The fact is that the salary/wage expectations of older workers is unrealistic, unsustainable and not internationally competitive.
Co's often toss out existing old employees. The context is not about hiring for new positions. If the co. paid older (experienced) workers too much, that is the org's fault, not the worker's.
As far as their "real" worth, that depends on what an org values. If they value having the latest eye-candy UI, then young people are probably a better deal. If they want to make tools that solve real problems efficiently, then experienced workers are worth every penny.
Let's face it, the tech industry just does not like us oldbies. We have to come to terms with it. IT is highly driven by fads, and it takes a suspension of common sense and reason to fake enthusiasm for silly fads. Microservices for non-web-scale projects that bloats the app by 300%, no-sql for medium projects, Node.js, flat UI's where you cannot tell what a button is, "responsive" Bootstrap that wastes screen space AND still doesn't shrink right on mobile devices without 93.28 hours of fiddling per screen on 7 brands.
Nobody uses mobile for our software anyhow: it's for office work. The user even complains about the wasted space, and the youngie says, "But that's the new thing! See, it can reformat on smart-phones! Isn't that neeto!?" The user then says, "nice, kid, but we use desktops here. We intentionally purchased big monitors so we don't have to scroll. Your bloated rewrite makes us have to scroll." The kid ponders a few days, and then says, "We'll, we can toss Bootstrap and start all over again learning the latest UI Javascript gizmo that wastes 3% less space than Bootstrap. Rinse, repeat when a new one comes that wastes 6% less space..."
Old people can spot BS and waste better, but PHB's don't like their BS being exposed. They want kissup, not logic. Trumpish egos and attention-spans are the rule, not the exception in management. He got rich by following, dishing, and catering to bullshit and architecture/redecoration fads. It's why he watches so much TV. The PHB's want young naive snot-nosed kids who think every dumb fad is the greatest invention, which to them it is because it's all they know: they haven't seen the other 27 fads that got dumped on the trash pile or squirmed into tiny niche corners where they belong.
It would be more satisfying having a career where long-time knowledge and experience is actually valued. Although doctors have to face new medicines and treatments, the human body hasn't changed in 150,000 years. Per lawyers, the laws don't change that much either, roughly 1% or less a year.
Our eyes and fingers get slower with time, we cannot realistically keep up with ever changing IT fads like younglings do. Young people seem to have a Fad Lobe in their brain that older people have lost over time.
And also in chunks: groups of fields, including the nesting of groups. You can say "move groupA to locationX" rather than the per field approach that haunts us today.
It's a feature that made me push to meta-tize the column selections in the draft query language SMEQL. One can have the column names in a table and add grouping columns (meta columns) so that one can do a query to select the column list.
In SQL pseudo-code, it would look something like:
SELECT columnName FROM myColumns WHERE myGroup in ('foo','bar','glip') INTO columnList
SELECT expandList(columnList.columnName) FROM employees WHERE salary < 80000
But, be more compact than SQL in doing such. One can meta-tize the column ordering also by putting an ORDER BY clause of one's choosing in the first query.
Their citizens have suffered enough already. Why focus on one dictator when the world is full of them?
I'm glad Putin did it, even though he's an asshole in general, just like I'm glad Trump reduced H-1B "body-shop" application approvals even though I disagree with most his other stances. I'll give kudos to jerks when they accidentally do right.
Many have noticed that almost all big software ideas were invented/discovered by the 1970's and that most new stuff is merely refinements of those ideas.
You can add neural networks to that list. The recent "deep learning" networks are just a smart application of prior ideas, with a big dose of computing power not available in prior eras to both test neural network configurations and run the AI applications.
If you want startup ideas, I'd suggest dynamic relational. It's not revolutionary, but a tool I wish existed for rapid prototyping and rush-job RAD. (It's not my fault it's a rush job, I'm just following PHB orders.) You can make money by releasing an open-source version, but also sell an "enterprise" version and/or support contracts, similar to the PHP Zend model.
Another idea is to follow ARM and Android OS model by creating a content sharing standard to make it easier to share content among different OS's, CMS's, and social networks. It's almost like a file system standard, but with better or more consistent meta-data, including more powerful categorizations that cross beyond the mere hierarchies of files. Most content has or needs elements such as: title, synopsis, author, categories (list), intended audience (personal, friends & fam., work, public, etc.), create date, change date, expiration date, etc.
The company wouldn't charge to use the standard, but one would have to pay a fee to use the product name or get a copy of the formal specification. Big co's would typically pay to use the Foo logo, but small co's or amateurs could only say "Foo compatible" to avoid fees. (You don't have to pay Google to use the Android OS, but you do if you want to call it "Android" and use the green Android logo.)
Good answer! Although she's often associated with COBOL, which has negative connotations to many*, she was a pioneer of higher-level languages regardless.
Higher-level languages were considered a toy for amateurs or "loser" techies back in the mid 50's, so she had an uphill battle. When the military and big co's eventually discovered they were wasting too many resources re-translating existing programs for specific vendors and models of computers, they went hunting for cross-platform language ideas, and Grace was ahead of the curve.
* Although Grace was not directly involved in COBOL's definition, her languages had a huge influence on it. As far as the technical merit of COBOL, it's clunky by today's standards, but has survived because it does its niche well, having many built-in operations for the typical work found in back-end business, finance, and inventory processing. To match that with say Java or C#, you'd have to create bunches of data-processing and finance API's, and it would probably still be more code for the same task compared to COBOL.
Recorded music is almost a commodity now. Trying to harvest it for the profit/revenue levels of yesteryear will fail.
The first reason is the most obvious: the Internet makes it easier to pirate music.
The second is there's more choice available now, thanks to the Web. If you make Option A too expensive, consumers will go with Option B, all the way down the alphabet (company name pun half intended).
The third is that many make free music for the sheer fun of it and it's easy to put online. Career musicians have to compete with free music. Granted, most amateurs suck and people generally prefer professional artists. But if the professional music gets too expensive, people will turn to amateurs. (More specifically, there is personally enjoyable amateur stuff, it just takes a lot of sifting to find it.) Many amateurs also give some of the their music away in an attempt to break into the business. The ratio of people who want to be a star versus actual stars is very large.
Concerts, events, and weddings are where the professionals will get most of their revenue, not sales of recordings.
Corporations will be prosecuted more often than police officers, and more often than reputable members of the community, IE, government. Or favored citizens...
Oh, please prosecute IE. Its bugs and standards-hijacking are a crime.
Actually, CNN is centrist, not left-leaning. But they found out bashing Trump is a ratings bonanza and cranked it up. And it's cheap because he provides so much eyebrow-raising material for free. 4: Profit!
these are the laws of nature not the laws of some group of men.
No, humans mostly control the economy, or at least control how they allocate resources and tradeoffs in a general economic sense.
nobody will ever invest *their* money in something that benefits *you* and not them
You can give them incentives to invest in ways a group prefers. We don't have to go to extremes, just balance out incentives. We can tilt their behaviors certain directions without draining out too many incentives.
If you graph LNS14000000 back to 1948, that statement is more-questionable.
To me, the recoveries look quicker the further back one goes. The right-facing slopes are shallower toward recent years.
Vocational training is one part of it; but first, the jobs have to be available.
In general, the available and/or well-paying jobs require ever-more education and skill. Mindless grunt-work is being replaced by machines and 3rd-world foreign labor.
It's security. Individual people--and groups of individuals--need security.
There's a lot other emotions involved. Security is just one. Ego is also a very powerful motivator, especially for males. Many males will even sacrifice security to serve their ego.
So what is the process for identifying and fixing the issue that caused this death?
Relevant censor data, status codes, and say the last 5 minutes of video should be provided to investigators. They may have to ask a lot of questions about the algorithms involved to understand how the computer interpreted things, and perhaps be provided with a sample to re-create the problem in gov't safety labs.
What I'm most curious about is if the sensors picked up sufficient clues to take evasive action and it's the processing side that screwed up, or if there was not enough good sensor data to determine an obstacle existed. In other words is it bad sensors, bad brains, or a combo?
Human beings know that the assumption other humans will follow pedestrian laws is dumb. AI/self-driving car does not.
The bot-car should avoid ANY obstacle, human or otherwise. I suppose its reaction could depend on an estimation of what the obstacle is. For example, if it suspects its merely a tumbleweed, it may take less drastic actions than if determined to be a human. You don't want to whiplash the passenger over a tumbleweed. The tricky part is how drastic the breaking/swerving is if it doesn't know. My draft heuristics would look like:
- Probable human: A - Unknown big obstacle: A - Unknown small obstacle: B - Probably paper, tumbleweed, etc: C
Where "A" is the most excessive breaking/swerving.
you can take a human being's driver's license away if they prove to be poor drivers. What is the recourse for the AI/self-driving car?
The bot-car manufacturer's (BCM) insurance should take care of most of that. If their bots are more dangerous, they pay higher insurance. Therefore, BCM's have a financial incentive to reduce risk.
If the mistakes exceed a threshold, then the BCM's general license should be revoked. Also, if a particular model or software version has excessive problems, it should be required to be yanked. Passengers may have to rent a different model or brand.
The BCM's should be required to have a contingency plan for that if and when the users of the service gets high enough that general commerce depends on it. However, that's probably decades away. If oligopolies run the show, it could be a real problem having enough alternatives if one BCM screws up badly (either technically or legally). "Too big to fail" again.
Slashdot Mirror
#DeleteTwitter and #DeleteHashTags
Co's often toss out existing old employees. The context is not about hiring for new positions. If the co. paid older (experienced) workers too much, that is the org's fault, not the worker's.
As far as their "real" worth, that depends on what an org values. If they value having the latest eye-candy UI, then young people are probably a better deal. If they want to make tools that solve real problems efficiently, then experienced workers are worth every penny.
That's their problem, not ours. Let's bud out.
Let's face it, the tech industry just does not like us oldbies. We have to come to terms with it. IT is highly driven by fads, and it takes a suspension of common sense and reason to fake enthusiasm for silly fads. Microservices for non-web-scale projects that bloats the app by 300%, no-sql for medium projects, Node.js, flat UI's where you cannot tell what a button is, "responsive" Bootstrap that wastes screen space AND still doesn't shrink right on mobile devices without 93.28 hours of fiddling per screen on 7 brands.
Nobody uses mobile for our software anyhow: it's for office work. The user even complains about the wasted space, and the youngie says, "But that's the new thing! See, it can reformat on smart-phones! Isn't that neeto!?" The user then says, "nice, kid, but we use desktops here. We intentionally purchased big monitors so we don't have to scroll. Your bloated rewrite makes us have to scroll." The kid ponders a few days, and then says, "We'll, we can toss Bootstrap and start all over again learning the latest UI Javascript gizmo that wastes 3% less space than Bootstrap. Rinse, repeat when a new one comes that wastes 6% less space..."
Old people can spot BS and waste better, but PHB's don't like their BS being exposed. They want kissup, not logic. Trumpish egos and attention-spans are the rule, not the exception in management. He got rich by following, dishing, and catering to bullshit and architecture/redecoration fads. It's why he watches so much TV. The PHB's want young naive snot-nosed kids who think every dumb fad is the greatest invention, which to them it is because it's all they know: they haven't seen the other 27 fads that got dumped on the trash pile or squirmed into tiny niche corners where they belong.
It would be more satisfying having a career where long-time knowledge and experience is actually valued. Although doctors have to face new medicines and treatments, the human body hasn't changed in 150,000 years. Per lawyers, the laws don't change that much either, roughly 1% or less a year.
Our eyes and fingers get slower with time, we cannot realistically keep up with ever changing IT fads like younglings do. Young people seem to have a Fad Lobe in their brain that older people have lost over time.
And also in chunks: groups of fields, including the nesting of groups. You can say "move groupA to locationX" rather than the per field approach that haunts us today.
It's a feature that made me push to meta-tize the column selections in the draft query language SMEQL. One can have the column names in a table and add grouping columns (meta columns) so that one can do a query to select the column list.
In SQL pseudo-code, it would look something like:
But, be more compact than SQL in doing such. One can meta-tize the column ordering also by putting an ORDER BY clause of one's choosing in the first query.
Their citizens have suffered enough already. Why focus on one dictator when the world is full of them?
I'm glad Putin did it, even though he's an asshole in general, just like I'm glad Trump reduced H-1B "body-shop" application approvals even though I disagree with most his other stances. I'll give kudos to jerks when they accidentally do right.
...everyone has one and most stink.
Many have noticed that almost all big software ideas were invented/discovered by the 1970's and that most new stuff is merely refinements of those ideas.
You can add neural networks to that list. The recent "deep learning" networks are just a smart application of prior ideas, with a big dose of computing power not available in prior eras to both test neural network configurations and run the AI applications.
If you want startup ideas, I'd suggest dynamic relational. It's not revolutionary, but a tool I wish existed for rapid prototyping and rush-job RAD. (It's not my fault it's a rush job, I'm just following PHB orders.) You can make money by releasing an open-source version, but also sell an "enterprise" version and/or support contracts, similar to the PHP Zend model.
Another idea is to follow ARM and Android OS model by creating a content sharing standard to make it easier to share content among different OS's, CMS's, and social networks. It's almost like a file system standard, but with better or more consistent meta-data, including more powerful categorizations that cross beyond the mere hierarchies of files. Most content has or needs elements such as: title, synopsis, author, categories (list), intended audience (personal, friends & fam., work, public, etc.), create date, change date, expiration date, etc.
The company wouldn't charge to use the standard, but one would have to pay a fee to use the product name or get a copy of the formal specification. Big co's would typically pay to use the Foo logo, but small co's or amateurs could only say "Foo compatible" to avoid fees. (You don't have to pay Google to use the Android OS, but you do if you want to call it "Android" and use the green Android logo.)
Good answer! Although she's often associated with COBOL, which has negative connotations to many*, she was a pioneer of higher-level languages regardless.
Higher-level languages were considered a toy for amateurs or "loser" techies back in the mid 50's, so she had an uphill battle. When the military and big co's eventually discovered they were wasting too many resources re-translating existing programs for specific vendors and models of computers, they went hunting for cross-platform language ideas, and Grace was ahead of the curve.
* Although Grace was not directly involved in COBOL's definition, her languages had a huge influence on it. As far as the technical merit of COBOL, it's clunky by today's standards, but has survived because it does its niche well, having many built-in operations for the typical work found in back-end business, finance, and inventory processing. To match that with say Java or C#, you'd have to create bunches of data-processing and finance API's, and it would probably still be more code for the same task compared to COBOL.
Maybe they said, "Siri, what's a good answer to that question?"
Recorded music is almost a commodity now. Trying to harvest it for the profit/revenue levels of yesteryear will fail.
The first reason is the most obvious: the Internet makes it easier to pirate music.
The second is there's more choice available now, thanks to the Web. If you make Option A too expensive, consumers will go with Option B, all the way down the alphabet (company name pun half intended).
The third is that many make free music for the sheer fun of it and it's easy to put online. Career musicians have to compete with free music. Granted, most amateurs suck and people generally prefer professional artists. But if the professional music gets too expensive, people will turn to amateurs. (More specifically, there is personally enjoyable amateur stuff, it just takes a lot of sifting to find it.) Many amateurs also give some of the their music away in an attempt to break into the business. The ratio of people who want to be a star versus actual stars is very large.
Concerts, events, and weddings are where the professionals will get most of their revenue, not sales of recordings.
Oh, please prosecute IE. Its bugs and standards-hijacking are a crime.
https://www.theonion.com/ameri...
Welcome to Capitalism 101
I'll have to disagree with your psychology models.
But he's a lovable and cuddly dictator, like a Mr. Rogers + teddy-bear love-child.
I wonder what forces and organizations counter their propaganda. Taiwan, their mortal enemy, may be trying to counter.
Actually, CNN is centrist, not left-leaning. But they found out bashing Trump is a ratings bonanza and cranked it up. And it's cheap because he provides so much eyebrow-raising material for free. 4: Profit!
CNN never claimed to be "fair and balanced".
Um, it's a joke.
Okay, attempted joke.
Fine, failed joke. Happy!?
not sure I like the sound of that
No, humans mostly control the economy, or at least control how they allocate resources and tradeoffs in a general economic sense.
You can give them incentives to invest in ways a group prefers. We don't have to go to extremes, just balance out incentives. We can tilt their behaviors certain directions without draining out too many incentives.
To me, the recoveries look quicker the further back one goes. The right-facing slopes are shallower toward recent years.
In general, the available and/or well-paying jobs require ever-more education and skill. Mindless grunt-work is being replaced by machines and 3rd-world foreign labor.
There's a lot other emotions involved. Security is just one. Ego is also a very powerful motivator, especially for males. Many males will even sacrifice security to serve their ego.
Venezuela has enough problems already: leave them alone. The world is full of dictators, why focus on them?
Relevant censor data, status codes, and say the last 5 minutes of video should be provided to investigators. They may have to ask a lot of questions about the algorithms involved to understand how the computer interpreted things, and perhaps be provided with a sample to re-create the problem in gov't safety labs.
What I'm most curious about is if the sensors picked up sufficient clues to take evasive action and it's the processing side that screwed up, or if there was not enough good sensor data to determine an obstacle existed. In other words is it bad sensors, bad brains, or a combo?
The bot-car should avoid ANY obstacle, human or otherwise. I suppose its reaction could depend on an estimation of what the obstacle is. For example, if it suspects its merely a tumbleweed, it may take less drastic actions than if determined to be a human. You don't want to whiplash the passenger over a tumbleweed. The tricky part is how drastic the breaking/swerving is if it doesn't know. My draft heuristics would look like:
- Probable human: A
- Unknown big obstacle: A
- Unknown small obstacle: B
- Probably paper, tumbleweed, etc: C
Where "A" is the most excessive breaking/swerving.
The bot-car manufacturer's (BCM) insurance should take care of most of that. If their bots are more dangerous, they pay higher insurance. Therefore, BCM's have a financial incentive to reduce risk.
If the mistakes exceed a threshold, then the BCM's general license should be revoked. Also, if a particular model or software version has excessive problems, it should be required to be yanked. Passengers may have to rent a different model or brand.
The BCM's should be required to have a contingency plan for that if and when the users of the service gets high enough that general commerce depends on it. However, that's probably decades away. If oligopolies run the show, it could be a real problem having enough alternatives if one BCM screws up badly (either technically or legally). "Too big to fail" again.
Microsoft is as likely to cure OSS licensing problems as undertakers are to cure cancer.