energy sector is addicted to oil, and our tech sector is addicted to cheap/abusable visa workers, and they lobby like hell to keep the status quo.
I cannot believe I'm saying this, but I hope T tells them shove it (at least in terms of worker visas in general, rather than cherry-pick nations.)
It depends on your personality. If you want something that's easy to set up or install, I'd recommend learning with JavaScript: it's already built into browsers, and is something often used in the field. Two pluses.
The downside is that it's a screwy language with a screwy type system that doesn't give you very friendly feedback if you do something wrong.
If you like "visual" learning, then LOGO or a variation of may be the way to go. Installation effort and/or cost may be a factor. LOGO is designed for teaching, and so will be overall easier to digest.
If you want to dive into technical details quickly, then take up C.
Violent revolutions in China are relatively common, roughly every 100 years. There have been uprisings even recently. After the global recession of the late 2000's there were many factory worker protests due to layoffs from the slumping economy due to slower overseas exports. China launched a big infrastructure stimulus package to address it, and it mostly worked.
They are not so tied to the philosophy of capitalism such that being thrown to the wolves during slumps is NOT acceptable to most there. In the US, there is some amount of social-darwinistic thinking that says "losers" SHOULD wither and die, in order to motivate the rest to work their tushes off so that the non-losers can have big houses with picket fences. (Some suggest this comes from protestant Calvinism that says God rewards the good people in this life and lets the bad die.)
And don't forget Tienanmen Square.
If a big recession hit and the government couldn't stimulate or find enough jobs for the masses, China could become a powder keg of unrest. Proverbial pitchforks are not just a western thing.
In Chinese culture, higher education is a big status symbol, much more so than the US.
In the US, a big-name degree is a relatively minor status symbol UNTIL it makes one wealthy. This is because we know that academic excellence often doesn't translate into earning power, and those with good grades often lack people skills (to be frank).
But in China, a big-name degree typically has gotten one into higher positions, partly out of cultural habit. A manager has bragging power by hiring a big-degree person, even if the employee is a dud (lazy, fastidious about the wrong things, bad people skills, etc.). Back in the days when the economy was mostly socialistic, dud employees didn't hurt that much.
I suspect this will gradually change over time as practical issues, fast change, and competition pressure overwrite custom; but for now, Chinese are education addicts.
Just plug in a replacement function found randomly on the Web. Russia and Nigeria often publish such if you search less-known areas of the wonderful Internet.
But those investors probably have the lobbying power (i.e. bribery money) to stop bots/outsourcing, unlike the rest of us peons. Lawyers, doctors, and pharmaceuticals have invented barriers, such as country-specific practitioner licensing rules*.
Anyhow, the key to being an "investor" is talking customers into purchasing your advice, no? It's mostly a sales job, not a investment picking job in itself. The sales part probably cannot be robotized (barring some big breakthrough).
Plus, something tells me if everybody uses bots to invest, then bot-patterned investments will be saturated. It's a cat-and-mouse game where you try to outguess other investors. Bots will probably have "botty" patterns to them such that a human touch may be needed to work around the pattern.
It's not that humans are inherently better than bots, but that the cat-and-mouse game changes so fast that sometimes a different perspective will give you a short-term edge, until the bots adapt.
I imagine the best investment co's will use a combination of robo-analysis AND human intuition. For example, the human analyst can visit the company to get a feel for the people and culture there. If two investments have a similar statistical (bot) profile, then the on-site touchy-feely visit could help them pick the better option.
It's not that bots couldn't factor in touch-feely info, it's more that they don't have access to that info because nobody can realistically encode it in a way the bot can use. Those with the best intuition are usually not the best at articulating precise rules. And the rules probably change: a company culture that worked best a decade ago may not be the best for current times. Plus there is body language etc. of the executives that may hint to the investment analyzer that his/her leg is being pulled. You can't ask to put a camera on investors when asking them question.
It's kind of like poker; a large part of the strategy is "reading" people, and not just statistical analysis of card stacks.
But overall the number of analysts may be reduced as bots do more of the number crunching and statistical work. The remaining humans will end up doing more "face time".
* I understand that each country wants to control their medical and legal rules, but ideally there would be pressure for international standards and sharing agreements to make cross-border training and data processing simpler. Those who would lose earning power from such standardization have no incentive to standardize.
borg.node.mongo.js
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/...
A: Elect them president.
He made it redundant.
I installed Kissup 2.0 on it. It's lying to you. Nor does it make very good toast.
It probably depends. If other Americans lose their job so they can have cheap widgets, then they'll probably accept it. But if their own job goes away so other Americans can have cheap widgets, then they'll have a problem with it.
Japan more or less decided to have jobs instead of cheap widgets, and seem happy with their choice since there is little political pressure to switch it back to widget-orientation.
As far as GoDaddy's claim, there may be legitimate reasons for H1B's, but too many co's use them for cheap abusable labor. I've seen it with my own eyes.
If you are supposed to use a hammer to drive in nails, but you use it to pick your nose half the time, then the hammer will be taken away by the owner even if you used it for its intended purpose the other half of the time. Agree to some oversight that reduces nose-picking if you want the hammer back.
But it doesn't last.
"Trump who? Oh, right, that guy. Another round, please!"
I wouldn't elect those hoodlums and vandals either. Bottom line: don't elect jerks.