Having a PhD and A+ GPA has nothing to do with having competence.
If you substitute your idea of a top-ranked performer, my point still stands. How about make 3 million clones of Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Warren Buffett, and Oprah for the thought experiment.
until that "almost certain" recession
During the top of the business cycle, yes there are more opportunities for the displaced, but one cannot say that's the typical state of things because we are not always near the top of the cycle, per definition of "cycle".
Reckless was not supporting full fledged revolutions, like Obama chose to do.
USA's attempts at meddling several decades ago is how Khomeini got into power. Meddling backfires more often than not. You make it sound like a sure-shot thing. The newer crew always think they are better at meddling.
The rest of your accusations are too vague to evaluate. No negotiations will give us everything we want; we'll have to make trade-offs. To think one can magically get everything they want without making concessions to the other side is silly and/or arrogant.
If you think you can run to the cloud and get better service you are mistaken.
I believe on average it will be better. Local installations are often duck wire and chicken tape in my observation. Cloud problems just get more press similar to how jet crashes get more coverage than car crashes despite cars being more dangerous per mile traveled.
And if everyone were that smart and capable, it would drive the price of labor way up as they could find and market new sorts of labor.
Please elaborate.
If we want the movie Idiocracy to be remain a satire rather than a documentary, you either need a way to let smart people have more kids survive...
Society has been changing too fast to try to breed better humans, because "better" changes. The "in" skills today may not be the "in" skills tomorrow. "Metabolically efficient" may help one survive a famine but is "lazy" in another era.
as you can eat the rich today but what are you going to do tomorrow?
That's mostly moot because even a short-term period of mass chaos is not good in my book, and in most people's books.
Listened to based on the quality of their arguments....lol. How old are you kid?
Everyone entering the work world should read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Geeks may not like the conclusions, but they are generally true.
The only financial safety net you need is competence.
This "just be good" philosophy doesn't scale. If everyone had a PhD and A-plus GPA, there would not be enough positions for their talent. PhD's would end up mopping restrooms, with many unemployed.
Or are you a social Darwinist who believes the unproductive/lazy should be allowed to just wither & die so that we breed more productive humans?
Even if you hold this view, many would turn to a life of crime and/or riots out of desperation, making for a nasty society.
We currently have move openings than people looking for work.
We are on the crest of a typical economic cycle. A recession is almost certain within a few years.
There is simply no software that can be made for Windows that cannot be made for Mac or Linux.
"Can be", yes. But until enough do it, it's not financially worth it for any ONE company to switch. It's the Network Effect, sometimes called Metcalfe's law.
You are referring to a specific quote. However, T has claimed multiple times that climate change is a "hoax". I've seen nothing in his new statements that show he changed his mind about hoax-ness*. If he disagrees with the estimated costs of climate change, are the accountants/estimators also hoaxers?
I will agree that a more accurate headline about his recent statements would be something like, "T disputes Federal climate change cost estimates". But, the slashdot writer/editor may have been talking in a more general sense when they made the headline. The context is not clear, but headlines are not intended to carry every detail; that's what article text is for.
the report speculates a "worse case" sometime in the future
It looked at low, medium, and worse-case scenarios, if I'm not mistaken. That's the proper way to give such estimates.
* Perhaps he's saying other nations pollute but we don't. So is that a partial hoax? Clarity & consistency is not his strong point.
Talk about a red herring. Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right. Almost all politicians understate the costs of their favorite programs and over-estimate the cost of their political competitors' programs. I would be surprised if it didn't happen. Anyhow, T didn't dispute costs, he disputed existence. It would be like O saying illness does not exist, and thus there's no ACA fees.
Politicians of both parties are quite flippy-floppy on taxes, debt, war, regulation, immigration, spending, ally selection, states-rights, etc. as it serves their short-term political goals. This is largely because the average voter has a short memory.
Let's try to simplify it and call them all "planetquakes". But what about sub-planets like Pluto and Ceres? Okay, "big-ball-quakes". Wait, not all are round. Okay, "big-lump-quakes". That's awkward. BLQ? Bah! go with "quakes". Done!
I don't bet against NASA anymore. After Curiosity used the "Sky Crane" to land on Mars
That sky-crane was crazy. It's hard to believe there were not simpler alternatives. It was done in part to test technology to be used for more accurate landings so that rovers don't have to waste time and wear getting to the best targets. In the future, a hover-craft may take the rover/probe to the prime spot and then lower it down via a sky-crane.
The traditional (Viking-esque) way has an error radius of roughly 20 miles.
For InSight they opted for the old-fashioned way because accuracy wasn't an issue for this mission, being it's for general exploration of the sub-surface.
I'm constantly astounded by how much abuse by Microsoft, people (and corporations) will put up with.
Practical alternatives are missing. If orgs see the alternatives such as Mac or Linux work successfully for similar orgs, they'd be happy to switch.
Various local governments in Germany tried to go Linux on their desktops, but it flopped in practice. Familiarity and compatibility seem to trump quality.
Granted, there are rumors M$ sabotaged Germany's efforts, but either way the outcome is that the experiment appeared to fail from the perspective of organizations looking for alternatives. You can't expect them to hire private investigators to see if M$ stuck their fingers into the pilot programs.
I noticed a general M$ pattern since roughly a decade ago. M$ tends to not outright remove old tools/features over time, but rather makes them incrementally harder to use or install. This is both server-side and desktop.
For example, if you upgrade to a newer version of Windows, some prior features don't work out of the box. After Googling around, you can usually find a fix, but it takes time, such as installing old drivers and adding something into the Registry.
Thus, M$ can technically say they support their older tools, but in practice they make you dance and sing to keep using them.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%?
Regulating the price is not the proposed solution. The proposed solution is to permit other stores to sell Apple software.
Apple will probably argue that control of the software is what allows them to have (allegedly) higher quality and safer software. They are software cops who keep riff-raff out of town. Whether that will fly in the courts is yet to be seen.
It depends on the political environment. Anti-trust enforcement is heavily tied to prosecutors and judges selected and influenced by the political process.
I used to think Democrats were more likely to be for regulating monopolies and near-monopolies to encourage competition, but now it depends on more complex factors, such as whether the CEO favors the party in power, and how much the company gives in campaign donations. Apple has cranked up their lobbying.
That's part of the plot of "1984": your devices monitor you. Many Chinese would read such a book and go, "So? That's the way things are. Don't anger Big Brother and everything is fine."
It actually mirrors Chinese family structure in many ways; "the family" is always watching you and everything you do must be approved by "the family". 1984's "Big Brother" is merely a larger scale of the same thing. I'm not saying every family is like that, but it's generally the rule. Remember in the flick, "Crazy Rich Asians" where The Lady said in a creepy voice, "You'll never be alone."
It's funny he says "don't be so afraid to try new technologies. Because I know you are completely and demonstrably willing to try new technologies."
That's his shtick, to paint me as the old fuddy duddy who hates new things. Maybe you are him;-)
I only ask that non-trivial "new ideas" be vetted; that analysis, logic, and team review be done against such, and perhaps contacts/field-trips to similar orgs using it, if possible.
He did it a whim. Hundreds of trends/fads drift our way. If we don't vet them, we'll be all jammed up with the latest crazes. We are not paid to be an R&D lab here. An R&D lab is a good idea, but it's not funded and not our mission.
Slashdot Mirror
"Alexa, eliminate species #29048"
If you substitute your idea of a top-ranked performer, my point still stands. How about make 3 million clones of Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Warren Buffett, and Oprah for the thought experiment.
During the top of the business cycle, yes there are more opportunities for the displaced, but one cannot say that's the typical state of things because we are not always near the top of the cycle, per definition of "cycle".
USA's attempts at meddling several decades ago is how Khomeini got into power. Meddling backfires more often than not. You make it sound like a sure-shot thing. The newer crew always think they are better at meddling.
The rest of your accusations are too vague to evaluate. No negotiations will give us everything we want; we'll have to make trade-offs. To think one can magically get everything they want without making concessions to the other side is silly and/or arrogant.
What, you have the Operations Manual of Big Brother?
I bet the chances are lower than being shot in the US by some whacko. If you are measuring risk for risk's sake, one cannot say China is less safe.
I believe on average it will be better. Local installations are often duck wire and chicken tape in my observation. Cloud problems just get more press similar to how jet crashes get more coverage than car crashes despite cars being more dangerous per mile traveled.
They need equipment to simplify the process.
Please elaborate.
Society has been changing too fast to try to breed better humans, because "better" changes. The "in" skills today may not be the "in" skills tomorrow. "Metabolically efficient" may help one survive a famine but is "lazy" in another era.
That's mostly moot because even a short-term period of mass chaos is not good in my book, and in most people's books.
Everyone entering the work world should read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Geeks may not like the conclusions, but they are generally true.
This "just be good" philosophy doesn't scale. If everyone had a PhD and A-plus GPA, there would not be enough positions for their talent. PhD's would end up mopping restrooms, with many unemployed.
Or are you a social Darwinist who believes the unproductive/lazy should be allowed to just wither & die so that we breed more productive humans?
Even if you hold this view, many would turn to a life of crime and/or riots out of desperation, making for a nasty society.
We are on the crest of a typical economic cycle. A recession is almost certain within a few years.
"Can be", yes. But until enough do it, it's not financially worth it for any ONE company to switch. It's the Network Effect, sometimes called Metcalfe's law.
You are referring to a specific quote. However, T has claimed multiple times that climate change is a "hoax". I've seen nothing in his new statements that show he changed his mind about hoax-ness*. If he disagrees with the estimated costs of climate change, are the accountants/estimators also hoaxers?
I will agree that a more accurate headline about his recent statements would be something like, "T disputes Federal climate change cost estimates". But, the slashdot writer/editor may have been talking in a more general sense when they made the headline. The context is not clear, but headlines are not intended to carry every detail; that's what article text is for.
It looked at low, medium, and worse-case scenarios, if I'm not mistaken. That's the proper way to give such estimates.
* Perhaps he's saying other nations pollute but we don't. So is that a partial hoax? Clarity & consistency is not his strong point.
Talk about a red herring. Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right. Almost all politicians understate the costs of their favorite programs and over-estimate the cost of their political competitors' programs. I would be surprised if it didn't happen. Anyhow, T didn't dispute costs, he disputed existence. It would be like O saying illness does not exist, and thus there's no ACA fees.
Politicians of both parties are quite flippy-floppy on taxes, debt, war, regulation, immigration, spending, ally selection, states-rights, etc. as it serves their short-term political goals. This is largely because the average voter has a short memory.
Let's try to simplify it and call them all "planetquakes". But what about sub-planets like Pluto and Ceres? Okay, "big-ball-quakes". Wait, not all are round. Okay, "big-lump-quakes". That's awkward. BLQ? Bah! go with "quakes". Done!
That sky-crane was crazy. It's hard to believe there were not simpler alternatives. It was done in part to test technology to be used for more accurate landings so that rovers don't have to waste time and wear getting to the best targets. In the future, a hover-craft may take the rover/probe to the prime spot and then lower it down via a sky-crane.
The traditional (Viking-esque) way has an error radius of roughly 20 miles.
For InSight they opted for the old-fashioned way because accuracy wasn't an issue for this mission, being it's for general exploration of the sub-surface.
Practical alternatives are missing. If orgs see the alternatives such as Mac or Linux work successfully for similar orgs, they'd be happy to switch.
Various local governments in Germany tried to go Linux on their desktops, but it flopped in practice. Familiarity and compatibility seem to trump quality.
Granted, there are rumors M$ sabotaged Germany's efforts, but either way the outcome is that the experiment appeared to fail from the perspective of organizations looking for alternatives. You can't expect them to hire private investigators to see if M$ stuck their fingers into the pilot programs.
I noticed a general M$ pattern since roughly a decade ago. M$ tends to not outright remove old tools/features over time, but rather makes them incrementally harder to use or install. This is both server-side and desktop.
For example, if you upgrade to a newer version of Windows, some prior features don't work out of the box. After Googling around, you can usually find a fix, but it takes time, such as installing old drivers and adding something into the Registry.
Thus, M$ can technically say they support their older tools, but in practice they make you dance and sing to keep using them.
Corporations, robots, and pets are legally people! We all have rights!
-R2D2
Regulating the price is not the proposed solution. The proposed solution is to permit other stores to sell Apple software.
Apple will probably argue that control of the software is what allows them to have (allegedly) higher quality and safer software. They are software cops who keep riff-raff out of town. Whether that will fly in the courts is yet to be seen.
It depends on the political environment. Anti-trust enforcement is heavily tied to prosecutors and judges selected and influenced by the political process.
I used to think Democrats were more likely to be for regulating monopolies and near-monopolies to encourage competition, but now it depends on more complex factors, such as whether the CEO favors the party in power, and how much the company gives in campaign donations. Apple has cranked up their lobbying.
For Amazon, yes.
That's part of the plot of "1984": your devices monitor you. Many Chinese would read such a book and go, "So? That's the way things are. Don't anger Big Brother and everything is fine."
It actually mirrors Chinese family structure in many ways; "the family" is always watching you and everything you do must be approved by "the family". 1984's "Big Brother" is merely a larger scale of the same thing. I'm not saying every family is like that, but it's generally the rule. Remember in the flick, "Crazy Rich Asians" where The Lady said in a creepy voice, "You'll never be alone."
Let's see what the AI does with this.
That's his shtick, to paint me as the old fuddy duddy who hates new things. Maybe you are him ;-)
I only ask that non-trivial "new ideas" be vetted; that analysis, logic, and team review be done against such, and perhaps contacts/field-trips to similar orgs using it, if possible.
He did it a whim. Hundreds of trends/fads drift our way. If we don't vet them, we'll be all jammed up with the latest crazes. We are not paid to be an R&D lab here. An R&D lab is a good idea, but it's not funded and not our mission.